Oregon Safe Routes to School Rules Advisory Committee RAC Meeting # - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Oregon Safe Routes to School Rules Advisory Committee

RAC Meeting # 6 Wednesday, May 9, 2018

Welcome

Goals for this meeting:

• Provide input on program

structure.

• Work toward opening program

Fall 2018

• Review and debrief all the great

work we’ve accomplished.

Meeting #1 – November 20th, 2017

Charge of committee. Discuss program success, goals, priorities and performance measures.

Meeting #2 – December 13th, 2017

Finalize vision, review values and discuss program design options that align with values and outcomes.

Meeting #3 – January 16, 2018

Review definitions. Review draft program design recommendations. Review criteria, eligibility, funding targets and carve-outs, etc.

Meeting #4 – February 13, 2018

Review and draft rule amendments for OTC discussion. OTC – March 15th, 2018 Bring draft rules to OTC for approval to release for public review.

Meeting #5 – April 3rd, 2018

Review draft rule, discuss criteria, eligibility, solicitation process, etc. Comment Period May 1, 2018 Open 21 day rulemaking public comment period. Promotion of draft rules. 1 public hearing. Meeting #6- May 9th, 2018 Discuss and provide input for program guidance Public Hearing May 15th, 2019 Public hearing in Salem to gather additional public comment. Meeting #7- June 6, 2018 If needed OTC July 19, 2018 Review public comment. Approve OAR or request additional action.

Where we are

RAC Outreach

Portland Bureau of Transportation Central Lane MPO Metropolitan Policy Committee City of Seaside Public Works Director Blue Zones, The Dalles Multnomah County Central Lane MPO Transportation Policy Committee Oregon Safe Routes to School Network Blue Zones, Community project Eugene/Springfield Safe Routes to School Coordinators Lane County Area Commission on Transportation City of Gresham Blue Zones Umpqua City of Eugene Bethel, Eugene 4J, and Springfield school districts; SRTS Coordinators Association of Oregon Counties (AOC) Blue Zones, Klamath Falls Multnomah County Street Trust Lane County Area Commission on Transportation (LCACT) Grants Pass, Blue Zones East Portland/Gresham Oregon School of the Deaf Glendale School Board and Mayor Kaiser Permanente Oregon Legislature House Transportation Policy Committee ODOT Highway Management Team Clackamas County and school districts South West Area Commission on Transportation (SWACT) Association of Oregon Counties’ Transportation Steering Committee City of Gaston and School District Rouge Valley Area Commission on Transportation (RVACT) ODOT Highway Management Oregon Senator Lee Beyer The Dalles: Blue Zones Team (includes School principals and City staff) Central Oregon Area Commission on Transportation (COACT) Multnomah County Bend Accessibility Advisory Committee (pending) Hood River: Hood River Valley Residents Committee and School District Oregon Transportation Safety Committee (OTSC) City of Gresham Bend/LaPine School District Dufur Elementary School Community Connections, La Grande Portland Bureau of Transportation internal discussions Redmond School District Mosier School District City of Seaside Transportation Committee Klamath County, Commute Options City of Seaside Transportation Advisory Committee North Oregon Coast City Managers Oregon Department of Education, School Wellness

Nov

Values and Outcomes

Dec

Program Design Ideas

Jan

Narrow Program Design

Feb

Recommend Draft Rules March Update to OTC April High level guidance OAR filed and public comment

• pen

Progress to Date

RAC Values

Geographic Equity

Social Equity Safety Health

Communication, Coordination, and Collaboration

Maximize Resources

Public Comment

Review what we’ve done OAR/Public Comment update Dig into more program guidance Review and debrief RAC accomplishments

Presentation and Discussion Overview

RAC agreement on recommended program high level guidance High-level Guidance Creation

RAC agreement on recommended OAR language OAR update

Determine goals for program rules and guidance

What we’ve done…

OAR/Public Comment Update

Submitted to Secretary of State Public Comment Period and Public Hearing

Public Comment Possible Outcomes

• Substantive changes
• Topics the RAC didn’t

discuss

• Topics the RAC discussed
• Example: Eligible entities
• Non-substantive changes
• Example: Change bike

lanes to bikeways

Comments about rule

• About guidance
• Example: When to start

the first competitive cycle.

• About the statute
• Example: Concern about

the 40% local match

Comments that are not about the rule

RAC meets to discuss potential substantive changes

Small changes are made if needed, are in line with RAC values, and don’t change the intent of the rule. Comments are recorded and shared with the OTC on July 19, 2018. Update OAR, may resubmit to S.O.S.

High-level Program Guidance Review

Show Me the Money…Details

Annual allocation FY 19-20=

$18.33M

2018= 8.3M 2019= 10M

FY 21-22= $30M

2020= 10M 2021= 10M 2022= 10M

FY 23-24= $30M

2023= 15M 2024= 15M

TBD

Min/Max Competitive

Program

Minimum funding request = $60K Maximum funding request= $2M

Rapid Response Program

Minimum funding request= N/A Maximum funding request= $500K

Money … continued

Competitive Program Timeline

1st Cycle

July 23, 2018: Solicitation Starts August 31, 2018: Letter of Intent Due October 15, 2018: Application due September-November: Staff review December 2018 –January 2019: SRTS Advisory Committee makes recommendation February 21, 2019: Oregon Transportation Commission considers approval of project list March 2019 - 2024: Agreements signed and projects built.

Project Proposal Evaluation

Targets

Non-MPO Title I

Next-level Guidance Discussion

Focus area

Tile I schools

Highest Priority

Priority Safety Corridors Elementary/Middle schools Project Readiness

Medium Weight Priorities

Proximity to Schools (1/2 mile) Benefits to Multiple Schools Complete Existing Routes

Low Weight Priorities

Connection with education and encouragement programs

First Round of $: Proposal

Staff Recommendation

Rolling applications starting in Spring 2018 Program Manager screen for eligibility and weighted criteria SRAC or SRAC sub-committee review applications for approval in a timely manner SRAC determines how to incorporate targets into decisions

Timing & Decision Making: RR and PIP

RAC Debrief and Discussion

Nov

Values and Outcomes

Dec

Program Design Ideas

Jan

Narrow Program Design

Feb

Recommend Draft Rules March Update to OTC April High level guidance /OAR to SoS

Public Comment Period Open!

Accomplishments!

Geographic Equity

Rural and small areas are able to compete for funds Funds are dispersed across a geographically diverse landscape to communities

• f all sizes and characteristics

Social Equity

Underserved or economically depressed areas (including Title I Schools) are identified and addressed The biking and walking built-environment around schools is open to all people, communities, and cultures

Safety

There are no more student fatalities or serious injuries (Vision Zero is realized) Policy and design reflect a high standard of safety near schools Children feel safer walking or biking to school Issues are proactively addressed, rather than waiting for a crash to occur The most unsafe areas are addressed

RAC Values and Outcomes

Health

Complete routes near schools encourage physical activity More kids walk and bike to school

Communication, Coordination, and Collaboration

Communities are involved in decision making and project prioritization School districts are engaged Interagency collaboration occurs (e.g. between roadway agency and school) Projects are selected using a public and transparent process Legislature sees this as a good use of funds SRTS infrastructure and non-infrastructure programs are aligned and support one another

Maximize resources

Funds are leveraged to make SRTS dollars stretch further Projects are scoped as accurately as possible and cost over-runs are minimal Scoping and project delivery are streamlined Projects get built and funds are allocated in a timely fashion

RAC Values and Outcomes

Key Considerations

Streamlining proposals Prioritize communities with NI programs Clarify how ODOT will compete with local jurisdictions.

Comments on OAR referring to Guidance

How will Rapid Response work? How will Project Planning Assistance work?

Program Policy and Design Discussion

Prioritize: equity, safety, rural, leverage Create Technical Assistance/Project Planning Program Develop steps for project selection and delivery Link between IN and NI Prioritize existing routes

• r where no routes

exist?

RAC input on Guidance

Rule Public Review

• Meet with

RAC

• Formal public

review

• Public Hearing

(May 15th)

Program Policy

• Meet with

RAC

• Respond to

Comments

• Recommend

policy

• Set guidance

Finalize Rule and Program

• Developed

Application materials

• OTC adopt rule

and review program policy

• Open solicitation

May June July

We’re on track for implementation!

Conduct Outreach

• Form SRTS

Advisory Committee

• Host 6

workshops

• LOI due

Solicit Proposals

• Proposals due
• Start staff

review

Select Projects

• SRTS Advisory

Committee workshop

• Recommend

Projects

• Finalize with OTC

Aug Sep Oct Nov Jan ’19

We’re on track to build great projects!

Discussion and Debrief

Did you see your values reflected in this discussion and recommendations?

• If no, why? If yes, how?

Overall, how was your experience as a RAC member? Parting Thoughts: Words of wisdom for the SRAC?

Summary

Next meeting if needed

Location: CCBI June 6, 2018 1-4 p.m.