Loading...
10 October 28, 2010 Citizens Advisory Committee90073 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE/ SOCIAL SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCIL TIME: 1:30 P.M. DATE: October 28, 2010 LOCATION: County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside Conference Room A *** COMMITTEE MEMBERS *** Fortunato Penilla, Retired Citizen, Chair Peter Benavidez, Blindness Support Services, Riverside, Vice Chair Michelle Anglin, City of Norco Jim Collins, Include Me, Inc., Indio Eunice Lovi, SunLine Transit Agency, Thousand Palms Andrea Puga, Corona LoreIle Moe -Luna, Riverside Transit Agency, Riverside Cindy Scheirer, Office of Supervisor Tavaglione, County of Riverside Sherry Thibodeaux, Community Access Center, Riverside Mary Venerable, Office of Supervisor Buster, County of Riverside *** STAFF *** Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director Fina Clemente, Transit Program Manager Martha Durbin, Multimodal Staff Analyst 11.36.10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE/ SOCIAL SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCIL www.rctc.org AGENDA* *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 1:30 P.M. Thursday, October 28, 2010 COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92501 Conference Room A in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a Committee meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Commission at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — MAY 6, 2009 AND MAY 13, 2010 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS (The Committee may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Committee subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Committee. if there are less than 2/3 of the Committee members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda.) Citizens Advisory Committee/ Social Services Transportation Advisory Council October 28, 2010 Page 2 6. CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE/SOCIAL SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCIL ELECTION OF OFFICERS Overview This item is for the Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (CAC/SSTAC) to elect a Chair and Vice Chair of the committee to serve a term of two (2) years. 7. 2011 UNIVERSAL CALL FOR PROJECTS Overview This item is for the Committee to receive an oral report on the Lessons Learned from the 2009 Specialized Transit Call for Projects and on the status of the upcoming 2011 Universal Call for Projects. 8. PERRIS VALLEY LINE: ACCESSIBILITY COMPLIANCE WITH U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION LEVEL BOARDING GUIDANCE Overview This item is for the Committee to receive an oral report on the status of the Perris Valley Line project and the Accessibility Compliance with USDOT Level Boarding Guidance document. 9. PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM ADOPTED POLICIES Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the proposed six revisions to the SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Adopted Policies; and 2) Forward to the Technical Advisory Committee and Commission for final action. Citizens Advisory Committee/ Social Services Transportation Advisory Council October 28, 2010 Page 3 10. PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM EVALUATION CRITERIA Overview This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the proposed revisions to the Evaluation Criteria for scoring future SB 821 Project applications; and 2) Forward to the Technical Advisory Committee and Commission for final action. 11. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS: BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM EVALUATION COMMITTEE AND 2011 UNIVERSAL CALL FOR PROJECTS EVALUATION COMMITTEE Overview This item is to seek appointment of Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (CAC/SSTAC) members to the following evaluation committees: 1) Three members to serve on the FY 2011/12 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Evaluation Committee (SB 821); and 2) Two members to serve on the 2011 Universal Call for Projects Evaluation Committee for Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC), New Freedom, and Measure A program funding. 12. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS AND INFORMATION Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Committee Members and staff to report on attended and upcoming meetings/conferences and issues related to Committee activities. 13. ADJOURNMENT The next Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council meeting is scheduled to be held in May 2011 at the Riverside County Transportation Commission, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, CA 92501, 3rd Floor, Conference Room A. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE/ SOCIAL SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCIL Minutes May 6, 2009 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Fortunato Penilla called the Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council to order at 11:00 A.M. at the Riverside County Transportation Commission Offices, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California 92501, 3rd Floor, Conference Room A. Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director, RCTC, introduced himself to the CAC/SSTAC and welcomed the committee. 2. ROLL CALL Members Present Peter Benavidez Jim Collins Eunice Lovi Fortunato Penilla Scott Richardson Cindy Scheirer Mary Venerable 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes were approved as submitted. 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS Members Absent Michelle Anglin Andrea Puga Sherry Thibodeaux Mr. Penilla stated that usually at this time new officers are elected to the CAC; however, since this committee has not met for about a year, RCTC has indicated that it is in favor of electing officers every two years. Therefore, the current officers will continue until May 2010, at which time new officers will be elected. Citizens Advisory Committee! Social Services Transportation Advisory Council May 6, 2009 Page 2 In response to a question of whether RCTC's organizational structure allows for extending the current officers' terms, Fina Clemente, RCTC, stated that it is allowed. M/S/C (Venerable/Collins) to change the terms of elected officers to two years. 6. FY 2009/10—FY 2011/12 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLANS Fina Clemente, Transit Program Manager, RCTC, provided background information regarding the Short Range Transit Plans that cover the three apportionment areas of the county and are comprised of plans for the municipal operators, the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency, the Riverside Transit Agency, SunLine Transit Agency, and the Commission's Regional Commuter Rail program. She stated that the committee will be asked to approve the Short Range Transit Plans in concept only because the Productivity Improvement Program analysis and calculations are not complete. Also, the funding allocations have yet to be approved by the Commission at the July 2009 meeting. Agency representatives provided overviews and highlights of their respective SRTPs and responded to various questions. M/S/C (Collins/Benavidez) to approve the Short Range Transit Plans in concept and forward to the Commission. 7. PALO VERDE VALLEY— FY 2009/10 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS HEARING Martha Durbin, RCTC, stated that the unmet transit needs hearing in Palo Verde Valley is an annual process held by the Commission, the purpose of which is to ensure that all unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet are met before funds are expended for non -transit uses. The only area where this determination of unmet needs is applicable is the Palo Verde Valley. In western Riverside County and Coachella Valley, all available LTF funds are being used for transit service. The unmet needs hearing was held by the Commission on March 5, 2009. Four people testified at the hearing and four written statements were received. In summary, there were requests to extend operations, modify existing route schedules, increase service to the Palo Verde College, and requests for more transportation to medical appointments outside of the community. Citizens Advisory Committee/ Social Services Transportation Advisory Council May 6, 2009 Page 3 The Palo Verde Valley transit staff responded to the comments, which can be found in attachment 2 of the staff report. With these findings and recommendations, staff is requesting that the CAC/SSTAC make a finding through Resolution No 09-010 that currently there are no unmet transit needs which can be reasonably met in the Palo Verde Valley by existing or proposed service included in its Short Range Transit Plan. The Commission's adopted definitions are as follows: "Unmet Transit Needs are, at a minimum, those public transportation or specialized transportation services that are identified in the Regional Short Range Transit Plan Report, and the Regional Transportation Plan (Regional Mobility Plan) that have not been implemented or funded." and "Reasonable to meet shall include the following factors: community acceptance, timing, equity, economy (both short term and long term), and cost effectiveness including the ability to meet the required fare box ratios." M/S/C (Collins/Venerable) to reaffirm the Commission's definition of unmet transit needs and reasonable to meet standards; make a finding through Resolution No. 09-010 that there are no unmet transit needs in the Palo Verde Valley; and forward to the Commission for final action. 8. STATUS OF UNIVERSAL CALL FOR PROJECTS Heather Menninger, AMMA, provided a handout that summarizes RCTC's Universal Call — Measure A/JARC/New Freedom Programs Estimate of People Served and Trips Provided by Project and the allocation of funds to successful grantees. Some projects were fully funded but almost every project was reduced due to limited funding. Different projects funded under the Universal Call are categorized as follows: • Fixed Route Projects • Community -based Paratransit/Shuttles • Mileage/Volunteers Program • Bus Tickets/Taxi Vouchers/Van Pools • Mobility Manager/Information/Training Programs Citizens Advisory Committee! Social Services Transportation Advisory Council May 6, 2009 Page 4 She explained briefly the procedures that were used to get to this point, including working through the contracts documents and that RCTC wanted to get the new Measure money and the timing of proactivity to be in sync. She also stated that AMMA will report back to the CAC/SSTAC in the future regarding the impact these projects are having in terms of the number of people being served and the number of trips being provided. There are rigorous reporting requirements and one of the Commission's concerns is the mix of the agencies and not having negative audit findings. Ms. Menninger further indicated that AMMA may host a workshop for the Measure A/JARC/New Freedom grant recipients in October and encouraged an invitation to the public transit operators. Fortunato Penilla said that this funding, Measure A/JARC/New Freedoms programs, is bringing very innovative and very meaningful service into the community. He was very excited about what the proposals called for and is interested to see the end results. Eunice Lovi, SunLine, stated that in the past, SunLine has gotten a portion of CVAG based on the old Measure A distribution. With a new authorization of Measure A, SunLine is getting 15% of that. She further stated that the funding is used for Dial - A -Ride. SunLine is looking at specialized transit and fixed route because there are some people in the Desert Crest area asking for service. 9. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS AND INFORMATION Mr. Penilla requested two volunteers to participate on the Section 5310 process. • Jim Collins • Mary Venerable The committee requested that future meetings commence at 11:00 A.M. instead of 11:30 A.M. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council, the meeting adjourned at approximately 2:50 P.M. Citizens Advisory Committee) Social Services Transportation Advisory Council May 6, 2009 Page 5 The next meeting is scheduled for August 18, 2009, 11:00 A.M., at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, Conference Room A, 3rd Floor, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside 92501. Respectfully submitted, na Clemente Transit Program Manager RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE/ SOCIAL SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCIL Minutes May 13, 2010 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Fortunato Penilla called the Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council to order at 9:37 A.M. at the Riverside County Transportation Commission Offices, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California 92501, 3rd Floor, Conference Room A. 2. ROLL CALL Members Present Peter Benavidez Eunice Lovi Fortunato Penilla Mary Venerable 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Members Absent Michelle Anglin Jim Collins Lorelle Moe -Luna Andrea Puga Cindy Scheirer Sherry Thibodeaux The approval of the minutes was deferred until the next meeting when a quorum is present. 5. ADDITIONS/REVISIONS There were no additions/revisions to the agenda. 6. CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE/SOCIAL SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCIL ELECTION OF OFFICERS Due to the lack of a quorum, the election of officerswas deferred to the next meeting. Citizens Advisory Committee/ Social Services Transportation Advisory Council May 13, 2010 Page 2 7. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION STRUCTURE, OFFICERS AND MEMBERSHIP FOR 2011 Jennifer Harmon, RCTC, provided a 2010 membership roster and summarized the structure, officers, and membership of the Riverside County Transportation Commission and its committees. Two new cities were added in 2009 — Menifee and Wildomar. The Plans and Programs committee was disbanded and was replaced by two geographically based committees namely the Eastern Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee and Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee. She then responded to related questions. 8. FISCAL YEAR 2010/11— 2012/13 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLANS Robert Yates and Fina Clemente, RCTC, provided background information regarding the Short Range Transit Plans that cover the three apportionment areas of the county and are comprised of plans for the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona, Riverside, the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency, the Riverside Transit Agency, SunLine Transit Agency, and the Commission's Regional Commuter Rail Program. An emphasis was placed on cost efficiency for the upcoming budgets. Presentations were made by each transit operator. The city of Beaumont did not present. M/S/C (Benavidez/Venerable) to recommend the Short Range Transit Plans in concept to the Commission. 9. TRANSIT UPDATE Heather Menninger, AMMA, provided a handout that summarized RCTC's Universal Call — Measure A/JARC/New Freedom Programs Estimate of People Served and Trips Provided by Project and the allocation of funds to successful grantees. Some projects were fully funded but almost every project was reduced due to limited funding. As of the third quarter of the 09/10 grant year 52% of the trip goals have been met. A lessons learned document will be in the works to provide guidance for the next call. Robert mentioned applications will be out on the street sometime in November 2010, however, due to declining Measure A revenues, the next call will not be funded at the same level as the last call. Robert then provided an overview of the members to the new 511 website at ie511.com where real-time traveler information can be found for bus, rail and rideshare information. Most transit operators are currently working to provide their Citizens Advisory Committee/ Social Services Transportation Advisory Council May 13, 2010 Page 3 respective transit information so that it becomes available through Google Transit. 10. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS AND INFORMATION The committee discussed a recap of the presentations and transit update. 11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council, the meeting adjourned at approximately 12:27 P.M. The next meeting is scheduled for August 18, 2010, 11:30 A.M., at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, Conference Room A, 3rd Floor, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside 92501. Respectfully submitted, --) Fina Clemente Transit Program Manager RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 28, 2010 TO: Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council FROM: Fina Clemente, Transit Manager THROUGH: Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director SUBJECT: Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council Election of Officers STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (CAC/SSTAC) to elect a Chair and Vice Chair of the Committee to serve a term of two (2) years. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: CAC/SSTAC by-laws mandate that the Committee shall elect a Chair and a Vice Chair from the members thereof, each of whom shall serve for two (2) years. The Chair shall preside at all meetings of the Committee and shall exercise and perform such other powers and duties that maybe assigned by the Commission from time to time. The Vice Chair shall perform the duties of the Chair in his/her absence and when so acting, shall have all the powers of and be subject to all the restrictions upon the Chair. Purpose of CAC/SSTAC The Transportation Development Act (TDA) provides direction for administering both Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds and State Transit Assistance (STA) funds. Both fund types are used to support operational and capital expenditures for public transit. Section 99238 of the TDA regulations requires the Commission to have a CAC/SSTAC. Per Section 99238, the CAC/SSTAC members shall be appointed by the Transportation Planning Agency. Candidates are to be recruited from a broad spectrum of social services providers representing the elderly, handicapped and persons of limited means. Appointments are for a three-year term. Attachment 1 shows a list of CAC/SSTAC chair and vice chair from 2001 to present. Function of CAC/SSTAC The CAC/SSTAC serves the Commission by participating in the annual transit public hearings and as part of the review panel for SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program and for the Universal Call for Projects. The CAC/SSTAC also reviews the Short Range Transit Plan developed by each public operator as part of the Commission's annual budget development process and recommends input on transit issues. Ethics Training Under Assembly Bill 1234, enacted in 2005, ethics training requirements are imposed on local agency officials throughout the state of California. This law defines local agency officials as (i) members of any legislative body as defined in Government Code Section 53234 and (ii) any employee designated to take ethics course by the governing body. Local agency officials are required to take an ethics course every two years. To comply with AB 1234 requirements, all CAC members must provide an ethics training certificate of completion to the Commission. Certificates can be obtained online through the California Fair Political Practices Commission for no charge at http://localethics.fppc.ca.gov/login.aspx. Staff is requesting that the certificates be submitted to the Commission by November 10, 2010. Attachments: CAC/SSTAC Chair and Vice Chair Committee Roster: 2001-2009 CAC Membership Roster: 2010 ATTACHMENT 1 CAC/SSTAC CHAIR and VICE CHAIR HISTORY YEAR I Name of Chair and Vice -Chair 2001 !Judy Nieburger, Chair ;Fortunato Penilla, Vice 2003 jJudy Nieburger, Chair Peter Benavidez, Vice 2005 'Judy Nieburger, Chair Andrea Puga, Vice L 2006 Andrea Puga, Chair JMary Venerable, Vice 2007 ;Andrea Puga, Chair Mary Venerable, Vice 2008 Fortunato Penilla, Chair Peter Benavidez, Vice 2009 Fortunato Penilla, Chair Peter Benavidez, Vice ATTACHMENT 2 Riverside County Transportation Commission Citizens Advisory Committee / Social Services Transportation Advisory Council Effective January 1, 2010 Name / Area Represented Term Categorical Membership Expiration Date Qualifications Michelle Anglin / Norco Social service provider for senior and disabled Jan 2013 Provides senior and disabled services Peter Benavidez / Riverside Potential transit user who is disabled Jan 2013 Provides disabled services Jim Collins / Indio Potential transit user who is 60 years of age or older Jan 2013 Previous CAC/SSTAC member Fortunato Penilla / Riverside Community member Jan 2013 Retired Inland Regional Center transportation coordinator. Actively attends CAC meetings providing assistance w/ FTA Section 5310 program. LoreIle Moe -Luna / Western Riverside Consolidated Transportation Service Agency Jan 2013 Riverside Transit Agency staff Eunice Lovi / Coachella Valley Consolidated Transportation Service Agency Jan 2013 SunLine Transit Agency staff Andrea Puga / Corona Community member Jan 2011 Past member of RCTC, RTA, and Metrolink Cindy Scheirer / Pedley Community member Jan 2011 Involved in community issues and has attended Transportation Now meetings Sherry Thibodeaux / Riverside Social service provider for persons with limited means Jan 2011 Interested in transit issues. Works for Community Access Center. Hosts support groups for women with disabilities and victims of domestic violence, Mary Venerable / Perris Social service provider for seniors Jan 2011 Involved in community issues and a member of Lake Elsinore Transportation Now The following attachment was approved by the Commission on October 13, 2010. Riverside County Transportation Commission Specialized Transportation Program Measure A/ JARC/ New Freedom Funded Services Year End Report, FY 2010 Prepared for: Robert Yates, Multi Modal Program Director Riverside County Transportation Commission Prepared by: ANIATA_ TRAN51T PLANNING Riverside, CA October 1, 2010 Riverside County Transportation Commission Specialized Transportation Program Measure A/ JARC/ New Freedom Funded Services Year End Report, FY 2010 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND Regulatory Requirements Call Applications and Award UNIVERSAL CALL/ SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM OUTCOMES General Outcomes Meeting Program Goals — Trips Meeting Project Goals — Unique Users Meeting Service Gaps Cost — Effectively ADMINISTRATIVE CHALLENGES OF THE PROGRAM Moving to a Reimbursement - Based Program Invoicing and Reporting Concurrence Processes Field Audits by RTA Regarding Federal Contracting Requirements Budget Alignment and Line - Item Changes Year -End Qualitative Reports DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A NEW CALL FOR SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS Trip Provision Versus Mobility Management Projects Administrative Simplification and Streamlining Continuing Into the Current Call's Second Year Recommendations for 2011 Call for Projects 1 2 8 11 APPENDICES Appendix A — Project Narrative Summaries 15 Appendix B — Year -End Cost and Subsidy by Project 24 Appendix C— Administrative Issues 25 List of Exhibits Exhibit 1, RCTC Specialized Transportation Program, FY 09/10 - Trips by Project Type 3 Exhibit 2, Year -End Trips Totals by Project Type 4 Exhibit 3, Service Goal Ratings: Operating Projects and Mobility Management Projects 5 Exhibit 4, FY 2010 RCTC Subsidy Per Trip by Project Type 6 Exhibit 5, Total Cost Per Trip by Project Type, RCTC Subsidy Plus Agency Match 8 Exhibit 6, Invoice Concurrence Process Ratings 9 Exhibit 7, Year -End Qualitative Report Ratings 10 AM M ii Riverside County Transportation Commission Specialized Transportation Program Measure A/ JARC/ New Freedom Funded Services Year End Report, FY 2010 Introduction This report presents "lessons learned" from the implementation of RCTC's Universal Call/ Specialized Transportation Program at the end of its first full operating year, provides ratings of projects on various measures and discusses aspects of the program's administration. Recommendations are offered to the Commission. Appended to this report are brief summaries of the twenty-two funded projects operating this year. Management of this program has been more complex and involved administratively than was ever anticipated. Given the relatively small project awards that typify most of the projects, all parties involved have, at various points, wondered whether it has been worth the effort. The FTA direct recipient/ sub -recipient role has been complex for the two CTSA public operators (RTA and SunLine) to administer and difficult for the human service projects to understand. The consultant role was to have been time -limited during the first one or two operating quarters and then minimized, but an invoice concurrence process has remained in place for the full year as the consultant's responsibility. RCFC staff consistently had significant involvement in this program, throughout the year. The question of whether or not the Commission should participate in the Federally -funded JARC and New Freedom programs, in the manner in which it has unfolded during this programming year, is discussed. Background Regulatory Requirements In March 2007, the Federal Transit Administration released regulatory guidance directed to three small programs focused on improving mobility and addressing gaps in the larger transportation network for seniors, persons with disabilities and persons of low-income namely: • Section 5316 — Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program: focused on low-income persons and job -related trips. • Section 5317 — New Freedom program: oriented to trips that go "beyond the Americans with Disabilities Act", those trips that are over and above that required of ADA complementary paratransit programs. • Section 5310 — Capital funding: for vehicles and vehicle -related equipment for seniors and persons with disabilities. Riverside County receives annual apportionments in excess of $750,000 in §5316, JARC funding and $350,000 in §5317, New Freedom funding, after SCAG administrative fees are removed. Section 5310 funding is awarded through a statewide competitive process, with about $13 million awarded in the most recent cycle thru Caltrans headquarters. AM.M =' 1 Per FTA's regulatory guidance, these funds were to address service gaps and needs for "projects derived from the locally developed Public Transit -Human Services Coordinated Plan". This plan was completed and adopted by Riverside County Transportation Commission in February 2008. To be awarded competitively, non-profit and public human service agencies, as well as public transit providers are eligible to receive funding. Match requirements can be met through in -kind match as well as cash match and may use local, State or Federal funding but not transit Federal funding. RCTC chose to combine the JARC and New Freedom opportunities with its existing Measure A Specialized Transportation Program, given the considerable overlap in the missions of these three funding sources. In March 2008, RCTC released a combined Call for Projects to provide two-year project funding through Measure A's specialized transportation allocation or JARC and/ or New Freedom for projects oriented to any one or all of these funding sources. Call Applications and Awards Applicants to RCTC's Specialized Transportation Program Universal Call were invited through a well -noticed, countywide application process. This included project development workshops held in three areas of the County to help guide prospective applicants. A total of 27 projects were received, requesting in excess of $13.2 million. This significantly exceeded the $7,526,844 that was ultimately awarded from combined Measure A, JARC and New Freedom allocations. An evaluation panel, including RCTC's Citizens Advisory Committee and representatives from RTA, SunLine and SCAG, developed the project award recommendations. Final award amounts were negotiated by RCTC, balancing project types, project eligibility by fund source and funding availability. The Commission eventually executed agreements for 22 projects, including 4 public transit and 18 human service agency projects that commenced operation July 1, 2009. Universal Call/ Specialized Transportation Program Outcomes General Outcomes Funded -projects supported the goals of the 2007 Public Transit -Human Services Coordinated Plan, including: 1) to increase the numbers of trips available to target population groups; 2) to provide for capacity -building through transit information and transit -related training opportunities; and/or 3) to support mobility management. Several general outcomes to the program's first year can be identified, drawn from the analysis that follows: 1. Provision of additional trips — 363,600 one-way passenger trips — provided to the targeted populations along with some capacity building projects of driver sensitivity training and travel training for individuals with visual impairments. 2. Moved to a reimbursement -based program instead of the advance -payment procedure that has been in place for Measure A recipients since the early 1990's. 3. Procedures and clarity about organizational responsibilities now in place to ensure that there are no or very limited adverse findings from an FTA audit of the program. 4. This program has generated $2.2 million in matching funds from a wide array of resources. kAIM 2 Exhibit 1 following shows the total, trip counts by project type, reflecting those projects that did provide trips. Discussion follows of the five project types and quantities of services provided, the extent to which projects met their stated goals, and the relative cost-effectiveness of these services. Of trips provided (Exhibit 1) the greatest proportion —3796— were provided on community paratransit projects. One-fourth of all trips —25%— were provided through mileage reimbursement programs;just under a quarter —21%— were provided through bus pass, ride share or taxi voucher programs. The smallest proportion of trips —17%— was provided through traditional fixed -route services. Exhibit 1 RCTC Specialized Transportation Program, FY 09/10 Trips By Project Type Fixed Route Services (3) Bus Passes/ Taxi/ Rideshare (4) Mileage Reimbursement (3) Paratransitl Community Shuttle i11) 17% 21% 25% 37% 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 363,684 One -Way Passenger Trips Exhibit 2 following identifies the individual projects, within each category, and reports the year-end number of one-way trips provided, or other quantifiable outcomes. The largest projects — in terms of annual numbers of trips provided — are the Boys and Girls Club of Southwest County at 68,900 trips and the Western Riverside TRIP program at 65,400 trips. Following is the Volunteer Center's TAP program at 49,300 trips and at a little distance, the two RTA services of the Commuter Link in south western county and the Extended Evening service hours, 33,500 and 27,500 trips, respectively. RCTC's ride share program is in this mid -grouping of trips provided, at 27,500 one- way trips. The next tier of services, providing below 20,000 one-way trips, includes the Coachella Valley TRIP program, Care-A-Van's HOPE Bus, the Care Connexxus transportation program and Coachella Valley Association of Governments' homeless persons shuttle. Of the programs providing fewer than 10,000 one-way trips, the Riverside County Medical Center was the largest at 7,900 trips, with the Mo Van and the CASA volunteer program each providing about 4,400 trips. The smallest programs, at less than 2,000 one-way trips supported this past year, were Inland Aids, City of Norco, Jefferson Transitional JTP Shuttle, Beaumont Adult School, Wildomar Senior Community, Desert Samaritans, SunLine Transit Agency and Operation Safehouse. Am.m A 3 Exhibit 2, Year -End Trip Totals by Project Type Project Types anciServices Yea EndfrrjectRepc, pAPTotalsi° i> -- m� A 4 WnfGoal Reached 1.-Fisted Route Services One-waytnps ' RTA Extended Services 33,520 10,569 317% RTA Commuter Link 27,546 7,650 360% SunLine Extended Services 1,375 2,590 53% 62,441 1TY. 20,809 300% 2. "Paratransifl Community Shuttle Services One-way/04 Boys & Girls Club of Southwest County 68,862 68,000 101% Care -A -Van / HOPE Bus 18,207 11,000 166% Care Connexxus 16,222 15,500 105% City of Norco - Senior Shuttle 1,302 3,000 43% CVAG Homeless Shuttle 13,505 21,600 63% Friends of Moreno Valley - MoVan 4,455 3,600 124% Jefferson Transitional - JTP Shuttle 1,018 1,352 75% Inland AIDS Project 1,970 2,800 70% Operation Safehouse 257 240 107% Riverside County Regional Medical Center 7,868 10,117 78% Wildomar Senior Community 268 416 64% 133,934 37% 137,625 97% 3. Mileage Reimbursement One-waytripssupported Court Appointed Special Advocates [CASA] 4,368 3,000 146% ILP's TRIP Volunteer Escort -Driver / Western Riv 65,443 85,000 77% ILP's TRIP Volunteer Escort -Driver / SunLine 19,326 19,113 101% 89,137 25% 107,113 83% 4. Bus Passes/ Taxi Vouchers/ Van Pools One-way trips supported Beaumont Adult School - Bus pass trips 705 850 83% Desert Samaritans - Taxi trips 606 600 101% RCTC's Commuter Benefits/Coachella van pool trips 27,517 15,600 176% Volunteer Center/ TAP - Bus pass trips 49,344 96,318 51% 78,172 21% 113,368 69% TOTAL TRIP -MAKING OPERATIONS 363,684 i00%.378,915 Meeting Project Goals - Trips Agency applicants were asked to define their own quantitative program goals; these were included as part of the signed agreements. Goals were generally defined in terms of how many trips will be provided and how many unique persons served. Mobility management and/or training goals were more loosely defined. Eleven of twenty-two programs did succeed, as shown in Exhibit 3 in terms of meeting or exceeding project goals. Exhibit 3 also identifies the ten organizations that did not attain the trip goals they set. Several agencies reported administrative issues impacting their delivery of services. For TRIP -Western Riverside, use of prior -year funding and staffing changes impacted how much trip -making activity was provided in this reporting period. The Beaumont Adult School notes that the current transit operating hours stop in the evening before the adult school classes end, so individuals cannot use the public transit bus pass to get home from class. As a consequence, fewer bus passes were distributed. The TAP program experienced several staff changes during the course of the year, with resultant program inefficiencies. Several of AM -AT 4 these programs spoke to methods for increasing utilization of services in the year ahead, including City of Norco, Inland Aids, Wildomar, Beaumont Adult School and Blindness Support Services. Exhibit 3 SERVICE GOAL RATINGS? Operating Projects — FY Trip Based Goals Y Projects Exceeding Trip Goals, at`least 12t1% ,Projects Meeting Trip Goals, 90%ito 120%: Projects Not Meetnig irij>Goals. RTA Commuter Link (360%) RTA Extended Service (317%) RCTC's Commuter Benefit Rideshare Program (176%) Care -A -Van/ HOPE Bus (166%) Court Appointed Special Advocates (146%) Friends of Moreno Valley (124%) Operation Safehouse (107%) Care Connexxus (105%) Boys & Girls Club of SW County (101%) Coachella Valley TRIP (101%) Desert Samaritans (101%) Beaumont Adult School (83%) Riverside County Regional Medical Center(78%) Western Riverside TRIP (77%) Jefferson Transitional-JTP Shuttle (75%) Inland AIDS Project (70%) Wildomar Senior Community Residence (64%) CVAG's Roy's Desert Resource Center(63%) SunLine Extended Service (53%) Volunteer Center —TAP (51%) City of Norco -Senior Shuttle (43%) Mobility Management Projects — FY 2010 Product Based Goals Defined and Met Goats, Did Not Define or Did Not Nfeet Goals Care Connexxus — Driver Sensitivity Training Blindness Support Services — Mobility Management Blindness Support Services —Travel Training Two mobility management training activities and one broader mobility management information -based service were included above. The goals for these projects were somewhat less clearly defined. Care Connexxus did develop its proposed driver training curriculum and trained 56 drivers. Blindness Support Services' continuing travel training for consumers with mobility impairments did not meet its projected year-end goal of 160 persons trained. And BSS' second project, its mobility management activity, essentially spent the year defining specific products — twice the proposed six-month planning period. Products for delivery by spring 2011 have now been identified. Meeting Project Goals - Unique Users All but a handful of agencies consistently had difficulty counting unique individuals served. Although typically a difficulty for public transit, to characterize what proportion of the general population are using public transit, it had been hoped that human services agencies would be better able to report the unique number of consumers to whom they provided transportation during the course of the year. For the coming year, agencies will be asked to provide a memo indicating how they will identify and count unique users of project -funded transportation. Meeting Service Gaps Cost -Effectively The current two-year Specialized Transit Program administers about $4.1 million annually in Measure A, JARC and New Freedom Federal funds and has generated a match of $2.2 million in other funds and in -kind services to provide the 364,000 trips presented in Exhibit 1. At the end of this first year, there were significantly different subsidy -per -trip costs, by service type and among the agencies. These costs vary greatly, in part because of the different types of services provided and in part due to differing service design, geographic range and role of volunteers among other program attributes. Only cost per trip data are presented here due to some concern about the reliability of service mile and service hour data. Year-end average trip costs are shown in Exhibit 4 and detailed by funding source in Appendix B. Exhibit 4 FY 2010 RCTC Subsidy Per Trip By Project Type Measure A, JARC or New Freedom Funding as Subsidy ILP's TRIP Volunteer Escort -Driver l SunLine 11$2.25 ILP's TRIP Volunteer Escort -Driver / Western RIv ® $6.34 Court Appointed Special Advocates[CASA] 111011=$10.21 RCTC's Commuter Benefits/Coachella rideshare trips $0.43 Volunteer Center/ TAP- Bus pass trips -M $2.68 Desert Samaritans - Taxi trips Beaumont Adult School - Bus pass trips $5.64 Weighted Average Mileage Reimbursement Subsidy Per Trip $25.23 $25.60 CVAG Roy s Desert Resource Center $1.69 Boys & Girls Club of Southwest County _ME $3.97 Friends of Moreno Valley- MoVan $13.13 Care Connexxus $15.02 Care -A -Van I HOPE Bus $17.69 Wildomar Senior Community $23.20 Jefferson Transitional - JTP Shuttle .::.$27.45 Riverside County Regional Medical Center $35.38 Inland AIDS Project $35.50 City of Norco - Senior Shuttle Operations Safehouse $2.07 Weighted Average Bus Pass/Van Pool( Taxi Subsidy Per Trip $10.42 Weighted Average Paratransit Subsidy Per Trip RTA Extended Services RTA Commuter Link SunLine Extended Services $6.96 $24.88 $57.49 $71.47 $15.04 Weighted Average Roote Subsidy 5 c, .•T ri„ 85 53 $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90 The average community paratransit subsidy -per trip was $10.42; average voucher or bus ticket subsidy was $2.07 and average subsidy per mileage reimbursed trip were $5.64 per trip. Fixed -route weighted average of $15.04 per trip represents Federal JARC and New Freedom subsidy plus Measure A. As weighted averages, these reflect the total volume of trips in each trip -type. The Independent Living Partnership's (ILP) TRIP average mileage reimbursement subsidy per trip in Western Riverside was higher than its operation in the Coachella Valley — $6.34 per trip versus $2.25. Ali ` 6 The CASA program's average of $10.21 was for a comparatively small program, about 4,300 trips, compared to the almost 20,000 trips delivered through the TRIP ILP program. The Beaumont Adult School's relatively high average subsidy of $25.60 probably actually reflects a single bus monthly bus pass and the multiple trips within that — reflecting the challenges of counting passes alongside of trips. Desert Samaritans average trip cost of $25.23 reflects this largely taxi based program. The most cost-effective project in the overall program is RCTC's Commuter Benefits/ Ride Share benefits program, projecting a total of 27,517 trips for an average of 43 cents in subsidy per trip. The paratransit per trip costs vary considerably from CVAG's low of $1.69 to Operation Safehouse costs of $71.47. These differences are influenced by a wide number of factors. The weighted average cost of $10.42 does reflect that the largest volume of these 134,000 trips were lower cost trips. This was the largest single category of trip type among those funded in this Call. Fixed -route per trip costs of $15.04 compare favorably to these other service modes, with three fixed - route service receiving funds in this Call. Agency Match Another dimension of cost are the funds that are leveraged from other agencies' funding sources through use of the Measure A, JARC and New Freedom funding opportunities. The following Exhibit 5 reflects the total unit costs of each project's service, inclusive of leveraged match funding and the grant funding. Match came in three ways. Match was Measure A funding for the RTA projects in Western Riverside County. Match was volunteer labor and agency volunteer time, in -kind match, for selective projects. Cash match funds came from a significant array of sources. These included: city general funds, community development block grant funding, The California Foundation, Riverside County Dept. of Mental Health funding, Older Americans Act Funds, United Way, California Family Life Center, State Adult Education Funds and Federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds and California Local Transportation Funds (LTF). Total match represented by these sources was $2.2 million — about a 53% match against a total program cost of almost $4.2 million. In Exhibit 5 following, the funds reflected in the blue bar represents agency match cost per trip, while the yellow reflects the RCTC subsidy of JARC, New Freedom, or Measure A dollars. Again, match could be volunteer labor or cash match. 7 Exhibit 5 FY 2010 Total Cost Per Trip by Project Type -- RCTC Subsidy Plus Agency Match Measure A, JARC or New Freedom Funding as Subsidy MILEAGEROMBURSEMENT IL7s TRIP Volunteer Escort -Driver /SunLine OEM IL7s TRIP Volunteer Fscort-Driver / Western RIv Court Appointed Special Advocates [CASA] BUS PASS/VOUCHER/ TAXI RCTC's Commuter BenefitslCoachella rides hare trips Volunteer Center/TAP - Bus pass trips LJ Beaumont Adult School - Bus pass trips - Desert Samaritans -Taxi trips PARATRANSIT/SHUTTLES CVAG Roy's Desert Resource Center hi Boys 8 Girls Club of Southwest County Friends of Moreno Valley- MoVan Care Connexxus Care-A-Van/HDPE Bus 1--111M Jefferson Transitional - JTP Shuttle esc. _. r::MEd Wildomar Senior Community Riverside County Regional Medical Center :® Inland AIDS Protect il- t7 RCTC Subsidy per Trip ■ Agency Match per Trip $0 $20 $40 560 $80 $100 $120 Administrative Challenges of the Specialized Transportation Program The administrative requirements of this program have been significantly greater than anticipated. The overall program management efforts, and the reasons these became so involved, are summarized here, with additional detail provided in AppendixC. Moving to a Reimbursement -Based Program RCTC's previous Measure A program provided payments in advance of delivery of services, presumably to offset the cash flow issues of small programs that were beginning to provide transportation services and little working capital. One consequence of this practice was the continual negative audit findings for some organizations, where auditors ascertained that Measure A funds had been used to cover program expenses other than the transportation service. This new coordinated program, with two Federal funding sources that would 8 only pay in arrears, became an opportunity to re -align the Measure A program, making it reimbursement -based. To assist continuing Measure A recipients, RCTC staff provided the first-quarter payment in advance, July through September, indicating that the October invoice would be paid in arrears, following AMMA staff concurrence. Some agencies had an easier time adapting to this than others. For those who had been accustomed to payment in advance of delivery of service, it was an adjustment that required considerable time investment by RCTC staff and its consultant staff, AMMA, as well as some agencies seeking out credit lines for the first time during a tight -credit period. Invoicing and Reporting Concurrence Processes Given agency difficulties in shifting to a reimbursement -based method, including a detailed line -item invoicing process, a concurrence review process was established. This used AMMA consultant staff to initially receive and review agency invoicing, to work with agencies until the format and content were correct, before providing concurrence to RTA and SunLine for processing through FTA's TEAM and ECHO systems. This became almost a full-time effort by AMMA's project administrator in the early months but did settle to a more straight -forward review process for most agencies by the third quarter. ROTC staff too played a continuing and significant role in the review process, managing the budget change requests and helping to ensure that agencies were paid in a timely fashion, once invoice concurrence was provided. Exhibit 6 below shows that about one-third of the agencies — designated as FTA sub -recipients by the direct recipients, RTA and SunLine — accommodated these processes relatively easily. Another one-third required some modest levels of assistance with the balance needing on -going technical assistance, throughout the course of the year to get to invoices that were approvable and payable by the direct recipients. Those agencies experiencing greatest difficulty also had problems with Microsoft Excel and basic computer literacy. Exhibit 6 1'NVO CE GONCURRENCE'PROCESS RATINGS Projects Readily Adapting to Projects Learning the Concurrence Projects Consistently Needing Higher Concurrence Processes and Processes and With Modest Levels of Assistance to Provide Consistently Providing Technical Assistance Providing "Approvable" Invoices "Approvable"Invoices "Approvable"Invoices Independent Living Partnership Care Connexxus Care -A -Van Wildomar Senior Communities Regional Medical Center CASA Desert Samaritans Boys and Girls Club Operation Safehouse Blindness Support Beaumont Adult School Friends of Moreno Valley City of Norco Coachella Valley Association of Jefferson Transitional Volunteer Center (turnover) Governments Inland AIDS RCTC's Commuter Benefits Program Field Audits by RTA Regarding Federal Contracting Requirements Ensuring concurrence by the human service agencies of the complex FTA contracting regulations involved considerable staff time by all three organizations — RCTC, RTA and AMMA. A detailed breakdown of the requirements was prepared and agencies initially interviewed by telephone with on -site visits following. The purpose was to anticipate any problems that the ETA's Triennial Audit procedures might uncover. Agency compliance challenges were in areas of drug testing, appropriate driver licensing requirements and insurance. By 9 early summer, these issues had been addressed with greater clarity as to how to present FTA requirements to human services agencies in future call processes. Budget Alignment and Line -Item Changes The Measure A specialized transportation program, as was noted previously, has had a history of audit findings of some significance. These directly relate to early decisions that up -front funding better supported the cash flow requirements of transportation programs operated by human service agencies. This Call's invoice and reporting concurrence process required agencies to request line -item changes when they wished to depart from budgets submitted as part of applications received late in 2008. This worked fairly well, although the next cycle audits will provide additional insight as to how well. There has been some continuing confusion around allowable in -kind line items and this, along with the budgeting formats, need attention for future Calls. Year End Qualitative Reports Most projects provided, as per the terms of the contract, some sort of qualitative report at the year-end, describing program outcomes. Selective reporting detail was included in the summaries provided in Appendix A with a subjective rating of these reports below. Exhibit 7 Year End Qualitative Report Rating (Contract Exhibit D-2 " Report Received Survey of Riders/ Consumers '. -Report Quality WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Beaumont Adult School Yes Yes very Good Blindness Support Services Yes No Acceptable Boys & Girls Club of Southwest County Yes Yes Very Good Care -A -Van Yes Yes Good Care Connexxus - Transportation Yes No Good Care Connexxus— Mobility Management Yes Yes Very Good CASA Yes Yes Good City of Norco Yes Yes Excellent Friends of Moreno Valley No No ILP TRIP — Western Riverside County Yes Yes Excellent Inland AIDS Yes No Poor Jefferson Transitional Program —JTP Shuttle Yes Yes very Good Operation Safehouse Yes Yes Good Riverside County Regional Medical Center Yes No Acceptable RTA Extended Hours Service Yes Yes Excellent RTA Commuter Link / South Western Co. Yes Yes Excellent Volunteer Center Yes No Poor Wildomar Senior Community Yes Yes Good COACHELLA VALLEY CVAG Roy's Desert Resource Center Yes No Acceptable Desert Samaritans Yes No Acceptable RCTC Commuter Benefits/ Rideshare Yes Yes Excellent ILPTRIP— CoachellaValley Yes Yes Excellent SunLine Extended Services No No Am -NJ A 10 Discussion and Recommendations for a New Call for Specialized Transportation Projects This program has been expensive to administer, frustrating in its start-up for the managing public agencies - RCTC, RTA and SunLine — and complex for the applicant agencies to conform to evolving reporting, invoicing and administrative requirements. That said, agency reports indicate that many of the trips provided did increase the mobility of the target populations of seniors, persons with disabilities and persons of low-income and help to address gaps in the network of public transportation services currently in place. Notably, significant numbers of door assistance trips were reported, trips provided in areas or at times where RTA or SunLine service did not go and those that provide regional trip assistance to frail populations were all in evidence. And the program has leveraged significant funding for transportation that is not from traditional transit funding sources. The program does now stand on a much firmer administrative footing than previously. It is hoped that the substantial investment in time and resources around invoice review and concurrence will be reflected with minimal findings through RCTC's annual audit process and during the FTA Triennial Audit of RTA, where it relates to administration of this program. This review does raise issues about the relative cost-effectiveness of individual projects. RCTC subsidy per unit of service provided must be determined to be reasonable in terms of other similar -type projects, of what it would take to provide such a trip in the public demand responsive environment or in terms of what new or alternative resources were leveraged with these public subsidies. Recommended direction for the 2011-2013 Call for Projects follows in three areas: 1) announce a 2011- 2013 narrowly focused Call for Projects for the balance of the funds available; 2) simplify administration while ensuring compliance with regulation and law, and 3) use the results of this review in "grading' future Call applications. Trip Provision Versus Mobility Management Projects This report documented that six projects are providing promised services above levels they proposed, five at their proposed service goals and ten projects below their own proposed goals. Three mobility management projects are not included in these counts. • Measuring direct service operations in relation to trips provided has been fairly straightforward and revealing. Given the program descriptions included in Appendix A, these trips are clearly adding benefit to the region by providing to individuals trips that they were unlikely to otherwise make. Assessing the benefits of mobility management has been much less clear. Two training activities — one of drivers and one of individuals who are visually impaired — presumably benefited the trainees. Drivers trained by Care Connexxus were surveyed but we have no information from the consumers trained by Blindness Support Services. The third, an information -based mobility management project, has had considerable difficulty defining its product and will only be providing such products during the spring of 2011. Elsewhere in the state and in the country, mobility management efforts have been vigorous and had both localized and regional impacts. In fact, CaIACT's three-day spring conference is particularly focused on Mobility Management. Any new mobility management initiatives proposing to RCTC's Specialized Transportation Universal Call should be required to define outcomes, including measureable outcomes, as part of the proposal process so that reviewers can determine in advance whether such outcomes add sufficiently to the region. AM:1\ ... 11 State -level mobility management projects have been asked to estimate the number of trips they believe their efforts have helped make possible. Adapting such a reporting category — however soft — might help to better measure the impact of Mobility Management. Administrative Simplification and Streamlining. Appendix C presents a summary of specific invoicing and reporting findings to suggest ways to streamline the invoicing procedures, without sacrificing accountability. These should help to reduce administrative time at both the concurrence end and at the agency end. Administrative recommendations include: • simplifying the reporting formats and deleting the second page on trip characteristics; • creating a single spreadsheet file that contains the full year's reports and allows for comparison to prior months within the same file; • refining budget sheet template for new call to allow for easier administration; • developing standard communications protocols between CTSA personnel (RTA and SunLine) and AMMA personnel regarding the processing of invoices; and • continuing periodic meeting schedule with all sub -recipients to reinforce procedures. A new call application process should include the finalized forms, now well -vetted through this year of testing. These should both assist prospective applicant agencies but also make it clearer to them their own administrative obligations, to participate in these programs. Providing these on-line will help, as well indicating that Excel literacy and basic computer -use capabilities by the applicant agency staff are absolutely required. With regard to the Federal regulatory requirements, more specific detail about what the agency must do is necessary. Requiring demonstration of ability -to -comply as a part of the application package is recommended. This will likely require somewhat more involved application preparation and evaluation processes; for example, requiring agency inclusion of CHP yard certifications, its driver licensing requirements, internal competitive contracting procedures and so forth. These should help RCTC, RTA and SunLine be assured, in advance, that successful applicants will succeed in FTA audits. Continuing Into The Current Call's Second Year Agencies should be required, during the existing call, to provide to RCTC their plan for meeting their trip goals, if they were unable to do so during this first year. This remediation plan may address changes in the environment by establishing new goals — for example, the Banning/ Beaumont situation where the buses now cease operation before the end of the Adult School classes suggests that more limited numbers of bus passes can be used. Additionally, every agency should develop and provide to RCTC its planned procedure for providing a unique count of consumers to RCTC, doing so no less frequently than quarterly, as well as annually. Additionally, RCTC may want to conduct field visits to determine the procedures by which projects are reporting one-way passenger trips, vehicle service hours and vehicles service miles. There was some uncertainty around these data items and not uncommonly, public transit and human services transportation programs report these items differently. Therefore, some validation of existing reporting procedures will help to ensure that agencies are all reporting in a standardized manner. With regard to the second year-end report, agencies should be reminded in the third-quarter of this year of that final reporting requirement. At that time, it can be noted that agencies are encouraged to make the effort to speak directly to, and report from, consumers who are using the transportation services supported by this Call. 12 Recommendations for 2011 Call for Projects It is anticipated that the funds available for the next call and future calls will be reduced from prior levels. Given tighter funding levels, the next 2011 call should be well -focused on the project types that agencies and organizations can propose and should require clarity as to the levels of accountability promised. Clearly, the provision of trips is both needed and can be readily accounted for and should represent a continuing,dominant focus to the program. There has been a steep learning curve this year, by RCTC and its consultant staff, the direct recipients and the sub -recipients. Utilizing the streamlined processes now under development by RCTC/AMMA staff, an administratively "easier" environment is anticipated, for stakeholders currently in the system. For any projects that might be new to these processes, RCTC and its CTSA partners are learning how to better communicate both the requirements of FTA and those of ROTC in its regional administration of the program. The following recommendations are made: • The primary focus of the Call should be upon provision of trips, as these can be most clearly documented and concretely work to fill gaps. • Some level of capacity -building — related to training — continues to be desirable but may necessarily be kept modest in their levels of investment, or not at all, until the economy re- builds and training resources become more "affordable". Awarded projects must be required to demonstrate their ability to perform not only in relation to the proposed service but also their ability to properly administer the project consistent with Federal and RCTC requirements for financial, vehicle and audit reporting. • Mobility management projects funded to date have met with mixed results and more limited definable success. It may be that with smaller dollar amounts available, mobility management projects should fall to the lowest priority, if they are funded at all. Review and consider revising local match requirements to best fit the program going forward. • Modest support for capital can be continued, but it is noted that for at least the seniors/ disability populations, the Section 5310 program does exist and RCTC applicants have historically done well in this statewide competition. Potentially, capital funding could be restricted for JARC purposes only or for Measure A match to the FTA Section 5310 program. It is recommended that total dollar amounts available be published, encouraging prospective applicants to view the dollars available in terms of the size of their respective applications. A potential allocation of resources could be presented as follows, with the actual final distribution to be based upon the quantities and quality of projects in each area: • Provision of more trips — up to 80% • Capital projects (Measure A match for Section 5310 or JARC-only) — up to 20% 13 In focusing on provision of trips, prospective applicants need to build a clear case that addresses the following service delivery concerns: 1. For the funding sources sought, projects must meet stated funding source goats — if JARC funding is sought, how do these services enable provision of additional work or work -related trips? If New Freedom funding is sought, are these NEW services and/ or how do they go beyond the ADA complementary paratransit trips required? 2. If agency transportation services are proposed, why is it that these trips cannot be provided by or on the existing public transportation network? 3. Prospective applicants must show how the service proposed does not duplicate the existing public transit services within the project's service area, again demonstrating why their target population cannot use what is available. 4. For all projects, applications should represent projects that are derived from the Coordination Pion, addressing gaps in service identified by the Plan. Finally, the information garnered from projects undertaken during this award period should be used to help evaluate future applications for Measure A, JARC and New Freedom funding, with the scoring structured to help support such evaluations. Cost-effectiveness of services provided must be considered in future evaluations. Are these reasonable unit costs for the dollars requested and services to be provided? Agencies have provided significant reporting, both quantitative and qualitative, and these should be available to reviewers when it comes time to assess future year applications and in making defensible future award decisions with limited taxpayer funding. Appendices follow presenting the program of projects' characteristics in narrative and quantitatively. A summary of administrative issues follows at the end. AM MA 14 Appendix A —Summary of Proiects by Project Category Fixed Route, Community -based Paratransit, Mileage -Reimbursed Volunteers, Bus Ticket/ Taxi/ Rideshare Subsidy, Mobility Manager/ Training Fixed Route Service Projects 1. RTA's Extended Hours Service [JARC and Measure A funding] This project extended service on five routes, beginning January 2010: Routes 7 and 8 in Lake Elsinore and Wildomar; Route 41 in Moreno Valley, Perris and Mead Valley; Route 74 serving Perris, Sun City, Menifee, Hemet and San Jacinto; Route 79 serving Hemet, Winchester, Murrieta and Temecula. Increased frequency of runs and extended operating hours were made possible for these routes with JARC funding. The routes were selected with input from Dept. of Public Social Services (DPSS) which identified areas with a greater number of DPSS clients enrolled in CalWorks or Welfare to Work programs. Extended service is largely on weekdays but some limited weekend extended service was supported. The extended service added 33,520 one-way passenger trips in the six months the program was operating (Jan — June 2010), of which 17% were seniors or with a disability. Thus, this is more than three -times of RTA's first year trip goal of 10,560 one-way trips. RTA passenger surveys suggest that 50% of the trips were for work or school purposes, that one in four riders (25.7%) were not working; 28.6% report an annual income of less than $10,000 and 28.6% an annual income of $10,000 to $30,000. Eight in ten riders (81%) do not have a vehicle available to make this trip. About one-third of the riders (29.7%) have been riding RTA for less than a year and may be doing so due to the extended service. RTA reports that these services combined achieved an average hourly productivity of 6.1 passengers. 2. RTA's Commuter Link Routes 212 and 217 [JARC and Measure A funding] Routes 212 and 217, operating on weekdays only, were implemented in June 2009 to provide express routes connecting south Western Riverside County communities with downtown Riverside destinations. A total of 27,546 one-way passenger trips were provided between July 2009 and June 2010, of which 24% were seniors or persons with a disability. This is more than three and a half times its first -year goal of 7,650 one-way trips. Route 212, a 90 minute one-way route, travels between San Jacinto and Hemet to downtown Riverside, traveling through Homeland, Romoland and Perris, providing 14 trips each weekday with an annualized productivity of 2.5 passengers per revenue hour. Rt. 212 Ridership Characteristics — from its passenger surveys, RTA reports Route 212 is used most frequently for work (50%), followed by school (16.7%), personal business (16.7%) and social/ medical purposes (16.6%). Annual incomes reported were: 20.4% AAA A 11 15 under $7,500; 18.5% between $7,500 and $15,000; 13% between $15,000 to $30,000 for a combined total of 53% of ridership with incomes under $30,000. Route 217 provides connections between San Jacinto and Hemet to Temecula and Escondido, traveling along Highway 79 and through the communities of Winchester and Murrieta. This route takes one and three-quarters hours each way, providing 16 trips each weekday with an annualized productivity of 1.8 passengers per revenue hour. ➢ Rt. 217 Ridership Characteristics — from its passenger surveys, RTA reports Route 217 is used most frequently for work or school purposes, 81.3% with the balance for social or personal business. Annual incomes reported were: 13.3% under $7,500; 8.9% between $25,000 to $35,000 with the remaining 77.8% of over $35,000. 3. SunLine Extended Hours Service — [JARC funded] SunLine Transit Agency's Extended Service provided late night trips to low income and disabled individuals on weekdays for four fixed -routes: Lines 11, 90, 91 and 111 and some Dial -A -Ride service. This service provided 1,375 one-way passenger trips. Community -Based Paratransit Service Projects 4. Boys and Girls Club of Southwest County [Measure A funded] The Boys & Girls Club of Southwest County (BGCSWC) annually serves close to 7,000 youth, ages 6 to 18, providing before and after school programs, summer and winter camps, and sports leagues. Clubhouses are located in Temecula (two), in Lake Elsinore and in Murrieta. Measure A funding supports a transportation service for youth between the BGCSWC facilities and their local schools — elementary, middle and high schools. Driver training and staff training were undertaken annually. A youth public transit -orientation training was a part of BGCSWC's program in FY 2009/10. Measure A -supported trips were 68,862 one-way passenger trips to youth, exceeding their goal of 68,000 trips on 7 school -bus vehicles and 7 passenger vans. Trips were provided to 630 individuals. Twenty-nine percent of BGCSWC families reporting household income in a transportation survey reported levels of below $35,000. Almost one in four, of those reporting income reported income at $50,000 and above and 15% of the total group responding reported income levels above $100,000. Ten percent of the households indicated the transportation service enabled them to seek employment or attend school; the balance indicated that transportation enabled them to maintain employment. Very high ratings — uniformly "completely satisfied" or "mostly satisfied" were reported by responding family members on attributes of general satisfaction, reliability, convenience, travel time and courtesy of staff. 16 5. Care -A -Van [Measure A funded] Care -A -Van HOPE Bus [JARC funded] Care -A -Van, as a continuing Measure A recipient has provided Measure -A supported trips since 1994 in and around the Hemet area to low-income, underserved populations "allowing them access to critically needed resources and services that enhance their quality of life". Medical appointments are the most commonly served trip, followed by social service agencies, education and job training programs, employment services, shopping assistance and social activities. Many of these trips involve door-to-door and even through - the -door assistance by the driver. Care-A-Van's 2010 goal was a provision of 11,000 one-way passenger trips; it exceeded this goal by 66% providing a total of 18,207 trips. Passengers are 100% seniors, with disabilities or of low-income — or are escorts/companions accompanying these individuals who can assist in providing the door -through -door assistance that many of these riders need. Additionally, during the past year, Care -A -Van purchased a mini -van with Measure A funds, specifically to make it easier to transport seniors and others with significant mobility impairments for which climbing in and out of a van was difficult. Care -A -Van also operates the HOPE BUS — Hemet Opportunity Project Express, the results of a partnership between the Care -A -Van Transit with California Family Life Center (CLFC) and Riverside Transit Agency (RTA). These partners are providing both in -kind and cash match that has enabled the HOPE BUS to secure funding through state-wide competitive JARC procurements in two cycles. The HOPE BUS provides work trips and job -related trips to transitional -aged youth, young people who are "aging -out" of foster care and need to develop self-supporting life-styles. These trips are generally for various training, after -school pre -employment activities that are preparing them for release from the public social services system at the age of 19. 6. Care Connexxus [Measure A funding] This transportation service is primarily for persons in need of adult day care and adult day health care service, attending the Care Connexxus program(s) at its Adams Street facility in Riverside. These are individuals with Alzheimer's, brain injuries or severe senile dementia who cannot easily be riders on public transit services. Care Connexxus is a continuing Measure A provider, providing Measure A -supported trips since early in the program's history. Care Connexxus provided 16,222 one-way passenger trips during FY 2010, 5%over its 15,500 annual trip goal. Ninety-three percent of these trips were provided to persons with disabilities, reflecting the population of these adult day programs, although many of these individuals are also seniors. All of these trips are door-to-door assistance, with high proportions as door -through -door to ensure that consumers don't get lost or wander off. Trips are provided consistent with program hours, Mondays through Fridays. 17 7. City of Norco [Measure A funding] Operating two vans and one 22-passenger bus, the City of Norco's Senior Shuttle Transportation Service provides door-to-door transportation for seniors traveling within the community and to medical facilities beyond Norco. Staff reported from passenger surveys that while almost 100% of riders are seniors, approximately 65% are frail and fragile seniors with multiple disabilities, chronic illness and need the significant levels of assistance this program is able to provide. Trips are provided Monday through Thursday from 9 a.m. until 4 p.m. at no cost to riders. During this past fiscal year the program provided 1,302 one-way passenger trips to 347 unique riders, meeting about 43% of its goal of 3,000 one-way trips. Staff attribute this largely to down -turn in the economy which has resulted in people taking fewer trips and lowered demand for Norco's Senior Shuttle services. Marketing efforts have included flyers in the City's water bill, outreach through the Norco Senior Center and its "Bouquet of Kindness" program, and cold calls by staff to seniors who normally used the transportation but have not for some time. Trips are routinely provided to Corona Regional Medical Center as well as Norco Medical Group (there is no hospital in Norco[, as well as to more distant locations of Loma Linda Hospital, Kaiser of Riverside, Corona, Fontana and Moreno Valley Kaiser facilities, Riverside Community Hospital, Parkview Community Hospital and various dialysis facilities, optometrists, chiropractors, physical therapists, dentists and other senior centers in the area. 8. Friends of Moreno Valley— Mo Van [Measure A funding] This continuing Measure A -supported service operates a single vehicle in Moreno Valley, under contract with a commercial transportation provider, Diversified Paratransit. This program was started in the early 1990's as a voluntary organization, the brain -child of Ms. Dorothy Grzeskowiak, a leader in the Moreno Valley area. During this past year, the program provided 4,455 one-way passenger trips to seniors in and around the Moreno Valley, 24% above its annual goal of 3,600 trips. The Mo Van operates Monday through Fridays 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. and Saturdays from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. A fare of $2.50 will take a Moreno Valley senior ages 60 and older or with a disability anywhere within the City limits. 9. Jefferson Transitional Programs [Measure A and New Freedom funding] The JTP Shuttle Program was new to the Measure A Specialized Transportation program. The JTP Shuttle provided transportation to Western Riverside County individuals who have a serious mental health diagnosis or a dual diagnosis of mental illness and developmental disabilities. The service operates a series of six regular runs on weekdays in the Mid -County with one vehicle and various enrichment activities and field trips with a second vehicle. All 11!I 1 18 The program provided 1,018 one-way passenger trips, providing 75% of their projected goal of 1,352 trips to 178 unique individuals. Among surveyed passengers, all reported incomes below $20,000 with 55% reporting less than $10,000, consistent with this population's receipt of 551/ SSDI. The most common reason individuals reported using the 1TP shuttle was for enrichment activities and outings as well as social outings. School and work -trip purposes were least commonly noted but were identified by some. 10. Inland AIDS Project [Measure A funding] This continuing Measure A -supported service provides trips across the region to individuals who are HIV positive or who have AIDS. Some trips are to medical facilities in West Los Angeles while others are more locally based. Theprogram operates with 3 vehicles Monday through Friday, from 6 a.m. until 10 p.m. at no charge to passengers. This year, 1,970 one-way passenger trips were provided to individuals enrolled in the Inland AIDS program, achieving almost 70% of its goal of 2,800 one-way trips. These trips were largely, but not exclusively, serving medical trips and providing some door -through -door assistance to consumers whose frail medical condition required this assistance. 11. Riverside County Regional Medical Center [Measure A and New Freedom Funding] This paratransit service is intended to provide patients with a transportation service to and from the County Medical Center, within Western Riverside. With a goal of providing 10,117 one-way passenger trips, as well as 1,795 taxi voucher trips, the program reported a total of 7,868 one-way trips provided. RCRMC reported that 20% (1,530) of its trips were to seniors, 8% (646 trips) to persons with disabilities and 72% (5,683 trips) to persons of low-income. Presumably, trips originated at or traveled to RCRMC during standard business hours but the program did not provide information about servicehours or decisions as to who was transported. RCRMC has defined a number of strategies by which to increase its number of trips it provides under this program during FY 2010/11. 12. Wildomar Senior Community [New Freedom funding] This program operates from a senior living community in Wildomar and was a new applicant, securing New Freedom funding for purposes of expanding their existing transportation program by one additional day a week — Monday — now providing transportation to resident seniors four days each week. With this added day of service, the program provided 268 one-way trips, about 64% of its projected goal of 416 one-way trips. Its riders are all aged 55 and older, many of whom have various conditions that make driving themselves increasingly difficult. Trip purposes varied but were largely for doctor's appointments, labs, dentists, physical therapy, pharmacy and shopping. Some other personal trips were taken but all intended to enable individuals to remain independent as long as possible. A high level of satisfaction was reported by surveyed seniors. AAT'TL. 19 13. CVAG — Roy's Desert Resource Center [New Freedom funding] This project, sponsored by Coachella Valley Associated Governments, is operated by Roy's Desert Resource Center. The transportation program services homeless individuals and provided 13,505 one- way trips to 321 homeless consumers between January and June, its first six months of operation. The program operates two vehicles, each with wheelchair lifts. It works among 18 local agencies and 25 volunteers, in the course of providing transportation services. Eighty percent of consumers are adults who are homeless and participating in training activities and/or looking for work. The remaining 20 percent are under the age of 18 or are seniors who are unable to pursue work for a variety of reasons. Roy's shuttle routes are established on "routes" that help clients link up with the SunLine bus services. Transportation is available from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. seven days a week. The established route is driven eight times each day by the two vehicles. Bus Tickets/ Taxi Vouchers/ Ride Share Projects 14. Beaumont Adult Education [Measure A funding] This adult education program in Beaumont provides consumers with bus passes to encourage them to attend adult education classes. It provided 705 one-way trips, about 83% of its goal of 850 one-way trips. Administrators indicated that the primary problem in using public transportation to attend adult education classes is that the PASS Transit does not operate after 7 p.m. and many adult classes do not end until 8:30 p.m. Beaumont PASS Transit and Banning PASS Transit are both partners in the program, with the Beaumont Adult School. The school administrators continue to be in dialogue with the transit operators about the timing of PASS Transit runs and the difficulties of recent route changes, in terms of its negative impact upon students who are trying to get to adult school activities. Of students served, almost half were under age 25, another quarter between the ages of 25 to 35, 15% ages 35 to 50 and another 15% over age 50. Notably, 15% of the students using transportation services reported a change in employment status from unemployed to employed part-time, while attending adult education classes. About 54% of those surveyed indicated they would not make the trip, if the bus passes were not available. There were lower levels of satisfaction with the service reported, perhaps because of the mis-match between PASS Transit hours of service and those of the Beaumont Adult Education classes. 15. Desert Samaritans for the Elderly, Palm Springs [New Freedom funding] The program services low income seniors 60 and older who live in the Coachella Valley area and are no longer able to drive. They provide service door-to-door to individuals who are unable to easily navigate from the door to the curb, unescorted. Trips are largely for medical purposes. Trips are rationed — a household may not request more than four round- trip rides per year. Trips are provided largely by taxi but the individual must show evidence that they have sought all other options, before requesting the Desert Samaritans transportation service. For the 2009-2010 fiscal year, the program provided 606 one-way trips to 52 clients, meeting its goal of providing 600 trips. AANNFIA 20 16. RCTC's Commuter Benefits Program — Coachella Valley DARC and Commuter Assistance -Measure A funding] This program provides rideshare benefits to employers and residents of the Coachella Valley. The program offers a $2.00 a day incentive for the first three months to residents who begin a new rideshare arrangement which may include carpool, vanpool, public transit, bicycling or walking. The program has enrolled or re -enrolled 44 employers in the Coachella Valley Project area. Individuals participating numbered 261, almost 3'/= times above the goal of 75 enrolled persons. Additional outcomes include developing a new on- line enrollment capability to make it easier for employees to enroll and for the employer to approve the applications and forward them electronically to RCTC. Several important new partners include SunLine, a new Coca Cola distribution center and potentially the Fantasy Spring's Casino, though that is still developing. 17. Operation Safehouse [Measure A funding] This program serves homeless youth, largely between the ages of 18 to 21. The agency reports that 40 homeless youth were served during the project period for a total of 257 one-way passenger trips. These trips were largely to medical appointments or to social service visits. The program provided them with bus passes, bus tokens and in some cases volunteer -driven transportation. Many of these individuals have not yet connected with services and are otherwise unable to secure benefits or public assistance. The program's goal of providing 240 one-way trips was exceeded by 7% at 257. 18. Volunteer Center — Riverside [Measure A funding] This program distributes bus and paratransit tickets and passes to a range of organizations and agencies throughout Western Riverside County. Called the Transportation Access Project [TAP), this program works from a database of over 1,000 agencies to distribute public transportation, both fixed -route and paratransit, tickets and vouchers. For 2010, an estimated 49,344 one-way passenger trips were made possible by the distributed passes. This agency's projected goal was 96,318 one-way trips by year end, almost double the level of reported trips provided. Notably, there has been considerable turn -over in staff at this agency and it is not clear that there is consistency in the methodology for estimating the trip goals versus estimating the trips provided. The problem lies in the fact that some tickets or vouchers provided allow for multiple trips and it is difficult to know how many are actually taken. NI'1\ 21 Mileage Reimbursement Projects 19. Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) [Measure A funding] This was a new initiative, not previously funded and focused upon children in court placement and the use of volunteers to provide transportation to bring children to court and court -required activities. Eighty-five percent of these children are between the ages of 12 to 17 and 12% between 6 and 11 years of age. Significant in -kind contributions are possible through the involvement of volunteers, individuals who range in age from 21 to 71 but the majority of whom are between 50 and 70 years of age. Volunteers receive extensive training from CASA, one dimension of which relates to transportation. X CASA FORCd ILbkEAC vea cniioucw These volunteers provide escort, door -through -door transportation to children in the foster care system, many of whom are abused and neglected, children removed from their homes by the courts. The program had established a goal of 3,000 one-way trips and exceeded that by more than 46% providing 4,368 volunteer -provided trips. 20. Independent Living Partnership's Transportation Reimbursement Program [Measure A funding; New Freedom funding in Coachella Valley] TRIP is Riverside County's long-standing volunteer driver, mileage - reimbursement program that has been heralded nationally as a model for how g t IP to provide low-cost transportation services to individuals too frail to use public transit or who are in rural settings beyond the urban transportation network. L One of the largest projects within RCTC's Specialized Transportation Program aside from fixed -route projects, TRIP historically has a broad reach across each of the communities of Western Riverside County: This year, TRIP was introduced in Coachella Valley, supported there, in part by New Freedom funds and by grant funding from the Riverside County Office on Aging. Reimbursing volunteers that the consumer locates at $0.28 per mile, the program has successfully placed responsibility for transport onto the consumer. Trips were supported for 471 individuals in Western Riverside County (65,443 trips) and 115 individuals in SunLine's larger service area, receiving 19,326 trips. Many of these trips are either outside of the public transportation network of services or require door -through -door assistance to a frail or chronically ill individual. Although TRIP met its new program goal in Coachella Valley, the ILP program reported various staffing issues, as well as staff time associated with locating a line of credit to move the program to a reimbursement basis contributed to falling short on its Western County goal. A telephone survey of 140 TRIP recipients showed that 91% are reporting incomes of $20,000 or less, two-thirds live alone, 80% are female and that medical trips are the dominant trip purpose. Many are individuals who require continuing cancer treatments and who reportedly comment gratefully upon the ability to pay a volunteer driver for transport assistance. 22 Mobility Management and Training Projects 21. Care Connexxus Sensitivity Training [New Freedom funding] Care Connexxus developed a driver sensitivity program and trained a total of 56 drivers, through four in-service training sessions, in an array of topics related to transporting passengers with disabilities. The program spent the first part of the year in developing the curriculum and then worked with 56 driving staff within the RCTC region to provide them with the resultant training. Sessions were held on Saturdays and participants surveyed before and after the training sessions regarding the materials. All seem to Strongly Agree or Agree that areas covered by the training were of value to their job. Next year's initiatives involve incorporating more ADA-related requirements to better address questions about the topic and examining issues of privacy, in relation to the drivers' roles, related to HIPPA, the health care information privacy act. 22. Blindness Support Services Travel Training & Mobility Management [Measure A funding] Blindness Support Services provided travel training to 56 individuals through its long-standing travel and mobility training program to persons who are visually impaired and to seniors. The program's intent was to reach individuals not served by existing travel training program, this year included, in part, consumers with developmental disabilities living in Eastern parts of Riverside County. The Mobility Manager initiative involved meetings during the past year with 32 social service and non- profit organizations and transit providers to discuss an array.of topics associated with transportation. The goal, as identified by BSS, is to "establish direct communication between social service providers, non -profits and transportation providers in an effort to bring these entities together to discuss transportation services." Additionally, BSS established a Consumer Advisory group for purposes of providing advice and suggestions on transit use, from rider viewpoint. RCTC staff worked with BSS to identify specific products that the mobility management function could produce. A riders' guide for transit use by persons with disabilities is anticipated to be completed during the coming year, focused on public transit use in Western Riverside County. Am'mr�. 23 bZ 9EL'i02'94' 906''49 660`866$ 9LZ'8e6$ f!o'6t9f' 66L'901 9L9'69o'iS Sle'l96f 1L0'-Lt9'ZS 096'.ZL6'ZS 6 Isime0ad IItl1 1tl1010nno 99'8494.1 - ", .i£"9f1LZf 999'4ES 8891!et'8$. 999'£95 =: CYQL 4LS ZLS'/24S' tEL'83 000'9E5 990'46 Z0611SZS 4C'9f „$ ..sty?,_ s, A`x,*n +''°. e. LL'l5 F ..... ..... 10'25 29L'96C4 £9'05 9L1'295 L L'9ES 09'945 92'11,4 19'9f 080'4Z5 a�t 999'8S9'L 9611.5 9Z75 SOL'L£ZS 182£5 IZ'015 99L'£4IS #T 9L'9LL Z9'OIS9LCBOLYS 686'CS cant MLitt 04'995 02'03 9C9'Z IS C06'9t 0Z'LOIS L9 LLS 099'LSt ZS'9V444 94125 09L'L44 9OLeL{t 8£'055 891S 099194 EL'ZZ5 ZO'91,5 Z9L''89(3 6az'OLS 889'8095 ,au 98'95 L8 E5 a 98'95 ii. , Oeluleemel Leopmud toN 009'08 6B9'L94 005'E9$ 689L99 949'C9I Cl9'69l Ll Z'95 OZI'ZLS 9t0.16 011'1,3 l£L'8lS 000'5E1 S!tl"Cl9f. of of 66e9Z9f {91'!tf 0 148'690'4S. f16'{9Sf- !9L'{{S SZf L9f L9L'L if SLIM 691'2ZS LZB'9ES LLa'869f 692'Z69S 9ZL'L00'LS 609'413 809Y119- gotten APNdn9::. pLe tv " aululsuit& t4i6Pmerd "}ucpecsd -Darr 896'LC15 hPlogr9 bavr 696k{{f Of tL['f1 296'99S 069'sse'ZS Ltz'o9LS 989'6909 9L9'995 oole6ZZ'L L9E'9l4 L96'995..' C96'LI6'ZS eo%96 -' 916'9LE M./1.ES %COOS %9L L 690'91$ .' %EA 1Z9'0L94 %MB %LOt el91,94 ,.%WI ZL VCOC'L 5%6'16 L28'0L6 �IISZ^O'ZZS of 000'9zz4 000'9zzt E90'ELZS .. EED'eat mews zeo'9l9$ LZZ'61.95 96v'OL{t ',Vet* Oayr • 0ervpw.a. 9uetee{y- 0l E'S6S Amore V ulro myµ 9SC'6Z6f 896'6tt 009 9t OS9 El L'LOL Et l'8L 000'E 9ze'itL %99 91P %C9 %SOL 009'1Z 009'91 �j5 i0 000'99 %9112 608'02 %C9 900'99ZS = %LIE a O6S'Z 696'01 PLemVY '. 9.4POO -!Toe 14l1e4e5Iea0104. AOueBy 1N31/30VNtln A111180W 1tl101 7gi4 11�I, i CtIBP� s, C ssato 95 / wnlnowno maN 99919 �6euP.:0 N �j,' Isasrrsagi�o�ldtltl6es9uhmle [ 4/0.4'4 4 siad}v6��li�ad'daS asepPulpe `F .'-:. Bueeesl AM18sseS setup - sexxauuo0 aseD spaojosd aumesl q wouJoBeuen Athicien SNOI11f113d0 ONIXVIN-dlal 1V101 %1Z ZLL'8L ZLt'8L LL9'LZ Sdul * ✓1: 901:?OMG'lUTT,h, ET illil SOL POPoddns.sdpl AeB-8u0 %9Z LCl'69 LCL'68 9ZE'Bt 89C 4 popoddns sdul Aen-ou0 %LC 9C8'551, 456'COS 892 LSZ 49l0,0'L 22142jlh 909'6l FOlit Z9889 sdul Aotn-suD %LL L99'Z9 99011 SC£'L Dzs'EE qOW Apt-eu0 ' sl eloL Potmolea loojoad Pu3•sett ;i:N 1.14-4.ed s00 3*wajuKxdgOW4):. ICI.' 100d upn eseyoeoOisiseuee satewwoD SaLar '.� Re 3, .,W1 4..kyep+/4.1` R l';kiai:''. sdu1 ssed sae - 10040S IloPV luowneeeLo4 sioad uep Ronaq Vet sassed sn8 amluns I sawp-uoos3 saaomioq dial s,dll 00.0)2 10.401MN�i�oii gsF]t A4 IVSVDI Sele9MPtl IemedS palmoddV ono 1uoWeS1 n9wlea offeo8n AlNnwwo9 moues seLeop000 13 6+�*VS1/1,104411-A-g!f�a`,#WOX_i; asnayales uoyesad0 t.0.0f SOLVIPYHW4:,4k1'. 0111n4S dl('• lee001suesl uosµA)or ✓I: L'�. a peAOS'N-AsI11%--? S5•1 ftai0•011 salua0 ammo sae uadap LAoa 9VA9 .�,aliin4�olua$:ihOsoJ/A'OJ s;:,1�:',, snxxauua0 amo *IGif ••-r „-,te OAR.4.14a4,A-P#0I'.%. touno9 m•Ntiinos to 4M0 stop q sAo8 se DltueS SMOLIC Allununuoo 518ueLleled 01/600Z A3 n103fOad A8 AaVWWf1S 1S00 ONV Aaisans rdltil re XION3ddd sa0`0aS papualx3 euilunS saaLuaS p9pualx3 Vla stoouss esnaa poxld moon mold os Appendix C, Summary of Lessons Learned from Invoice/ Reporting; Concurrence Process Reporting: • Agencies have much difficulty counting unique users/clients to their systems. • Agency goals to be set for next call should be encouraged to show increases from their current reported performance. • Future -year applicant agencies should receive points for exceeding the goals that were set forth in the last call. • Agencies should be tracking actual trips that result from mobility management activities and not just the number of contacts that are made. • All in all, the quantitative report [Sheet 1 of the spreadsheet] works well and captures the data needed. Some agencies are not completing the qualitative report on sheet two. Removing this element should be considered if data will not be used. Invoicing: • Complexities exist around non -volunteer based in -kind match and in -kind expenses and the balancing of those line items. • Agencies saw the invoicing process as cumbersome early on, but had less difficulty as the program progressed. • Agencies began to make fewer mistakes and needed less direction towards the end of the fiscal year. • Too many invoice and reporting form changes in the first six months of the program. This caused a lot of confusion as to which forms should be used. Form structure should be reviewed and distributed before the start of the new fiscal year to cause less confusion. • Too many agencies repeatedly making the same mistakes on invoices. Computer spreadsheet (Excel) literacy must be stressed in the call and explained in the application. • All forms to be submitted by agencies should be included in the call for projects application, including budget, invoice and reporting forms. Budgets: • Multiple agencies submitted several budget revisions over the course of the year. Mostly personnel changes, but also items such as rent, vehicle maintenance, and insurance. • Need to refine generic budget sheet template line items for the new call for projects. Generic line items should encompass line items that have been expensed during the last fiscal year. This way, budget forms can be more universal and need less modification, which will make the concurrence process easier and line items will generally remain in the same location for most agencies. • Original budget amounts need to be incorporated in to the invoice forms as a checksum for cumulative running totals. This does not currently exist. • Need clarification as to whether or not previously submitted invoices should be revised to match a budget revision. In most instances, the invoices were only revised going forward. Will this cause audit issues? 25 Audit: • AMMA should be provided with copies of agency audits each year to be aware of recurring issues and be able to take steps to prevent findings from occurring. • AMMA should also be aware of corrective or disciplinary actions in regards to audit findings. • Possible annual meetings with auditors, AMMA, and RCTC to understand issues, procedures and concerns of each. Recommended Procedure Changes: • Reporting forms and invoices should be submitted by agencies in the same excel file. For each subsequent month, add another tab to the spreadsheet. This makes cross referencing previous months much easier during the concurrence process. • Revisit administrative point people and their responsibilities. These roles have changed especially within the CTSA's. • CTSA's need to institute a regular procedure of notifying RCTC staff or AMMA staff when payments are accepted and paid. There was very minimal communication from SunLine. • Continue to have regular meetings with recipients to reinforce procedures. Cost: • RCTC staff personnel time sheets recorded approximately 50% of time for the Multimodal Staff Analyst (M. Durbin) and Transit Program Manager (J. Clemente) related to program start-up and program management for the Specialized Transportation Program. • Riverside Transit Agency estimated $50,000 in personnel expense associated with TEAM and ECHO responsibilities for program administration. • AMMA Transit Planning's Program Administrator (D. Brooks) allocated 1/3 of a FTE position towards this program, often concentrated in the first and last weeks of each month related to concurrence responsibilities. 26 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 28, 2010 TO: Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council FROM: Jillian Edmiston, Staff Analyst Brian Cunanan, Commuter Assistance Manager THROUGH: Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director SUBJECT: Proposed Revisions and Additions to the SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Adopted Policies STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the six revisions to SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Adopted Policies; and 2) Forward to the Technical Advisory Committee and Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Article 3 of the Transportation Development Act, better known to the Commission as SB 821, is a discretionary program administered by the Commission for the funding of bicycle and pedestrian facility projects. The Program is funded by a 2% allocation of the total Local Transportation Fund (LTF) apportioned to Riverside County by the State. Since the first SB 821 Call for Projects in the 1970's, the administrators of the program have experienced both unique and recurring circumstances. Throughout the years, those experiences have been translated into the adoption of new SB 821 policies. Twenty-four years after the first policy was adopted, and seven years after the most recent policy was adopted, Commission staff felt that a comprehensive review of the adopted policies was in order. Consequently, staff's review has resulted in the six recommendations detailed below. DISCUSSION: The recommendations for revising the "Riverside County Transportation Commission SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Adopted Policies" have been separated into five categories: Triennial Audit Recommendations, Streamlining Recommendations, New Policy Recommendations, and Existing Policy Recommendations. Triennial Audit Recommendations 1. Reimbursement in Arrears Existing Policy: "The Commission will not allocate funds to a project in its approved SB 821 Program until the sponsoring agency awards a contract for the construction of the project or until local agency forces begin construction of the project." Recommendation: This policy, adopted on 12/18/86, is being recommended for revision. In the Commission's TDA Triennial Performance Audit just completed, a recommendation was made to require agencies to submit documentation proving that the project has been completed prior to the Commission disbursing funds to the agencies. The recommended policy revision is: "Agencies receiving an award shall be reimbursed in arrears, only upon proof of satisfactory project completion, including but not limited to the RCTC claim form for the fiscal year in which the project was awarded, the RCTC supplemental claim form, and photographs of the completed project." Additional reasons to support revising the existing policy include: • When agencies claim the money up front, they are not providing an executed contract, creating administrative problems on the back end during the Commission's audit of the agency. In many instances, agencies that have claimed the money up front have not ended up using the money or they did not return the unused portion back to the Commission once the project was completed. • It is less than desirable, both administratively and from an audit perspective, to be giving an agency Article 3 funds based on an amount from its application that is strictly estimated. A much more desirable practice is to disburse funds based on project completion and absolute costs with adequate documentation supporting both. 2. Maintain the Local Match Existing Policy: Not applicable. Recommendation: This policy recommendation also comes from the triennial performance audit. The new policy recommended is: "If an agency provides a local match commitment on a project and the project is completed under budget, the agency will be reimbursed at the matching ratio in effect at the time of project selection and approval. (Example: If an agency commits to a 25% local match for a project estimated to cost $100,000, the amount of Article 3 funding awarded is $75,000. However, if the completed project costs only $80,000 instead of the estimated $100,000, the local agency will still contribute 25% of the project costs and will receive Article 3 funds totaling only $60,000)." It is important to note that the amount of local match stated in a project application is considered as part of the evaluation criteria. For an agency to deviate from that stated match amount would not be aligned with the basis for which the project was selected. Streamlining Recommendations 3. Recipients Have 24 Months Existing Policies: "If funds for a project are not claimed prior to the end of the fiscal year, the project will be deleted from the program and the funds will be reprogrammed in the next fiscal year's SB 82.1 Program," and "A project sponsor may request an extension of time beyond June 301" if substantial progress has been made on the project which, at minimum, would mean completion of preliminary engineering." The intent of these two policies adopted in December 1986 (when recipients only had 12 months) has become outdated due to the adoption of the newest policy. Recommendation: Delete the two previously stated policies, but maintain the following previously adopted policy: "An agency will have twenty-four (24) months from the time of the allocation to complete the project using local forces or award a construction contract. There will be no time extensions granted unless the project is part of a larger, federally funded project, which has been delayed beyond the agency's control. Also, projects requiring coordination with another public agency that has been delayed beyond the agency's control may receive one twelve-month extension, if necessary. Projects not completed or awarded within the twenty-four months will be deleted from the program, and the funds will be reprogrammed in the next fiscal year's SB 821 Program." 4. Delete Outdated Policy Existing Policy: "Funds allocated for projects in FY 86/87 and prior years must be spent or encumbered (construction contract awarded) by December 31, 1987, or the funds and interest earned on the funds shall be returned to the SB 821 Account." Recommendation: The policy should be deleted from the list of adopted policies due to its irrelevance and in order to streamline the list of adopted policies. 5. Delete All Multi -Year Project Policies Existing Policies: "Cities and the County may submit applications for projects to be funded over a 2-3 year period with engineering in year 1 and construction in years 2 and 3." "Multi -year projects approved in the Commission's program shall be given priority for funding in years 2-3 over new projects submitted and approved." "When actual construction and/or right-of-way costs are not more than 15% over the initial application cost estimate, the increase will be funded by SB 821 funds; if requested by the applicant, during the development of the annual program by the Commission." "When actual construction and/or right-of-way costs are more than 15% above the initial application estimate, the applicant may either fund costs in excess of 15% with local funds or resubmit the project as a new project for consideration by the Commission." Recommendation: The four aforementioned policies were written to be applied to multi- year projects. As the September 1987 adoption date of these policies indicates, they were adopted while there was still a 12-month completion requirement. Upon the adoption of the policy that grants each agency 24 months to complete a project, the four policies became irrelevant. New Policy Recommendations 6. No Funding for Overruns Existing Policy: Not applicable. Recommendation: "Agencies awarded funds will not be reimbursed for any project cost overruns." This policy recommendation is derived from the Commission's desire to be fair to all Program applicants and to encourage applicants to submit project applications with well -prepared cost estimates, thus enforcing fiscal responsibility in these times of tight funding. Existing Policies to Maintain "Any unused SB 821 Program funds [allocated prior to FY 2011/12] must be returned to the Commission unless that agency can a) demonstrate why the costs were substantially lower than the estimate and b) utilize the unused funds to complete approved but unfunded projects." "No agency will be allowed to carryover unused funds [allocated prior to FY 2011/12] for projects not previously included in an application (annual project proposals) submitted to the Commission for consideration." "The Commission will not award funds for projects that do not meet physical accessibility standards (i.e. California Government Code 4450, Civil Code 51 Et. Seq., Title 24 of the California Building Code, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)." The three existing policies listed above should all be maintained. These policies, since their adoption, have proven to positively impact the administration of the SB 821 Program. Because funding awards for SB 821 projects are based solely on the evaluation criteria adopted by the Commission, it would be unfair to allow agencies to spend unused SB 821 Program funds on projects that have not been evaluated by the SB 821 evaluation committee. Conversely, by allowing unused funds to be carried over to projects previously submitted to the Commission for funding, the Commission is able to capitalize in times of low-cost construction by funding two projects for the price of one. Finally, the Commission would be remiss to not have a policy in place that ensures funding recipients' compliance with physical accessibility standards. There can be no mistake that a project funded by the SB 821 Program is usable by the diverse populations residing in the Commission's jurisdictions. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2011/12 Amount: N/A Source of Funds: LTF Article 3 Budget Adjustment: N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: N/A Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: Attachments: 1) Riverside County Transportation Commission SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Existing Adopted Policies 2) Draft RCTC SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Recommended Policies to be Adopted ATTACHMENT 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM EXISTING ADOPTED POLICIES • The Commission will not allocate funds to a project in its approved SB 821 Program until the sponsoring agency awards a contract for the construction of the project or until local agency forces begin construction of the project. (12/18/86) • If funds for a project are not claimed prior to the end of the fiscal year, the project will be deleted from the program and the funds will be reprogrammed in the next fiscal year's SB 821 Program. (12/18/86) • A project sponsor may request an extension of time beyond June 30th if substantial progress has been made on the project which, at minimum, would mean completion of preliminary engineering. (12/18/86) • Funds allocated for projects in FY 86/87 and prior years must be spent or encumbered (construction contract awarded) by December 31, 1987, or the funds and interest earned on the funds shall be returned to the SB 821 Account. (12/18/86) ***Following four policies pertain to multi -year projects*** • Cities and the County may submit applications for projects to be funded over a 2-3 year period with engineering in year 1 and construction in years 2 and 3. (9/2/87) • Multi -year projects approved in the Commission's program shall be given priority for funding in years 2-3 over new projects submitted and approved. (9/2/87) • When actual construction and/or right-of-way costs are not more than 15% over the initial application cost estimate, the increase will be funded by SB 821 funds, if requested by the applicant, during the development of the annual program by the Commission. (9/2/87) • When actual construction and/or right-of-way costs are more than 15% above the initial application estimate, the applicant may either fund costs in excess of 15% with local funds or resubmit the project as a new project for consideration by the Commission. (9/2/87) • Any unused SB 821 Program funds must be returned to the Commission unless that agency can a) demonstrate why the costs were substantially lower than the estimate, and b) utilize the unused funds to complete approved but unfunded projects. (12/11/91) • No agency will be allowed to carryover unused funds for projects not previously included in an application (annual project proposals) submitted to the Commission for consideration. (12/11/91) • The Commission will not award funds for projects that do not meet physical accessibility standards (i.e. California Government Code 4450, Civil Code 51 Et. Seq., Title 24 ofthe California Building Code, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990). (4/12/95) • An agency will have twenty-four (24) months from the time of the allocation to complete the project using local forces or award a construction contract. There will be no time extensions granted unless the project is part of a larger, federally funded project, which has been delayed beyond the agency's control. Also, projects requiring coordination with another public agency that has been delayed beyond the agency's control may receive one twelve-month extension, if necessary. Projects not completed or awarded within the twenty-four months will be deleted from the program, and the funds will be reprogrammed in the next fiscal year's SB 821 Program. (3/12/03) RCTC: 3/20/03 ATTACHMENT 2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SB 821 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES PROGRAM RECOMMENDED POLICIES TO BE ADOPTED I. Agencies receiving an award shall be reimbursed in arrears only upon proof of satisfactory project completion, including but not limited to the RCTC claim form for the fiscal year in which the project was awarded, the RCTC supplemental claim form, and photographs of the completed project. (TBD) 2. If an agency provides a local match commitment on a project and the project is completed under budget, the agency will be reimbursed at the matching ratio in effect at the time of project selection and approval. (Example: If an agency commits to a 25% local match for a project estimated to cost $100,000, the amount of Article 3 funding awarded is $75,000. However, if the completed project costs only $80,000 instead of the estimated $100,000, the local agency will still contribute 25% of the project costs and will receive Article 3 funds totaling only $60,000). (TBD) 3. Agencies awarded funds will not be reimbursed for any project cost overruns. (TBD) 4. An agency will have twenty-four (24) months from the time of the allocation to complete the project using local forces or award a construction contract. There will be no time extensions granted unless the project is part of a larger, federally funded project, which has been delayed beyond the agency'scontrol. Also, projects requiring coordination with another public agency that has been delayed beyond the agency's control may receive one twelve-month extension, ifnecessary. Projects not completed or awarded within thetwenty-four months will be deleted from the program, and the funds will be reprogrammed in the next fiscaliear's SB 821 Program. (3/12/03) 5. Any unused SB 821 Program funds [allocated prior to FY 2011/12] must be returned to the Commission unless that agency can a) demonstrate why the, costs were substantially lower than the estimate, and b) utilize the unused funds to complete approved but unfunded projects. (12/11/91) 6. No agency will be allowed to carryover unused funds [allocated prior to FY 2011/12] for projects not previously included in an application (annual projectproposals) submitted to the Commission for consideration. (12/11/91) 7. The Commission will not award funds for projects: that do not meet physical accessibility standards (i.e. California Government Code 4450,'CiviljCode 51 Et. Seq., Title 24 of the California Building Code, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990). >(4/12/95) RCTC: 10/28/ 10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 28, 2010 TO: Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council FROM: Jillian Edmiston, Staff Analyst Brian Cunanan, Commuter Assistance Manager THROUGH: Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director SUBJECT: Proposed Revisions to the SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Evaluation Criteria STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Committee to: 1) Approve the revised Evaluation Criteria for scoring future SB 821 Project applications; and 2) Forward to the Technical Advisory Committee and Commission for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Article 3 of the Transportation Development Act, better known to the Commission as SB 821, is a discretionary program administered by the Commission for the funding of bicycle and pedestrian facility projects. The Program is funded by a 2% allocation of the total Local Transportation Fund (LTF) apportioned to Riverside County by the State. There are three steps to carry out the program: 1) All cities and the County are notified of the SB 821 program estimate of available funding and are requested to submit project proposals. The Commission's SB 821 program policies, project application, and evaluation criteria are also provided with the notification. 2) The Commission's SB 821 Evaluation Committee, comprised of members of the Commission's Technical and Citizens Advisory Committees (3 each), meets to review and rank the project applications using the evaluation criteria adopted by the Commission and recommends projects and funding amounts to the Commission for approval. 3) The Commission reviews the Committee's recommendations and approves a program of bicycle and pedestrian projects for funding. DISCUSSION: During the Fiscal Year 2010/11 Call for Projects, the six -person evaluation committee raised a concern that the existing evaluation criteria discourages applicants to submit project applications for bicycle projects. Furthermore, even when an applicant is inclined to submit a bicycle project application, the existing evaluation criteria has a systematic bias toward pedestrian projects. In fact, during the most recent Call for Projects, only 11 % of the applications were for bicycle projects and none of them received an award. There are nine proposed revisions to be noted in the evaluation criteria. Streamlining Evaluation Criteria 1. Delete "Use" Criteria Existing policy: "USE - The extent of potential use of a bicycle or pedestrian facility is the most important factor. Emphasis of this factor helps ensure the greatest benefits will be derived from the expenditure of SB 821 funds. Relative usage is to be derived from analysis of trip generators and attractors adjacent to the project." Recommendation: Delete the "Use" criterion from the list due to its irrelevance to the evaluation of the project applications. SB 821 Evaluation Committee Members have expressed difficulty in translating "trip generators and attractors" into points for the "Use" criterion. 2. Delete "Missing Link" Criteria Existing policy: "MISSING LINK, EXTENSION, OR CONNECTIVITY - Points are awarded on the basis of a project's potential to attract users who would otherwise use an automobile." Recommendation: The "Missing Link, Extension, or Connectivity' criterion should be deleted because it does not allow for many points to be awarded to bicycle projects, except in cities where there is already an existing extensive bicycle lane network. The adopted evaluation criteria should give each agency an equal chance to receive the maximum number of points. "Missing Link" as it stands, has a bias toward the cities that have an existing bicycle lane network. It is important to note that agencies that recognize this bias in the evaluation criteria have ceased to submit bicycle project applications out of fear that they would be wasting their time. 3. Revise "Safety" Existing Criterion: "SAFETY — Points are awarded on the basis of a project's potential to correct current safety problems." Recommendation: "SAFETY ENHANCEMENT - The project will improve the safety of an existing unofficial route frequently used by pedestrians/ bicyclists. The project will enhance the physical safety of pedestrians/ bicyclists upon completion." This criterion revision is necessary to clarify the basis for evaluation committee members to assign safety points to each project they review. In addition, the revision broadens the scope of the criterion to include pedestrian and bicycle projects alike. 4. Revise "Importance as a Transportation Alternative" Existing Criterion: "IMPORTANCE AS A TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVE — Points are awarded on the basis of a project's potential to attract users who would otherwise use an automobile." Recommendation: "TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVE — Provides a safe route to school, work, shopping, and/or public transportation that otherwise requires a motor vehicle to reach." This criterion revision more clearly defines the reasons for evaluation committee members to award points to a project for being a transportation alternative. This criterion speaks to the driving force behind the creation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian program: it funds bicycle and pedestrian projects that decrease or eliminate the need for motor vehicles. 5. Revise "Matching Funds" Existing Criterion: "MATCHING FUNDS — This factor is used to help ensure that there is local funding participation in the project — not just an application for "free" money. One point would be awarded for each 5% of total project cost that is financed by the local agency." Recommendation: "MATCHING FUNDS — One point is awarded for every 5% of match provided by the applying agency." By revising this criterion, the 50% local match maximum is adjusted to a 90% maximum. Agencies have pointed out in the past that the existing evaluation criteria encourages them to cap their local match at 50%, due to receiving the maximum number of points at this level. By increasing the maximum match to 90%, the Commission would be encouraging agencies to submit projects with more local match, in turn facilitating the Commission in potentially awarding more projects each year with the same level of funds. 6. Revise "Population Equity" Existing Criterion: "POPULATION EQUITY — The purpose of this factor is to help ensure that one agency does not receive all the funds. The applicant receives the maximum 10 points if the amount of funds requested does not exceed what the applicant would receive if the funds were allocated by population. Year to year totals are recorded so that an applicant could build up a "credit'. {Calculated by RCTC) Recommendation: "POPULATION EQUITY — The applying agency will receive the maximum amount of points if the amount of funds requested does not exceed what the applicant would receive if the funds were allocated by population. (Calculated annually by RCTC). The revision to the description of "Population Equity" is solely to simplify and clarify the purpose of this criterion to the evaluation committee. Additional Criteria 7. Add Bicycle Project Bonus Criterion The "Bonus" section of the evaluation criteria has been revised to offer an opportunity for agencies who submit bicycle projects to receive bonus points. The bonus will be awarded to those applicants whose proposed bicycle projects are in the most recently adopted Non -Motorized Transportation Plan. 8. Add "Requested SB 821 Funds" Criterion "REQUESTED SB 821 FUNDS — A tiered point system that offers a maximum number of points for requesting a minimal amount of SB 821 funding. Point allocation begins at $0 - $24,999 earning 12 points. Points decrease by 1 for every $25,000 increase in requested funding, reaching zero points at a request of $300,000 or higher." The "Requested SB 821 Funds" criterion addresses an aspect of project applications that has been overlooked in the past. Similar to the revised "Matching Funds" criterion, this criterion encourages local agencies to submit project applications for projects either that it feels are so significant that all of the points it needs will be awarded in the other criteria, or that it is providing a significant amount of local funding on. Technical Revisions 9. Revise Point Distribution Due to the various revisions, deletions, and additions of the evaluation criteria, the need for a revised point distribution has arisen. The suggested point distribution for the evaluation criteria proposed add up to a total of 100 possible points, with the potential to receive 10 bonus points (Attachment 2). Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: N/A Year: FY 2011/12 Amount: N/A Source of Funds: LTF Article 3 Budget Adjustment: N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: N/A Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: Attachments: 1) Riverside County Transportation Commission Existing SB 821 Evaluation Criteria 2) DRAFT Riverside County Transportation Commission Proposed SB 821 Evaluation Criteria ATTACHMENT 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION EXISTING SB 821 EVALUATION CRITERIA FACTOR 1. USE The extent of potential use of a bicycle or pedestrian facility is the most important factor. Emphasis of this factor helps ensure the greatest benefits will be derived from the expenditure of SB 821 funds. Relative usage is to be derived from analysis of trip generators and attractors adjacent to the project. 2. SAFETY Points are awarded on the basis of a project's potential to correct current safety problems. 3. IMPORTANCE AS A TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVE Points are awarded on the basis of a project's potential to attract users who would otherwise use an automobile. 4. MISSING LINK, EXTENSION, OR CONNECTIVITY Points are awarded to projects that link, are extensions of, or potentially connect to existing facilities. 5. MATCHING FUNDS This factor is used to help ensure that there is local funding participation in the project - not just an application for "free" money. One point would be awarded for each 5% of total project cost that is financed by the local agency. 6. POPULATION EQUITY The purpose of this factor is to help ensure that one agency does not receive all the funds. The applicant receives the maximum 10 points if the amount of funds requested does not exceed what the applicant would receive if the funds were allocated by population. Year to year totals are recorded so that an applicant could build up a "credit". (Calculated by RCTC) 7. PHYSICAL ACCESSIBILITY ENHANCEMENT The purpose of this factor is to enhance the physical accessibility of existing pedestrian projects. Applicant agencies may receive up to 10 "bonus" points for their project proposals which improve the physical access to existing facilities. MAXIMUM POINTS 25 20 20 15 10 10 10 BONUS ATTACHMENT RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PROPOSED SB 821 DRAFT PROJECT EVALUATION CRITERIA MAXIMUM FACTOR POINTS 1 TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVE 30 Provides a safe route to school, work, shopping, or public transportation that otherwise requires a motor vehicle to reach. 2. SAFETY ENHANCEMENT The project will improve the safety of an existing unofficial route frequently used by pedestrians/bicyclists. The project would enhance the physical safety of pedestrians/bicyclists when completed. 3. REQUESTED SB 821 FUNDS A tiered point system that offers a maximum number of points for requesting a minimal amount of SB 821 funding. Point allocation starts at $0 - $24,999 earning 12 points. Points decrease by 1 for every $25000 increase in requested funding, reaching zero at a request of $300000 or higher. 4. MATCHING FUNDS= One point is awarded for every 5% of match provided by the applying agency. 5. POPULATION EQUITY The applyingagency will receive the maximum amount of points if the amount of funds requested does not exceed what the applicant would receive if the funds were allocated by population. (Calculated annually by RCTC) 6. BONUS A) FOR PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS: Applicant agencies may receive up to 10 "bonus" points for submitting a project application that improves the physical access of existing pedestrian facilities. B) FOR BICYCLE PROJECTS: Applicant agencies may receive up to 10 "bonus" points for submitting an application for a bicycle project that is included in the most recently adopted Non -Motorized Transportation Plan. 30 12 18 10 10 BONUS RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: October 28, 2010 TO: Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council FROM: Fina Clemente, Program Manager THROUGH: Robert Yates, Multimodal Services Director SUBJECT: Committee Appointments: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Evaluation Committee and 2011 Universal Call for Projects Evaluation Committee STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is to seek appointment of Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (CAC/SSTAC) members to the following evaluation committees: 1) Three members to serve on the FY 2011/12 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Evaluation Committee (SB 821); and 2) Two members to serve on the 2011 Universal Call for Projects Evaluation Committee for Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC), New Freedom, and Measure A program funding. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Annually, staff request participation of CAC/SSTAC members in reviewing and ranking projects for the Commission's SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program. Every 2 years, staff also request CAC/SSTAC's participation in the evaluation of the Universal Call for Projects for the JARC and New Freedom federal programs and Specialized Transit Measure A funding. Following is a brief description of each program: SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program The SB 821 program is a discretionary program administered by the Commission. Each year, 2% of the LTF revenue is made available for use on bicycle and pedestrian facility projects. Steps to carry out the program are as follows: a. All cities in the County are notified of the SB 821 program estimate of available funding and are requested to submit project proposals. The Commission's SB 821 program policies, project application, and evaluation criteria are also provided with the notification; b. The Commission's SB 821 Evaluation Committee, comprised of members of the Commission's Technical and Citizens Advisory Committees (3 each), meets to review and rank the project applications using the evaluation criteria adopted by the Commission and recommends projects and funding amounts to the Commission for approval; and c. The Commission reviews the Committee's recommendations and approves a program of bicycle and pedestrian projects for funding. Universal Call for Projects for Measure A Specialized Transit Program and JARC and New Freedom Federal programs Western Riverside Measure A Specialized Transportation Program RCTC is releasing a Call for Projects for the western Riverside County Measure A Specialized Transit Program covering fiscal years 2011/12 and 2012/13. In western county, Commission policy under the 1989 Measure A, apportions 2.5% of the current Measure A half -cent sales tax. revenues for the Specialized Transit program designed for senior citizens, persons with disabilities and the truly needy who need specialized transportation services over and above what public operators can provide. Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) The JARC program supports the development and maintenance of services designed to transport welfare recipients and eligible low-income individuals to and from jobs and activities related to their employment. New Freedom The New Freedom program provides funding for new public transportation services and alternatives to public transportation services, for people with disabilities, beyond those required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The SB 821 Evaluation Committee meeting will be held in May 2011. Evaluation period for the Universal Call for Projects will be conducted between January and March 2011. Prior to Evaluation Committee meetings, members are expected to review and score project proposals. • ',/i7 e',.-.11,'S‘ ---- - "1'4 ."'S (-)7Ysli 16 e ' L ‘7-412;911z/‘".7( a6- ei--z - , gip "--%.t.2-3- 1. sv-7,1,VT1vVV% 1-1 Olt\ 1,-nrugm tti ti ...111 t\ lI`dW-3 210 3N0Hd3131 32lfllt/N91S CLNIIIki 3SV31d) 1S3f19 .....,,,,yJ4./9-140,,,,g_ _.. gl, L. -, 2,„(.37,. salei Liaqou uigana aweW ( iii - c.) Z, '---, ---------77, ,---4,--.A aluawao euu 1IV11-3 210NOHd 131 321f11b�N91S JJb�1S 01011 >tt'ult(1:-.1''°t:)Ca S7A/4"al 1.1.,..-..fliliGt, �,(� / alqeaauanklew 406,-;Nro\ A o►VAI 61‘ " �, xneapogiul �CaaauS „�oae� �a-, �z�,:�5 °v, u � aaaiaups �Cpui3 4:4- dG �'�-� LC � � ''' , -ti� 7 e6nd eaapuy gt.S.--$11 C >VA_�� euni-aow ailaaoi / eII!uad oleunI,aod ')--S: h � --S 11 E - ON_ • �-to w znl? lea2-3 - 1,�� �� �� -,�3. ri inoi aoiun3 sumoj uair ---s-s.--7' / he 1...,0,/ - - zapineua8 aalad 9.7 er •02.roc!•,P&W�r.eev bz.'2so«isd_ , uii6uy 0110110!W lIVW-3 210 3N0Hd3131 321111VN91S 311b'N S.11391411 'W'd OE: L O LOZ '8Z Jag0130 '�Ceps�n41 ioNnoo AIJOSIACIV NOIIVIIJOdSNVILL S301A1J3S 1VIDOS/33.LL110100 AHOSIMN SN3ZI110 NI NIS • 1 .--f7clot ci to urn , fit. Vvl , to j d �-15 Li 1�-��o�M I.ti110 �o �i � � ryrnyei\ _ G\vn ��,�, `. filik-fAIL OS tV ' CH i a viva -t is a bw-} y w4 WIb &'''71 co.A �� lIVW-3 210 3N0Hd3131 311f11VN91S CLNIlld 3SV31d) 1S3f19 4444 • 'W'd OE: L OIOZ `82 Jagoiop'Aepsin41 ioNnoo AllOSIA0V NOLLVIHOdSNVILL SDIA/13S 1VIDOS/33.111111100 AHOSIACIV SN3ZI110 NI WS •