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

Committee Composition Kari Schlosshauer (Vice Chair) Statewide Safe Routes to School Network JD Tovey Pendleton Oregon Tribes Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Mavis Hartz (Chair) La Grande Committee Trevor Arnold Medford Enforcement Brian Potwin Bend SRTS practitioner and SRTS Network Kim Crabtree Bend School district and pupil transportation County representative from Association of John Vial (RR sub-committee) Jackson County Oregon Counties Dana Nichols Bandon Small city City representative from League of Oregon Rob Inerfeld Eugene Cities Laughton Elliot-Deangelis (RR School district, SRTS practitioner, pupil sub-committee) Springfield 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

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

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

Public Comment

High Level Analysis

Competitive Grant Program Timeline 2020 February- May: Application workshops Cycle April 1, 2020: Solicitation Starts $26 M June 15, 2020: Letter of 107 LOIs Intent Due $60-80M in requests 99 applications August 31, 2020: Application due $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 All 99 Applications scoring 150 % list matrix 100% and 150% list Eligibility Ground Review Conditions scenarios Review SRAC SRAC Approved Review Lenses

SRAC Approved SRAC Approved Scoring Matrix Lenses Priorities Eligibility Smaller 2 Million New for scoring Review Projects: Maximum: Applicants: Cost Geographic Geographic Effectiveness Balance Balance and Geographic Social Equity Factors: Balance Health/Safety Solution matches Two or Two or the problem Specific Safety more more Factors: PSC applicants’ applicants' scores scores are Elementary/Middle No close and close and Schools applicant located are near can receive near the the funding more than funding cut Project Readiness cut line, 2M line, SRAC Reasonable budget SRAC may may prioritize prioritize Proximity to School SMALLER NEW PROJECTS APPLICANT

Application In-Depth Analysis 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

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

Overview: Staff Scoring to Final Recommendation From here To here

SRAC approved All 99 Applications scoring 150 % list matrix 100% and 150% list scenarios Eligibility Ground Review Conditions Review SRAC Step 1 SRAC Review Approved Lenses

SRAC Approved Scoring Matrix Total Possible Score = 500 High Social Equity Factors: Health/Safety Priority Specific Safety Factors: PSC Elementary/Middle Schools Proximty 3% Project Readiness School Type Medium Social Proximity to School 18% Equity Priorities Factors: Measuring Health and Safety Specific 39% Safety Factors: Measuring Eligibility Solution matches the problem Priority Review Safety Cooridor Reasonable budget qualities 24% Readiness Bike/Ped project 16%

SCRAC 150 % list Approved 100% and Score 150% list scenarios Ground Eligibility Conditions Review Review SRAC Review SRAC Approved Lenses

Ground Conditions Review Purpose to determine if the ground conditions 150% reasonable match the description in the list 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 Each applicant will only receive Staff will present the 100% list by score Geographic Balance 2M total if they are scored highly and the 150% list by score if each and are in the 100% list applicant only received up to $2M in funds total. The SRAC may use whether the Staff will present the 100% list and the Geographic Balance with applicants received a competitive 150% list and highlight projects that are grant last cycle as a way to very close in score and close to the two or more applicants’ determine who gets funded this funding cut line. Staff will provide cycle. For example, the Committee information highlighting which applicants scores close and located may decide to fund a new were not funded in the 2019-2020 round applicant as opposed to an of Safe Routes to School Competitive near the funding cut line applicant that received funds and Construction Grants to highlight the new still has an open project in 2019. applicants. The SRAC may use cost Staff will present the 100% list and the Cost Effectiveness and effectiveness as a way to 150% list and highlight projects that are determine what applicant gets very close in score and close to the Geographic Balance if funded. For example, the funding cut line. Staff will provide Committee may decide to fund information highlighting low cost projects two or more applicants' several small projects instead of (less than $500K for example) with quick one large project. timelines (18 months or less for example) scores are close and are that could be funded instead of larger cost projects (over $1M for example). near the funding cut line

SCRAC 150 % list Approved 100% and Score 150% list scenarios Ground Eligibility Conditions Review Review SRAC Review SRAC Step 3 Approved Lenses

Examples of Scenarios from 2018 Project Recommendation • Remove Warm Springs Scenari • Result: add 1 additional small project o 1 • Scenario 1 plus Remove the second ranked project (by the applicant) from any one Jurisdiction Scenari • Result: Add 9 additional locations (10 total) o 2 • Scenario 2 plus Reduce Medford and Polk County scope Scenari • Result: Can add up to 3 additional locations (13 o 3 total)

Member Homework

Things to consider: • 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 not 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.

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

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…

Vote: Rapid Response Upcoming Subcommittee New Member Decisions • 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 20 th meeting to decide on project recommendation!