OPTIONAL SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

OPTIONAL SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING

September 8, 2020 Oregon Department of Transportation

Zoom features:

• Mute / Unmute: Mute and unmute your microphone.

– Tip: Use the following keyboard shortcuts to mute or unmute yourself. You can also use push to talk if you want to unmute yourself by holding the spacebar.

• Windows: Alt + A
• Mac: Shift + Command + A
• Start Video / Stop Video: Turns your camera on or off.
• Participants: See who's currently in the meeting using grid view.
• You can also access to these options:

– Rename: Hover over your name, click More, and choose Rename to change your screen name displayed to other participants. – Non-verbal feedback icons: Places an icon beside your name to quickly notify the host. – Chat: Access the chat window to chat with the participants. – Leave: Leave the meeting while it continues for the other participants. Only the host can end the meeting.

Welcome

Kari Schlosshauer (Vice Chair) Statewide Safe Routes to School Network JD Tovey Pendleton Oregon Tribes Mavis Hartz (Chair) La Grande Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Trevor Arnold Medford Enforcement Brian Potwin Bend SRTS practitioner and SRTS Network Kim Crabtree Bend School district and pupil transportation John Vial (RR sub-committee) Jackson County County representative from Association of Oregon Counties Dana Nichols Bandon Small city Rob Inerfeld Eugene City representative from League of Oregon Cities Laughton Elliot-Deangelis (RR sub-committee) Springfield School district, SRTS practitioner, pupil transportation Scott Bohl Salem Oregon Department of Education Steve Dickey Salem Transit Luis Ornelas Portland Oregon Transportation Safety Committee Carolina Iraheta-Gonzales Portland Health representative Sonny Chickering Salem ODOT representative Lisa Mielke Coquille Oregon Tribes

Committee Composition

OUR GOALS

Learn more about the applications that were submitted to prepare for making a funding recommendation to the Oregon Transportation Commission.

Overview

Public Comment High level review In- depth review Upcoming decisions Staff update

Public Comment

High Level Analysis

Competitive Grant Program Timeline

2020

Cycle $26 M February- May: Application workshops April 1, 2020: Solicitation Starts June 15, 2020: Letter of Intent Due

107 LOIs $60-80M in requests

August 31, 2020: Application due

99 applications $73M in requests

September-October: Staff scoring, ground conditions review

October 20, 2020: SRTS Advisory Committee makes recommendation

December 2020: Project list is presented to the Oregon Transportation Commission January 2021 - 2026: Agreements signed and projects built.

SRAC approved scoring matrix

Eligibility Review

150% list

Ground Conditions Review

100% and 150% list scenarios

All 99 Applications

SRAC Approved Lenses SRAC Review

SRAC Approved Scoring Matrix

2 Million Maximum:

Geographic Balance No applicant can receive more than 2M

New Applicants:

Geographic Balance

Two or more applicants’ scores close and located near the funding cut line, SRAC may prioritize NEW APPLICANT

Smaller Projects:

Cost Effectiveness and Geographic Balance

Two or more applicants' scores are close and are near the funding cut line, SRAC may prioritize SMALLER PROJECTS

SRAC Approved Lenses

Priorities for scoring

Social Equity Factors: Health/Safety Specific Safety Factors: PSC Elementary/Middle Schools Project Readiness Proximity to School

Eligibility Review

Solution matches the problem Reasonable budget

In-Depth Analysis

Application Analysis How scoring works

Applicant Results

Applicants & Projects By Agency Type Applicants & Projects by ODOT Region

Applicant Has Project Located In A City With 5,000 People Or Less Applicant Has Project Located Within City Limits

Applicant Has Project Within Priority Safety Corridor Applicant Has Project Within Metropolitan Planning Organization/Area

All Projects Within 1 Mile of a Public School

Students Eligible For Free Or Reduced Price Lunch At The Primarily Affected School Applicant Has Project Within 1 Mile of Title I School

Overview: Staff Scoring to Final Recommendation

From here To here

SRAC approved scoring matrix

Eligibility Review

150% list

Ground Conditions Review

Step 1

All 99 Applications

SRAC Approved Lenses SRAC Review

100% and 150% list scenarios

SRAC Approved Scoring Matrix

High Priority

Social Equity Factors: Health/Safety Specific Safety Factors: PSC Elementary/Middle Schools Project Readiness

Medium Priorities

Proximity to School

Eligibility Review

Solution matches the problem Reasonable budget Bike/Ped project

Social Equity Factors: Measuring Health and Safety 39% Readiness 16% Specific Safety Factors: Measuring Priority Safety Cooridor qualities 24% School Type 18% Proximty 3%

Total Possible Score = 500

SCRAC Approved Score

Eligibility Review

150% list

Ground Conditions Review SRAC Review SRAC Approved Lenses

100% and 150% list scenarios

Ground Conditions Review

150% list

Purpose to determine if the ground conditions reasonable match the description in the application, especially for readiness criteria. Staff completes online assessments or in- person assessments. ODOT Region staff reviews applications from cities, counties, tribes. ODOT headquarters staff reviews ODOT region applications

SRAC Approved Lenses

Lens and Potential Situation How SRAC will use Lens Staff Lens Support to SRAC

Geographic Balance

Each applicant will only receive 2M total if they are scored highly and are in the 100% list Staff will present the 100% list by score and the 150% list by score if each applicant only received up to $2M in funds total.

Geographic Balance with two or more applicants’ scores close and located near the funding cut line

The SRAC may use whether the applicants received a competitive grant last cycle as a way to determine who gets funded this

• cycle. For example, the Committee

may decide to fund a new applicant as opposed to an applicant that received funds and still has an open project in 2019. Staff will present the 100% list and the 150% list and highlight projects that are very close in score and close to the funding cut line. Staff will provide information highlighting which applicants were not funded in the 2019-2020 round

• f Safe Routes to School Competitive

Construction Grants to highlight the new applicants.

Cost Effectiveness and Geographic Balance if two or more applicants' scores are close and are near the funding cut line

The SRAC may use cost effectiveness as a way to determine what applicant gets

• funded. For example, the

Committee may decide to fund several small projects instead of

• ne large project.

Staff will present the 100% list and the 150% list and highlight projects that are very close in score and close to the funding cut line. Staff will provide information highlighting low cost projects (less than $500K for example) with quick timelines (18 months or less for example) that could be funded instead of larger cost projects (over $1M for example).

SCRAC Approved Score

Eligibility Review

150% list

Ground Conditions Review

Step 3

SRAC Review SRAC Approved Lenses

100% and 150% list scenarios

Scenari

• 1
• Remove Warm Springs
• Result: add 1 additional small project

Scenari

• 2
• Scenario 1 plus Remove the second ranked project

(by the applicant) from any one Jurisdiction

• Result: Add 9 additional locations (10 total)

Scenari

• 3
• Scenario 2 plus Reduce Medford and Polk County

scope

• Result: Can add up to 3 additional locations (13

total)

Examples of Scenarios from 2018 Project Recommendation

Member Homework

• If projects should be broken up by location and

some locations funded while others are not.

• Did your approved lenses do what you wanted

for geographic balance? If not, suggest a solution. Things to consider:

• Changing the score of projects.
• A lens to evaluation projects for which access

to information is inconsistent across

• applications. For example: Referencing specific

projects that you want removed or added. Things not to consider:

WHAT TO EXPECT.

Fiddlesticks. When you have kids at home and are trying to work during a pandemic.

Conflict of Interest

An “action”, “decision” or “recommendation” made in an “official capacity” which causes: A private pecuniary benefit or detriment, for; The “public official”, the public officials “relative(s),” or a “business associated with which the person is associated,” the public official or the public official’s relative.

REMEMBER…

REMEMBER…

Upcoming Decisions

Vote: Rapid Response Subcommittee New Member

• Email LeeAnne by 9/25.

Opportunity for feedback to OTC on priorities

• Options for individual

action or group action.

Next Steps for SRAC

Email to LeeAnne to vote in Rapid Response member Dana Nichols by 9/25. Homework due

• Aiming to send you files and scenarios by September 28 or before.
• Likely due date for your comments is October 12.

Attend October 20th meeting to decide on project recommendation!

Staff Updates

SRTS Construction Program

$10 million/annually

Project ID Program 2.5%

Rapid Response Grants 10% Competitive Grants 87.5%

SRTS Education and Engagement: $1 million

Progr am Mana geme nt Technical Assistance Education/ Engagement Grants

Heidi Manlove, Heidi.Manlove@odot.state.or.us LeeAnne Fergason, LeeAnne.Fergason@odot.state.or.us

ODOT update

• Reorg update
• Rule to OTC in October

Construction Program and Rule Update

• New RR projects to OTC in Sept

Education Program

• Reimaging for remote school.

Project Identification Program

• 14 applications for 28 schools

Thank you!

Next meeting:

October 20, 2020 12pm – 3pm

SRTS Non-Infrastructure Contact: Heidi Manlove, SRTS Non-Infrastructure Program Manager ODOT Transportation Safety Division, MS #3 Email: Heidi.manlove@odot.state.or.us (503) 968-4196 SRTS Infrastructure Program Contact: LeeAnne Fergason, ODOT Program Manager Transportation Development Division Email: LeeAnne.Fergason@odot.state.or.us (503) 910-8994

Website: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Programs/Pages/SRTS.aspx