Ohio DOT TRAC Process Alternatives for Revising the Scoring Process - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Ohio DOT TRAC Process Alternatives for Revising the Scoring Process EDR Group with Burns & McDonnell Burgess & Niple High Street Consulting

We want to tip the scales in Ohio’s favor The purpose of the TRAC is to help make decisions on major statewide and regional transportation investments. The purpose of this study is to make sure that the factors the TRAC uses accurately represent the issues that are most important to Ohio’s economy.

Webcast and TRAC Day Review • What did we learn from stakeholders? • What are other DOTs doing? Proposals • Possible changes to TRAC scoring Listen Your thoughts?

Current TRAC Scoring Community and Economic Growth & Development Factors, 25% Transportation Factors, 55% Project Sponsor Investment Factors, 20%

Current Economic Factors Appropriate Land Use Measures • – up to 4 points Position Land for Redevelopment • Community and – up to 6 points Economic Growth Return on Investment • & Development – up to 10 points Factors, 25% Economic Distress • – up to 5 points

Outreach to date • Interviews with 11 individuals or groups of individuals prior to kickoff • 20+ attended kickoff meeting ; 60+ on webinar • 11 district/stakeholder group meetings around the state (interviews with reps from D10) • Phone meetings with industry groups • Significant, across the board appreciation for outreach

What we heard General Comments • $12 Million is a high threshold – some projects are too big for Jobs & Commerce, but not big enough for TRAC. • Interest in making it easier to calculate your project’s “chances” before investing in application. • Consider giving more points for projects which use existing infrastructure or other economic investments .

What we heard • Stakeholders consider “jobs” enormously important and think “jobs” should be added as a factor. Consider: – Projects that create more jobs (multiplier effects) – High paying/high-value jobs • Retaining existing jobs is as important as new jobs • Consider giving more points for projects which would increase jobs that are targeted by Jobs Ohio.

What we heard • Local participation means more than just participating in project cost. Points should be awarded for other investments in/near the project area. • ODOT district/HQ staff is seen as very helpful .

Findings From DOT Survey • Most states which responded consider economic factors in scoring/prioritization • Most of those states struggle with the complexity of economic data and factors • States use economic metrics to quantify transportation performance outcomes • None recognize land use/redevelopment in the way TRAC does

Findings From DOT Survey • Stakeholder feedback most important issue considered in prioritization (vs issues like modal balance, political pressure, public official input) • Stakeholder meetings primary mechanism for gathering input • TRAC has more experience with economic factors than many DOTs

What we heard Community Economic Growth & Development Factors Comments 1. Adopting Appropriate Land Use Measures – Land Use factor doesn’t resonate . 2. Positioning Land for Redevelopment – Discussion of development vs. redevelopment .

What we heard 3. Economic Impact – Return on Investment (ROI) – ROI is considered an important factor, but isn’t understood and frustrates stakeholders. It needs to be more transparent . 4. Considering Factors of Economic Distress – “Economic Distress” should consider whether economic conditions would change if the project is constructed.

Proposed Scoring Changes Based on what we heard from stakeholders and best practices from other states, the consultant team developed five specific proposed scoring changes

Specific Scoring Proposals Changes to Existing Scoring Factors 1. ROI – Replace with broader jobs-based “Economic Performance” Score 2. Economic Distress – Scale “Economic Distress Relief” Score proportional to “Economic Performance” Score 3. Land Use and Redevelopment – Combine into a composite “Local Investment” Score New Scoring Factors 4. Assign points for projects that retain jobs 5. Assign points for Jobs Ohio Endorsement

What this means for TRAC scoring FROM TO • 10 Pts: ROI 8 Pts: Economic Performance • 8 Pts: Local Investment • 6 Pts: Redevelopment • (combined) • 4 Pts: Land Use 5 Pts: Economic Distress • • 5 Pts: Economic Distress Relief _________________________________________________________________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ __ 2 Pts: Job Retention (added) 25 possible points • 2 Pts: Jobs Ohio (added) • Endorsement _________________________________________________________________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ __ 25 possible points

Proposal #1 Economic Performance Score

Economic Performance Score From To Up to 8 points based on: Up to 10 points – Jobs created – Simplified ROI 2 ways to assign points: Assigned by model – Grade “ on a curve ” – how close a project falls to the maximum number of jobs, or Specifies how points are assigned – Bracket approach – points based on for both job creation and Gross which Job Creation and ROI bracket a State Product project falls

Discussion 1. Thoughts on two part Economic Performance score? 2. Thoughts about implementation options? a. “Grading on a curve” b. Fixed points by brackets

Proposal #2 Scale Economic Distress Relief Score Relative to Performance Score

Scale Distress Relief Relative to Performance Score From To Up to 5 Points Up to 5 points Assigned independently of ROI or Assigned in proportion to how many of the expected economic impacts. 8 possible performance score points a project gets. Score based on unemployment and Score still based on unemployment and poverty in project area relative to poverty, but points only count when project rest of Ohio. shows economic performance potential. Shift from distress, to project potential to alleviate distress

Discussion 1. Thoughts on scaling distress points? 2. Other ways to relate economic distress points to performance points? 3. Fairness issue?

Proposal #3 Combine “Land Use” and “Redevelopment” into a “Local Investment” Score

Combine “Land Use‘” and “Redevelopment” Scores into Single “Local Investment” Score From To 8 Points for using existing 4 Points for “Land Use” and infrastructure or other 6 Points for “Positioning economic investments Land for Redevelopment” Two ways to apply, based on Points based on zoning or either: local planning policies. • Long-standing infrastructure in place Shifts from zoning and redevelopment to leveraging • Recent investment investment in project area.

Two Ways to Apply Existing Area New Development Area • “Build Out” Score Based on • Recent (in the last 5 years) % of Acres in the Project or currently committed Area investment in local non-project infrastructure. – Served by local streets – Served by water & sewer – As a % of project budget – Have structures currently or – Points normalized to reflect previously used as businesses this percentage – Served by fixed route transit – Previously developed but currently vacant/unused

Application Requirements Existing Area New Development Area • Provide documentation/ • Provide documentation of analysis of existing committed or recent outlays infrastructure in project in the project area area – Project outlays used to satisfy the “local match” criterion – Inventory parcels/plats are not counted – Calculate developed % of – Outlays must be on new local project area acreage infrastructure, services or – Defensibly define “project amenities aimed at impact area” developing the area. – Demonstrate vacancy or need for redevelopment

Discussion 1. Thoughts on Local Investment Score 2. How easy/hard would it be to obtain information about existing assets (by plat or parcel) within a project area? 3. Implementation options – Is this too much work for applicants (especially in developed areas)? – What is an appropriate way to define a project impact area? – What would be the “ceiling” on % of land in the impact area would need to be vacant or subject to redevelopment?