Special Needs Transportation Committee

Transcription

1 Special Needs Transportation Committee May 16, :30 a.m. 11:30 a.m. PSRC Board Room 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA :30 1. Welcome and Introductions Marianna Hanefeld, Chair WSDOT Community Liaison Staffing Update Monica Ghosh, WSDOT 2. Public Comment 3. Approval of Meeting Summary April 18, 2018* 9:35 4. Reports from PSRC Committees and Boards Regional Staff Committee Marianna Hanefeld, Chair Transportation Operators Committee Marianna Hanefeld, Chair 9:45 5. Discussion: 2018 Transit Integration Report Maggie Moore & Gil Cerise, PSRC PSRC is seeking topics for the 2018 Transit Integration Report. Link to the Transit Integration page: 10:00 6. Discussion: PSRC Region s Priority Rankings for WSDOT Consolidated Grant Competition Biennium* Gil Cerise, Sarah Gutschow & Jean Kim, PSRC Review updated Draft policy premises and description for how applications will be reviewed and assessment shared with SNTC (20 minutes) Review Additional Factors for Determining Regional Priority Rankings for PSRC Region (25 minutes) 10:45 7. Information: Preparing for Consolidated Grant Competition. Follow-up on Materials Shared at April SNTC Monica Ghosh, Ryan Warner & Stacy Clauson, WSDOT Information can be found at: What projects are eligible to seek four years of funding? o performance measurement quantitative assessment o project standing (project/sponsors in or out of good standing) What circumstances trigger need to submit two separate WSDOT applications? Eligibility assessments of applications in context of regional ranking review 11:15 8. Discussion: Local Coalition Reports / Emerging Issues Local Coalition Mobility Managers/Representatives 9. Next Meeting: June 20, 2018 from 9:30 am to 11:30 am in PSRC Board Room, 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle, WA : Adjourn *Supporting materials attached Sign language and communication material in alternate formats can be arranged given sufficient notice by calling (206) or TTY Relay 711. 中文 Chinese, 한국 Korean, Русский Russian, Español Spanish, Tagalog, Tiếng việt Vietnamese call

2 Puget Sound Regional Council Special Needs at W ork Transportation Committee. April 18, 2018 Voting Members and Alternates Represented at the Table 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA fax psrc.org Marianna Hanefeld, Chair SNOTRAC; John Peterson, Vice-Chair Snohomish County LTC and Aging; Jerri Kelly Pierce County Human Services; Francie Peltier PCCTC; Tim Renfro Pierce Transit; Penny Lara King County Metro; Jacqueline Mann PSESD Via phone: Leigh Spruce SNOTRAC; Aaron Morrow KCMC; Christina Robertson - Catholic Community Services Snohomish; Francois Larivee Hopelink; Alex O Reilly City of Bellevue; John Mikel - Snohomish County Long Term Care & Aging; Karl Farnsworth Kitsap Transit Non-voting Members Represented at the Table Staci Haber KCMC; Monica Ghosh WSDOT; Amy Biggs Mt. Si Senior Center; Scott Ninneman - King County Dept of Community & Human Services; Mona Steele Homage-TAP; Hollianne Monson - Catholic Community Service of WW - King County Via phone: Nicole Patrick WSDOT Other Guests: Perry Denman CRISTA Senior Living; Kelly Lindsey King County Metro; Joshua Jackson King County Metro PSRC Staff: Gil Cerise, Sarah Gutschow; Jean Kim, Kathryn Johnson, Monica Adkins Welcome and Introductions, Public Comment, and Announcements Marianna Hanefeld, Chair, welcomed everyone at 9:30 a.m. Self-introductions were provided around the room and on the phone. Public Comments There were no public comments. Approval of Meeting Summary The meeting summary for the March 21, 2018 meeting was approved. Reports from PSRC Committees and Boards Transportation Operators Committee Gil Cerise, PSRC, noted that the March meeting was canceled, but reviewed some of the items that would be on the April agenda. Regional Staff Committee Regional Staff Committee meeting for April had not occurred by the time SNTC met. TDM Committee Staci Haber, Hopelink, reported that there was discussion of the TDM Committee becoming a formal advisory committee, including formalizing a non-voting seat from SNTC. Staci questioned whether a non-voting member from SNTC would be OK. Gil Cerise, PSRC, noted that it will not necessarily require that the SNTC member be a voting member, and that the idea is to have contunuity between the different committees. Transportation Policy Board Gil Cerise, PSRC, mentioned that the change in special needs transportation grant process was presented and the TPB reccommended this for final approval to the Executive Board, which will meet on April 26, Agenda Item 3-Page 1

3 Information: ORCA for All! Community Specific resources by King County Metro Penny Lara, King County Metro Penny Lara, King County Metro, introduced colleagues Kelly Lindsey and Joshua Jackson from King County Metro and provided an overview of ORCA Regional Transit Coordination Grant and how it is being used to help the Limited English Proficiency (LEP) population. She explained how she used one-on-one outreach to get data regarding how much LEP communities uses public transit, how they paid for it and if they were aware of the ORCA program. She said she received many responses that they knew of the ORCA card but did not understand how to get one, and how it worked. She said she contacted her colleagues, Kelly and Joshua, to put together a more visual explanation of the ORCA program to reach more LEP users using a promotional video spot to increase ORCA awareness and card use. She said the video will be shared with all other agencies and is also located on orcacard.com website. The presentation can be found here. Discussion: PSRC Region s Priority Rankings for WSDOT Consolidated Grant Competition Biennium* Gil Cerise, Sarah Gutschow & Jean Kim, PSRC Nicole Patrick, WSDOT, provided an update to the WSDOT Consolidated Grant program, and a review of the white papers resulting from the most recent Grants Program Advisory Committee (GPAC) process. These white papers address things like qualifications for applying for four years of funding vs. two years of funding; and how the number of regional priority rankings are assigned across the state. She noted that the information is also on the WSDOT.gov website. Gil Cerise, PSRC, reviewed Draft policy premises identified in March SNTC and explained that he would go over the matrix of each of these for discussion with the committee to decide on the most promising ones to use for regional priority rankings. He noted these questions are a preliminary screening to help identify the higher priority applications for consideration of a regional priority ranking. All of the questions were constructed for a yes or no answer. Gil noted that PSRC staff took the SNTC s original list of topics to include and, in some cases, combined them into a single question. Committee members provided feedback and made decisions on what policy premises to use for the regional priority rankings. The committee agreed to most of the six proposed policy premises with minor edits. The committee requested a more substantive change to policy premise #4, relating to unnecessary duplication; and agreed to removal of Policy Premise #6 Underserved Populations. All applications are likley to address underserved populations. Therefore, it is difficult to create a meaningful policy premise that would distinguish among the applications submitted. There was discussion about the need for preserving existing programs to also allow capital projects to be considered preservation in order to receive those points, and the need for applications to show longterm financial sustainabiltiy by relying less and less on this competitive grant program. PSRC staff indicated that they will examine these issues and provide proposed updates to the draft Policy Premises for the committee s consideration in May. PSRC reviewed an example of how the Policy Premises could be addressed in reviewing some example applications. The example showed how the polciy premises could be used to provide SNTC with an initial assessment of applications submitted for consideration of an A, B, C, or D ranking. The next question was who would provide this initial assessment. Options included PSRC staff, a committee of stakeholders, or a combination of the two. The committee agreed that PSRC staff can provide a neutral and fair assessment of grant applications for the policy premises. Due to limited time, the additional topic for this agenda item was not discussed, so it was noted that this topic would be discussed at the next meeting: Review Additional Factors for Consideration in Deliberations Additional factors for consideration in deliberations are the same as used in past grant competitions. The policy premises are the initial basis, and these factors are then used to help the SNTC develop a recommendation for other PSRC committees and boards to act on before sending them on to WSDOT for their scoring process. Agenda Item 3-Page 2

4 Information/Discussion: TNC Surcharges in Seattle Staci Haber, Hopelink There was not time to hold this discussion, which was initiated by Steve Hutchins, Around the Sound, and Staci Haber, Hopelink. Staci Haber, Hopelink, provided a link to information on the proposal and possible implications for people with special transportation needs that use Uber and similar service. The article with the information is located: Discussion: Local Coalition Reports / Emerging Issues Local Coalition Mobility Managers/Representatives Staci Haber, Hopelink, reported that hat the King County Accessible Travel in Your Community map is now also available in Spanish. She said the next Coalition meeting is on May 15 in Shoreline and noted that KCMC is continuing their field trip series, and that the next field trip will be to Catholic Community Services of Western Washington (King County). Jerri Kelly, PCHS, said that she is working on a newsletter and asked people to let her know if they want to be added tio the newsletter. Marianna Hanefeld, SNOTRAC, reminded everyone to let her know if anyone wishes to be added to the SNOTRAC newsletter. She also mentioned that the SNOTRAC April 23 rd meeting will be a grants workshop, which will offer grant writing tips at the Marysville Library, and will also have a focus on obtaining non-traditional grants. Gil Cerise, PSRC, reminded everyone about the handout from the WA State Ferries regarding their long range plan update and also mentioned that WSDOT is planning a grants training sessions coming up in the summer. Jean Kim, PSRC, reminded everyone that the grants funding opportunities worksheet had been updated with a few new grants, since the last meeting. Next meeting May 16, 2018 from 9:30 11:30 a.m. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m. Agenda Item 3-Page 3

5 Item 6 MEMORANDUM May 16, 2018 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Special Needs Transportation Committee (SNTC) Gil Cerise, PSRC Regional Priority Ranking Materials for 2018 Consolidated Grant Call for Projects IN BRIEF In preparation for the Consolidated Grant competition call for projects in July 2018, PSRC is preparing for its role in identifying regional priority projects for State consideration. At the May 16, 2018 SNTC meeting, PSRC will review: 1. Draft amended policy premises for regional priority rankings, and 2. Draft additional considerations for SNTC recommendations in the fall of At the last meeting, SNTC agreed that PSRC staff will evaluate grant applications in association the region s policy premises. DISCUSSION Policy Premises At the March SNTC meeting, the committee provided feedback on some potential policy premises that could be used to identify higher and lower priority projects for regional priority rankings. At the April SNTC meeting, the committee reviewed the draft policy premises in some detail and provided feedback to staff. PSRC staff prepared edits to the draft policy premises which are in track-changes on Attachment 6A. A couple of overarching themes included: Create the policy premises in such a way that they can be answered with a yes or no. This is not a scoring exercise. Make the questions as simple as possible. In addition, help applicants by providing guidance on what is being sought in the policy premise question, if necessary. A desire to only include policy premises that distinguish among applications submitted for evaluation. For example, all applications are expected to address underserved populations. Therefore, the recommendation was to remove that policy premise (old #6 of the Draft Policy Premises), since all applications would likely be able to answer yes that they are addressing underserved populations. There were questions about how an applicant completing the WSDOT questionnaire would be able to respond to PSRC policy premises to receive a regional priority ranking. Special Needs Transportation Committee Agenda Item 6-Page 1 May 16, 2018

6 There was a suggestion to provide a crosswalk or guidance for where an applicant could include the information needed for the policy premises. The main topics for consideration in Attachment 6A, include: Policy Premise #1 is associated with preservation of existing programs. There were comments to allow inclusion of capital projects to be considered as preservation of an existing program. PSRC staff revised the language 1) to simplify this question, and 2) to allow for capital projects supporting preservation of an existing program to quality for a yes in this policy premise. Based upon the 2016 grant competition, only two applications would answer no to this question with inclusion of capital projects in this policy premise. New Policy Premise #6 Financial Sustainability. At the last committee meeting, members suggesting adding a policy premise that supports applications that are showing financial sustainability by not relying too heavily on this competitive grant for ongoing funding support. PSRC staff prepared a draft policy premise to address this by asking which projects are requiring less than the maximum amounts allowed under federal law for federal funds. In some cases, applicants request either these amounts or more than these amounts in the form of federal and state funds. The point is that applications that seek less than 50% (for operations) or 80% (capital and mobility management) of their budget in the form of federal or state grant funds are providing a higher amount of local matching funds. These projects will receive a yes in this category of policy premise. Additional Considerations for Deliberation Attachment 6B includes a mark-up of the original draft Additional Considerations for Deliberation list provided to this committee at the past meeting. The edited list suggests 5 additional considerations for deliberation that can be used. These are summarized as follows: Geographic distribution of regional priority rankings. In past competitions, PSRC tracked the distribution of funding in the region. Since this is the first grant competition under the streamlined grant process, we advise that this category be refreshed to track only distribution of regional rankings (A s, B s, and C s) by county starting with this year s competition. It should be noted that the comparison of where people with special transportation needs live in the region, particularly seniors and people with disabilities, is a data point that can be used for this factor. It is not a separate factor to be used independently. Project types. No changes. This factor addresses how many mobility management, operating, and capital projects are being addressed. The committee can discuss whether other project types should be considered. Agency equity. No changes. This factor addresses the number of projects by agency. True need/agency financial participation. This factor addresses projects that have true need and are unable to provide much local matching funds to a project; in comparison to projects that demonstrate local support through one more local partners providing local matching funds particularly those providing overmatch. It should be noted that this topic overlaps with the Financial Sustainability policy premise noted above. If that is accepted as a policy premise, PSRC recommends removing this from additional considerations for deliberation. Special Needs Transportation Committee Agenda Item 6-Page 2 May 16, 2018

7 Strategic application of state funds. This factor continues applying a strategic review of applications, their possible eligibility for funding sources and their ability to access large urban funding, or funding that has historically been difficult to distribute, such as Traditional Section 5310 funds. Please note that Funding source eligibility (old #7 of the Draft Additional Considerations) is recommended to be consolidated into Strategic application of state funds. If you have questions prior to the meeting, please contact Gil Cerise at gcerise@psrc.org or (206) Attachment 6A: DRAFT Revised Policy Premises Attachment 6B: DRAFT Additional Considerations for Deliberation Special Needs Transportation Committee Agenda Item 6-Page 3 May 16, 2018

8 Attachment 6A: Policy Premises for Influencing Regional Priority Rankings for PSRC Region Simple Matrix of Policy Premises 1) Preservation vs. New/Expansion: Guidance for which WSDOT application question addresses this topic Existing projects: does the application demonstrate the impact of not being funded will end up creating a new need(s) or gap(s) that does not currently exist?is the application for preservation of an existing program, or needed to support ongoing operations of an existing program? This includes capital needs to support an existing program. Guidance: New/expansions: answer No because they will not create a new need or gap. 2) Emerging Needs and Gaps: Does the application support programs meeting Emerging Needs and Gaps identified in the Coordinated Plan (page 31)? Guidance: Only applications showing that they address one or more Emerging Needs and Gaps will receive a Yes. Applications addressing other needs and gaps in the Coordinated Plan will receive a No. 3) Prioritized Strategies: Does the application address High priority strategy(ies) identified in the Coordinated Plan (page 43)? 4) Unnecessary Duplication: Does application clearly demonstrate that there are no alternate public transportation options for the populations served by the program within same geographic area? If application was not funded, would there be NO other alternative public transportation options for the population(s) served by the program within the same geographic area? If there is(are) duplication in services, does the application demonstrate that the duplication is necessary with clear statement and/or supporting data? Special Needs Transportation Committee Agenda Item 6A-Page 1 Attachment 6A

9 Guidance: The expectation in addressing unnecessary duplications is that applicants can explain how their service or project is different and does not duplicate other services for target populations, including those provided by public transportation (fixed-route, demand response, etc.). Responding that there is no duplication without explanation is insufficient to warrant a Yes. 5) Performance Measures and Targets: Does the application include appropriate performance measures and targets and a plan for ongoing data collection and evaluation of program performance? 6) Underserved Populations: Does the project serve more than 3 target populations with special transportation needs? Question: how to define underserved populations or target populations with special transportation needs? 6) Financial Sustainability: Does the project demonstrate local support and financial sustainability in its budget? Specifically, is the percentage of federal/state funding grant request in the project budget less than 80% for capital/mobility management or less than 50% for operating projects? Special Needs Transportation Committee Agenda Item 6A-Page 2 Attachment 6A

10 Attachment 6B: Additional Considerations for Deliberation Options for Additional Factors 1) Geographical distribution of regional priority rankings Notes: Suggest starting fresh with this additional factor. In previous years, the distribution has been in terms of funding. This year, it will be in terms of A s, B s and C s. This factor can be supported by data showing where people with special transportation needs live by county within the region. In the past, PSRC has provided updated demographic data showing the breakdown of seniors and people with disabilities by county. 2) Comparison of where people with special transportation needs live and growth rates in these populations. NOTE: This is data in support of Geographic distribution of regional priority rankings. 3)2) Project types 4)3) Agency equity 5)4) True need/agency financial participation Note: This topic is covered under the suggested financial sustainability policy premise. Suggest deletion here if it is retained as proposed in Attachment 7A. 6)5) Strategic application of federal/state funds Note: include assessment of possible eligibility. 7) Funding source eligibility NOTE: Funding source eligibility is covered under Strategic application of federal/state funds. Special Needs Transportation Committee Agenda Item 6B-Page1 Attachment 6B