J:\2006\Memo Items\7 - July 2006\Lifeline Transportation Program FY0607.doc Page 2 of 5

Transcription

1

2 address gaps or barriers identified through community-based transportation plans, welfare-towork plans, or other community-based documentation of need; and improve a range of transportation choices for low-income persons. The LTP can fund both capital and operating projects. Examples of operating projects include new or enhanced fixed route transit services, restoration of lifeline-related transit services eliminated due to budget shortfalls, shuttles, children s programs, taxi voucher programs, and improved access to autos. Examples of eligible capital projects include the purchase of vehicles such as buses, sedans or vans, and the provision of bus shelters, benches, lighting, and sidewalk improvements. The predecessor to the LTP, the Low Income Flexible Transportation Program (LIFT), was administered by MTC. After this programming cycle, MTC will lead an evaluation of the LTP to, among other things, determine if it is better administered at the local level by the CMAs, or at the regional level by MTC. The purpose of this memorandum is to present our recommended LTP project priorities to the Plans and Programs Committee and to seek a recommendation of approval. DISCUSSION Call for s: On March 3, 2006 we issued a call for projects for San Francisco s share of LTP funds for Fiscal Year 2006/07 through Fiscal Year 2008/09. We have $2,753,000 available for San Francisco projects. The LTP program is funded by through a combination of federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ), Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) funds, and State Transit Assistance (STA) funds; therefore, eligibility is constrained by the fact that projects must meet applicable fund source requirements, as well as timely use of funds deadlines. A minimum of 20% of the total project budget must be derived from local fund sources or federal non-transportation fund sources to match the grants. We issued the call for projects to a wide range of agency and community stakeholders, including contacts from both the Authority and MTC s relevant mailing lists, with a special emphasis on nontraditional project sponsors such as community-based organizations and social service agencies. Additionally, in February we co-hosted a LTP public workshop with MTC which was well attended by agency and community stakeholders. Applications Received: By the April 28, 2006 deadline, we received six applications requesting a total of $3,177,762 in LTP funds, about $425,000 more than the available funding. Brief descriptions of the candidate projects including the project sponsor, amount of requested funding, and source of local match funds are shown in Attachment 1. The actual applications are available from the Authority staff upon request. Evaluation Process: The evaluation process had two steps: screening for eligibility, and project ranking based largely on MTC-required evaluation criteria. The Authority first screened the submitted applications for project eligibility, and all six submitted projects met the general goals of the LTP listed above. All submitted projects also identified funding for the required 20% minimum local match. Consistent with MTC s LTP guidelines, we formed a selection panel comprised of individuals representing the Authority, a transit operator, a social service agency, and a community stakeholder. The selection panel convened on June 27, 2006 to score the submitted applications and develop a J:\2006\Memo Items\7 - July 2006\Lifeline Transportation Program FY0607.doc Page 2 of 5

3 recommended list of project priorities. The scoring criteria the selection panel used to evaluate the submitted projects were: project need and stated goals and objectives; implementation plan; project budget and sustainability; coordination and project outreach; cost effectiveness and performance indicators; project readiness; and local match. Recommendation: The selection panel s recommendation for LTP project priorities with which we concur is summarized below. The recommendation is also detailed in Attachment 1. Fully fund three of the submitted projects: MUNI Route 109 Treasure Island Service ($525,000); MUNI Route 29 Service Expansion ($946,223); and Lifeline Fast Pass Distribution ($219,333). Partially fund the Outreach Initiative for Lifeline Transit Access for two years ($137,741) instead of the requested three years ($203,327). The selection panel felt that two years would prove sufficient to achieve the program s goals (e.g. increasing public awareness of this discounted pass for low income persons), and the lower amount frees up enough funds to cover another eligible project. Fully fund the Bayview Hunters Point (BVHP) Community Transport to Health Care Settings and Health-Related Services project ($924,879), contingent on specific conditions detailed below. If these conditions are not met, any excess LTP funds would be programmed to the Tenderloin Pedestrian Enhancements project (see next bullet). Do not fund the Tenderloin Pedestrian Enhancements project at this time. However, if the BVHP project is partially funded because the sponsor is unable to meet the conditions for funding, the Tenderloin project would receive any excess funds. BVHP : The BVHP project truly captures the intent of the LTP and will close a significant gap in service that low-income residents face when trying to access one of the most essential of human services, healthcare. However, the project scope, schedule and budget need further clarification and strengthening to provide greater confidence that the project can be delivered with the recommended and can comply with timely use of funds requirements. Given the nature of the BVHP project, and the non-traditional project sponsor, we are working closely with the applicant to refine the scope, schedule, budget, and implementation plan. We have already met with the project sponsor and asked them to rethink elements of their application (specifically scope and cost estimates), and resubmit it to the Authority by August 31, At that point we will decide whether the modified project can realistically be implemented within budget and in a timely fashion, or whether a portion of its funding should shift to the Tenderloin Pedestrian Enhancement project instead. J:\2006\Memo Items\7 - July 2006\Lifeline Transportation Program FY0607.doc Page 3 of 5

4 Tenderloin Pedestrian Enhancements : Even though the community would likely support this project, the application scored the lowest of the six submitted projects because it lacked evidence of as strong community participation in developing and prioritizing the project as other applications. Unfortunately, the (DPT) plan has not yet been adopted, and at the time of the LTP call for projects, our Tenderloin-Little Saigon Community Based Transportation Plan had not progressed far enough to influence the application. Also, as a capital project it will be able to compete for discretionary grant funding (e.g. Proposition K and Safe Routes to Transit) where, as operating projects, the others will not. Next Steps: The Authority will work with MTC to identify which of the three LTP funding sources (CMAQ, JARC, and STA) can be used to fund each of the submitted projects. While some of the submitted projects clearly qualify for one or more of the funding sources, matching other projects to the eligibility requirements associated with the proposed fund sources is challenging, even though the projects met the general LTP guidelines established by MTC. For example, improved pedestrian lighting has surfaced as a high priority in several ongoing Community Based Transportation Plans and lighting is listed as an eligible project type in MTC s LTP guidelines. However, when the eligibility of the specific funding sources is reviewed, lighting is not eligible as the primary focus of a project and is only eligible under very limited circumstances (e.g. lighting directly at a transit stop, but not on the blocks between stops). To resolve these eligibility issues, we are exploring the possibility of funding swaps in order to fund otherwise LTP-eligible projects, and are working with MTC to resolve the eligibility issues before they seek approval of their priorities in October Following the consideration of the LTP project priorities by the Committee and the Board, the Authority is required to submit them to MTC for concurrence and approval. As CMA we are responsible for project oversight, including monitoring timely use of funds and other MTC requirements. Additionally, we will also review the performance data that project sponsors are required to collect to gauge the accomplishments and effectiveness of each project. We have invited project sponsors to attend the Committee meeting to answer any questions the Committee may have. We are moving forward with this recommendation to act on the LTP priorities in July so that Board approval would not be delayed until September, which could threaten the sponsors ability to obligate funds before running up against timely use of funds requirements. Funds are expected to be available to project sponsors in early We are seeking a recommendation to approve the Fiscal Year 2006/07 to Fiscal Year 2008/09 LTP project priorities. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend approval of the Fiscal Year 2006/07 to Fiscal Year 2008/09 LTP project priorities. 2. Recommend approval of the Fiscal Year 2006/07 to Fiscal Year 2008/09 LTP project priorities, with modifications. 3. Defer action, pending additional information or further staff analysis. CAC POSITION The CAC was briefed on this item at its June 28, 2006 meeting, and unanimously adopted a motion of support for the staff recommendation. J:\2006\Memo Items\7 - July 2006\Lifeline Transportation Program FY0607.doc Page 4 of 5

5 FINANCIAL IMPACTS There are no direct impacts on the Authority s adopted Fiscal Year 2006/07 budget associated with the recommended action. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of the Fiscal Year 2006/07 to Fiscal Year 2008/09 LTP project priorities. Attachments 1 Draft Fiscal Year 2006/07 to Fiscal Year 2007/08 Lifeline Transportation Program Priorities J:\2006\Memo Items\7 - July 2006\Lifeline Transportation Program FY0607.doc Page 5 of 5

6 Attachment 1 - Draft Fiscal Year 2006/07 to Fiscal Year 2007/08 Lifeline Transportation Program Priorities Name & Description Sponsor Partners Total Cost Requested Rank Notes Recommended Outreach Initiative for Lifeline Transit Access - 3- year effort to conduct outreach to low-income households to facilitate increased access to MUNI transit by increasing awareness of the Lifeline Fast Pass, a discounted monthly pass for low-income persons. Tenderloin Housing Clinic (THC) Human Services Agency, $289,311 $203,327 1 Fund for two years of the requested three, which should prove sufficient to achieve goals of project. $137,741 MUNI Route 109, Treasure Island Service - maintain late night service and more frequent service during peak periods and on weekends between San Francisco and Treasure Island for three years. n/a $1,797,592 $525,000 2 Fully fund. This service is currently supported by LIFT funds, the predecessor to LTP, but these funds will expire soon. $525,000 MUNI Route 29 Service Expansion - for 3 years, add two additional buses for 10 hours per day, Monday through Friday to improve reliability and relieve overcrowding. n/a $1,182,778 $946,223 3 Fully fund. $946,223 Bayview Hunters Point (BVHP) Community Transport to Health Care Settings and Health- Related Services - for 3 years, offer subsidized transportation to health-related services for BVHP residents, including taxi scrip for chronic disease management appointments outside of BVHP, guaranteed ride home for after-hours and urgent care clinic visits, and shuttles to community health centers and SF General Hospital. Includes significant outreach about new transportation programs and community involvement during project evaluation. Bayview Hunters Point Foundation for Community Improvement (BVHPF) DPH, Hospital Council, African American Health Disparity $1,156,879 $924,879 4 Fully fund, contingent on the project sponsor working with Authority staff to update scope, timeline, budget, and implementation plan. If conditions for funding are not met by 08/31/2006, any remaining funds would be redirected to the Tenderloin Pedestrian Enhancements project. $924,879 P:\Lifeline Program\Applications Received\Evaluation\Lifeline Recommendations table to PPC Page 1 of 2

7 Attachment 1 - Draft Fiscal Year 2006/07 to Fiscal Year 2007/08 Lifeline Transportation Program Priorities Name & Description Sponsor Partners Total Cost Requested Rank Notes Recommended Lifeline Fast Pass Distribution Expansion - expand distribution of MUNI's Lifeline Fast Pass to publicly owned properties at 1440 Harrison and 1 South Van Ness for more convenient access and better accomodation of recipients during distribution times. This 2-year project includes both capital improvements and operating support. Human Services Agency $274,166 $219,333 5 Fully fund. $219,333 Tenderloin Pedestrian Enhancements - installation of curb bulbs at the intersections of Jones/Golden Gate, Jones/Eddy, and Jones/Turk and a bus bulb and stop relocation at Jones/Geary to improve pedestrian safety and transit operations. DPW $559,000 $359,000 6 Do not fund at this time. If the BVHP Foundation is unable to meet conditions above, we would redirect any remaining funds to this project. This application lacked evidence of community participation in project prioritization and has more opportunity for discretionary grant funds than the other projects. $0 Total Costs and Requests: $5,259,726 $3,177,762 Total Recommended for LTP s: $2,753,176 Total LTP Funds Availalbe: $2,753,176 P:\Lifeline Program\Applications Received\Evaluation\Lifeline Recommendations table to PPC Page 2 of 2