meeting notice and agenda · 2013-03-12 · meeting notice and agenda social services...

MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA

SOCIAL SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCIL (SSTAC) The SSTAC may take action on any item appearing on this agenda. Monday, March 18, 2013 10 a.m. to 12 noon SANDAG, Conference Room 8B 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101-4231 North County Transit District Videoconference Meeting Room, 1st Floor 810 Mission Avenue Oceanside, CA 92054 Staff Contact: Laurie Gartrell (619) 595-5388 [email protected]

AGENDA HIGHLIGHTS

• JARC, NEW FREEDOM, SENIOR MINI-GRANT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE MONITORING

• MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT SANDAG offices are accessible by public transit. Phone 511 or see www.511sd.com for route information. Secure bicycle parking is available in the building garage off Fourth Avenue. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), SANDAG will accommodate persons who require assistance in order to participate in SANDAG meetings. If such assistance is required, please contact SANDAG at (619) 699-1900 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. To request this document or related reports in an alternative format, please call (619) 699-1900, (619) 699-1904 (TTY), or fax (619) 699-1905.

2

SANDAG operates its programs without regard to race, color, and national origin in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. SANDAG has developed procedures for investigating and tracking Title VI complaints and the procedures for filing a complaint are available to the public upon request. Questions concerning SANDAG nondiscrimination obligations or complaint procedures should be directed to SANDAG General Counsel, John Kirk, at (619) 699-1997 or [email protected]. Any person who believes himself or herself or any specific class of persons to be subjected to discrimination prohibited by Title VI also may file a written complaint with the Federal Transit Administration. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), SANDAG will accommodate persons who require assistance in order to participate in SANDAG meetings. If such assistance is required, please contact SANDAG at (619) 699-1900 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. To request this document or related reports in an alternative format, please call (619) 699-1900, (619) 699-1904 (TTY), or fax (619) 699-1905. SANDAG agenda materials can be made available in alternative languages. To make a request call (619) 699-1900 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting.

Los materiales de la agenda de SANDAG están disponibles en otros idiomas. Para hacer una solicitud, llame al (619) 699-1900 al menos 72 horas antes de la reunión.

如有需要, 我们可以把SANDAG议程材料翻译成其他語言.

请在会议前至少 72 小时打电话 (619) 699-1900 提出请求.

SANDAG offices are accessible by public transit. Phone 511 or see 511sd.com for route information. Bicycle parking is available in the parking garage of the SANDAG offices

http://www.sdcommute.com/

3

SOCIAL SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCIL

Monday, March 18, 2013

ITEM # RECOMMENDATION

CONSENT

1. INTRODUCTIONS

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS

Members of the public shall have the opportunity to address the SSTAC on any issue within the jurisdiction of SANDAG that is not on this agenda. Anyone desiring to speak shall reserve time by completing a “Request to Speak” form and giving it to the SSTAC coordinator prior to speaking. Public speakers should notify the SSTAC coordinator if they have a handout for distribution to SSTAC members. Public speakers are limited to three minutes or less per person. SSTAC members also may provide information and announcements under this agenda item.

+3. APPROVAL OF JANUARY 23, 2013, MEETING SUMMARY APPROVE

The Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) is asked to review and approve the January 23, 2013, meeting minutes.

CHAIR`S REPORT

4. CHAIRPERSON’S REPORT AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS INFORMATION

The Chairperson and Council members will report on issues of interest to the Council.

REPORTS

5. FORM 700 INFORMATION

Staff will provide instructions on completing the Form 700 - Statement of Economic Interest Form.

6. 5-1-1 INFORMATION

Staff will give an overview of the information currently available through 5-1-1, San Diego’s Traffic, Transit, and Commuter information service.

7. SECTION 5310 LOCAL REVIEW COMMITTEE INFORMATION

The Council is asked to appoint members for a Local Review Committee to evaluate Section 5310 proposals.

+8. RIDERSHIP REPORT INFORMATION

The SSTAC will review, discuss, and accept the ridership report for 2011-2012.

4

9. COORDINATED PLAN AD HOC GROUP UDPATE INFORMATION

The February Coordinated Plan Ad Hoc Group meeting was cancelled due to scheduling conflicts; the next meeting will be held on April 15, 2013. The subcommittee, consisting of Staff and several of the Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) members, will meet regularly to discuss how SSTAC can assist in the development of the next Coordinated Plan.

+10. JARC, NEW FREEDOM, SENIOR MINI-GRANT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE MONITORING

INFORMATION

Staff will present performance data for the JARC, New Freedom, and Senior Mini-Grant programs.

+11. JARC, NEW FREEDOM, SENIOR MINI-GRANT UPDATE INFORMATION

Staff will give an update on the most recent competitive selection cycle of the Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC), New Freedom, and TransNet Senior Mini-Grant programs.

12. RE-AWARD OF NEW FREEDOM VEHICLE INFORMATION

Staff is requesting the assistance from members of the Council to serve on an evaluation team to review and score proposals.

13. MID-COAST CORRIDOR TRANSIT PROJECT INFORMATION

The Mid-Coast Corridor Transit Project will extend Trolley service from Santa Fe Depot to the University City community, serving major activity centers such as Old Town, the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), and Westfield University Town Centre (UTC). Eight stations are proposed as part of the project: Tecolote Road, Clairemont Drive, Balboa Avenue, Nobel Drive, Pepper Canyon (serving UCSD west campus), Voigt Drive (serving UCSD east campus), Executive Drive, and the terminus station at the Westfield UTC Transit Center. As part of the ongoing environmental review process, staff will also be conducting a feasibility study of a station at the VA Medical Center. As an extension of the existing San Diego Trolley Blue Line, the project will connect corridor residents with other Trolley lines serving Mission Valley, East County, South County, and the international border.

14. TRANSIT OPERATOR UPDATE INFORMATION

Representatives from the Metropolitan Transit System and North County Transit District will provide an update on proposed service changes and any notable activity.

15. FULL ACCESS AND COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION UPDATE INFORMATION

The Council will hear a verbal report on the most recent developments of Full Access and Coordinated Transportation Update and the Council on Access and Mobility.

5

16. ADJOURNMENT

The next SSTAC meeting is scheduled for Monday, May 20, 2013.

+ next to an agenda item indicates an attachment

San Diego Association of Governments

SOCIAL SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCIL

6

MARCH 18, 2013 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 3

Action Requested: APPROVE

APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 23, 2013, MEETING SUMMARY

January 23, 2013, Attendance:

NAMES AGENCY

Judy Stern Citizen Member Alternate Clive Richard Citizen Member Alternate Anthony Ferguson Agency Member - San Diego Regional Center Floyd Willis Agency Member - AIS Jackson Alexander Citizen Member Clytie Koehler Citizen Member Teri Pinnell Citizen Member Tamara Airhart Citizen Member Alternate Brenda Boethel Agency Member – Jewish Family Services Oswaldo Perez Agency Member - FACT Bill Olszanicky Agency Member - NCTD Kim Thorp Agency Member – NCTD (Paratransit) Janelle Carey Agency Member (Alt) - MTS Dan McCaslin Agency Member – MTS (Paratransit)

Federico Tallis Agency Member – MTS Intern

Hong Tran Agency Member - IRC

Ben Macias Agency Member - FACT Connery Cepeda Caltrans District 11

David Hicks SANDAG staff

Danielle Kochman SANDAG staff

Brian Lane SANDAG staff Laurie Gartrell SANDAG staff Audrey Porcella SANDAG staff

7

1. INTRODUCTIONS

2. APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 19, 2012, MEETING SUMMARY

Minutes were approved by a roll call vote.

3. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS

Connery Cepeda (Caltrans) announced the call for projects for Federal Transit Administration grants Section 5310, 5316 (Job Access and Reverse Commute) and 5317 (New Freedom) for non-urbanized areas administered by Caltrans. He also announced that application workshops will be held both at SANDAG (for Section 5310) and Caltrans (for Sections 5316 and 5317) on January 31, 2013, and February 20, 2013, respectively. Mr. Cepeda provided flyers announcing each workshop and a flyer providing information on the Caltrans FY 2013-2014 grant cycle.

4. CHAIRPERSON’S REPORT AND COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS

Laurie Gartrell (SANDAG) announced that Brian Lane (SANDAG) has accepted the position of Senior Transit Planner. With Mr. Lane’s shift in responsibility, Ms. Gartrell will now be the official liaison between SSTAC and SANDAG.

Floyd Willis (Agency Member – AIS) inquired about the operations of 5-1-1. He suggested that SSTAC may want to explore the performance of 5-1-1 in future meetings. Danielle Kochman (SANDAG) agreed to provide a presentation overviewing 5-1-1 services as well as SANDAG’s specialized transportation grant program at the next SSTAC meeting.

Clytie Koehler (Citizen Member) brought up issues regarding poor signage and general confusion at the Vista Transit Center. Understanding which side of the track to wait on when boarding an eastbound or westbound SPRINTER train is not necessarily intuitive considering the SPRINTER runs east-west, but the station seems to be oriented north-south. Tamara Airhart (Citizen Member) provided Ms. Koehler with various resources, such as the San Diego Center for the Blind, through which she could receive orientation and mobility training. However, Mr. Willis inquired about SSTAC’s role in remedying these issues at transportation facilities post-construction (considering SSTAC typically has a role in reviewing design plans prior to construction). His inquiry spurred a conversation discussing avenues in which passengers may provide feedback to service operators regarding poor wayfinding signage and safety issues. As a resolution, Judy Stern (Chairperson) called for coordination with a representative from the Mobility Management and Implementation department within SANDAG to ensure that feedback regarding the Santa Fe Depot, Vista, and Solana Beach transit centers will be addressed.

5. REGIONAL PLAN: DRAFT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN

David Hicks (SANDAG) presented on the SANDAG draft Public Involvement Plan (PIP). Mr. Hicks stressed that in improving SANDAG’s current public outreach, the agency seeks to develop a number of tools tailored to the needs of various constituents so as to reach a wider range of individuals. The draft PIP is out for 30-day public review, which ends on February 7.

6. METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT POLICY CHANGES

Dan McCaslin (MTS) presented on policy changes to ADA MTS Access service. These changes include: the ability for drivers to now assist riders outside of Access vehicles up to 60 feet, a shift in arrival time window from 0-10 minutes to 0-20 minutes, the ability of drivers to now go beyond an MTS zone by 3 miles as to reduce the need for transfers, and the easing of the no-

8

show policy. Mr. McCaslin reported that except for the shift in arrival time windows these changes have had positive impacts on service performance. Ms. Airhart commented on safety concerns in regards to the poor driving of certain drivers and on the hesitation of Access riders to report poor driving for fear of retribution. Mr. McCaslin informed SSTAC that security cameras, equipped with accelerometers, are scheduled to be installed on all Access vehicles and considered the suggestion to develop an anonymous survey.

7. COORDINATED PLAN AD HOC GROUP UPDATE

Ms. Gartrell presented conclusions from the discussion at the Coordinated Plan Ad Hoc Group (CPAG) meeting held on December 17, 2012. CPAG members discussed requesting from the Full Access & Coordinated Transportation (FACT) the origin/destination data of specialized transportation rides. Ms. Gartrell has received the data from FACT and is currently analyzing it. The data will be used to support the identification of transportation needs and gaps within the region, which will ultimately aid in the development of the next Coordinated Plan. CPAG members also requested a performance review from FACT for the purpose of keeping SSTAC informed on the operations of FACT (the designated Consolidated Transportation Services Agency [CTSA] for the San Diego Metropolitan Area). The next CPAG meeting will be held February 19, at 10 a.m.

8. STAFF REPORT

Ms. Gartrell updated members on the progress of the Cycle 7 specialized transportation grant program. SANDAG staff is triple checking the evaluators’ grant recommendations in preparation to present them to the Independent Taxpayers Oversight Committee (ITOC), Transportation Committee (TC) and eventually the Board of Directors for final approval.

9. TRANSIT OPERATOR UPDATE

Janelle Carey (MTS) announced that MTS will be adding service in the January shake-up. MTS will restore Sunday service on bus routes 856, 864, 901, 904, and 905. Service will also be added to routes 820 and 860. Sunday service on the Green Line and Blue Line trolley will be increased to 15 minute frequency and new low-floor vehicles are now running on the Orange Line. Mr. McCaslin announced that MTS Paratransit has acquired 40 new vehicles.

Bill Olszanicky (NCTD) reported that routes 388 and 389 will now provide direct service to Casino Pauma. NCTD collaborates with several Native American Reservation agencies, which also provide bus service. Recently these agencies improved their bus stops to meet ADA compliance. NCTD will be adding larger buses to route 332. Finally, NCTD will switch back to distributing its Riders’ Guide, which includes the schedules of all NCTD bus routes.

10. FULL ACCESS AND COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION UPDATE

Oswaldo Perez (FACT) reported on FACT’s trip management software update. FACT recently reviewed the proposals of several software programs. FACT held its annual Board meeting in December. Call volume dropped during the month of December presumably due to the holidays. FACT’s MedRIDE program, which provides non-emergency medical trips, will begin this month (January).

11. ADJOURNMENT

The next SSTAC meeting is scheduled for Monday, March 18, 2013.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

January February March April May June July August September October November December

Web

Hits

Month

FACT Web Hits 2011‐2012

2011

2012

9

Agenda Item #8 Social Services Transportation Advisory Council

March 18, 2013

Ridership Report

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800


Trips

Month

FACT Trips2011‐2012

2011

2012

10

0

50

100

150

200

250


Referrals

Month

FACT Trip Referrals 2011‐2012

2011

2012

11

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

Ride

rship

Month

MTS Bus Ridership2011‐2012

2011

2012

12

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

Ride

rship

Month

MTS Trolley Ridership2011‐2012

2011

2012

13

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

Ride

rship

Month

MTS Contract Services Ridership2011‐2012

2011

2012

14

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

Lift Dep

loym

ent

Month

MTS Bus Lift Deployment2011‐2012

2011

2012

15

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

Lift Dep

loym

ent

Month

MTS Trolley Lift Deployment2011‐2012

2011

2012

16

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Lift Dep

loym

ent

Month

MTS Contract Services Lift Deployment2011‐2012

2011

2012

17

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400


Total Pass‐up

s

Month

MTS Bus Total Pass‐ups2011‐2012

2011

2012

18

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500


Pass‐ups

Month

MTS Trolley Pass‐ups2011‐2012

2011

2012

19

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


Pass‐ups

Month

MTS Contract Services Pass‐ups2011‐2012

2011

2012

20

0

5

10

15

20

25


Lift Failures

Month

MTS Bus Lift Failure2011‐2012

2011

2012

21

0

5

10

15

20

25


Lift Failures

Month

MTS Trolley Lift Failure2011‐2012

2011

2012

22

0

1

2

3

4

5

6


Lift Failures

Month

MTS Contract Services Lift Failure2011‐2012

2011

2012

23

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

Rid

ersh

ip

Month

NCTD BREEZE Ridership2011‐2012

2011

2012

24

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

Rid

ersh

ip

Month

NCTD COASTER Ridership2011‐2012

2011

2012

25

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

Rid

ersh

ip

Month

NCTD SPRINTER Ridership2011‐2012

2011

2012

26

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

Rid

ersh

ip

Month

NCTD ADA/LIFT Ridership2011‐2012

2011

2012

27


TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

28

March 15, 2013 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 7

Action Requested: RECOMMEND

FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FEDERAL FISCAL File Numbers 3320100 and 3320200 YEAR 2012 JOB ACCESS AND REVERSE COMMUTE AND NEW FREEDOM PROGRAMS AND FY 2014 AND 2015 TransNet SENIOR MINI-GRANT PROJECTS Introduction SANDAG manages three competitive grant programs for transportation capital and operating projects and services: the Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program aimed at transportation for reverse commuters and work-related transportation for persons of limited means; the New Freedom program focused on transportation for persons with disabilities; and the Senior Mini-Grant program that funds specialized transportation services for senior citizens. The JARC and New Freedom programs are funded by the Federal Transit Administration, and the Senior Mini-Grant program is funded by TransNet. All three grant programs require that SANDAG conduct a competitive selection process to distribute the funds. Eligible applicants include private nonprofit organizations, governmental authorities, private and public transportation operators, and the Consolidated Transportation Services Agency. Each grant program requires a matching contribution from the grantee, depending on project type. Utilizing an evaluation committee, SANDAG recently completed the evaluation of proposals for all three programs and an information item on the results from the competitive selection process was given at the February 15, 2013, Transportation Committee meeting. The Transportation Committee did not have any significant comments regarding the process or the evaluation results. This item brings forward a recommended list of potential projects to be funded. All projects selected for funding must be derived from the priorities identified in the 2012-2016 Coordinated Public Transit and Human Services Transportation Plan that was adopted by the Board of Directors on July 27, 2012. Discussion Competitive Selection Process A call for projects for all three programs was issued on August 1, 2012, and closed on October 31, 2012. Project submittals were evaluated and scored by external evaluation committee members using the criteria approved by the Transportation Committee on June 15, 2012 (Attachment 1). The evaluation committees were made up of experts in the field of specialized transportation, including transportation consultants, staff from social service transportation providers, local jurisdictions, transit operators, and other partner agencies. The evaluation criteria approved by the

Recommendation

The Transportation Committee is asked to recommend that the Board of Directors approve the funding recommendations for the FTA JARC and New Freedom programs, and TransNet Senior Mini-Grant program.

Agenda Item #10 SSTAC

March 18, 2013

29

Transportation Committee also included a past performance adjustment ranging from -10 percent to +2 percent for applicants who have received a JARC, New Freedom, or Senior Mini-Grant award from SANDAG in the past three years. No adjustment was made for applicants who have not had an active grant in the last three years. These adjustments were applied to each evaluator’s score for each applicable proposal to determine the project rankings for each grant program. Before developing the ranked project lists included in Attachment 2, the SANDAG Technical Services department performed an independent review, checking the evaluation committee spreadsheet for correct formulas and consistency with the evaluation committee score sheets, the calculations used to determine the past performance adjustments, and the calculations used for the Performance Indicators section of the Senior Mini-Grant proposal. The final ranked project lists provides the basis for the recommendations according to the levels of anticipated funding available. Preliminary Ranking Results JARC and New Freedom Programs The Governor of California selected SANDAG to be the agency responsible for awarding federal JARC and New Freedom grants for the San Diego urbanized area. These two programs are funded from the Safe, Accountable, Flexible Efficient, Transportation Act: A Legacy for Users. The Federal Register announcing the full Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2012 apportionments, including JARC and New Freedom, was published in July 2012. The competitive process held by SANDAG was conducted in order to award grants for this single year of funding. For the JARC program, a total of 13 applications were received requesting nearly $2 million in FFY 2012 funds. $1,628,924 was apportioned to the San Diego urbanized area after deducting 10 percent for the SANDAG grant administration allowance. An additional $60,000 is available from a prior year allocation for a project that was not implemented, and $1,508 is available from a project that did not spend the full grant award, resulting in a total of $1,690,432 available for distribution. Using the ranked project list in Attachment 2, the recommendation is to fully fund ten JARC grant applications, and partially fund an eleventh project. For the New Freedom program, 13 applications were received requesting more than $1.5 million. $810,073 was apportioned to the San Diego urbanized area after deducting 10 percent for the SANDAG grant administration allowance. An additional $322,559 is available to roll-over from previous projects that didn’t spend the full grant award, resulting in a total of $1,132,632 available for distribution. Based on the ranked project list included in Attachment 2, the recommendation is to fully fund ten New Freedom projects. Senior Mini-Grant Program The Transportation Committee approved a process and criteria for selecting eligible projects for FY 2014 and FY 2015 funding under the TransNet Senior Mini-Grant Program on June 15, 2012. Based on the TransNet revenue estimates, $1,363,000 is projected to be available in FY 2014 funding and $1,446,000 in FY 2015. After deducting $42,000 for SANDAG project oversight costs each year and adding $129,847 in rollover funds from previous years, the amount available for grant awards is $1,450,847 in FY 2014 and $1,404,000 in FY 2015. A total of 19 applications were received, requesting over $1.9 million in FY 2014 and almost $1.8 million in FY 2015. A description of each Senior Mini-Grant project submitted for funding for

30

FY 2014 and FY 2015, as well as the preliminary scoring and ranking of each project are provided in Attachment 2. For this competitive process, based on the available funding and the ranked project list in Attachment 2, the recommendation is to fully fund fourteen projects and partially fund two additional projects. At its meeting on February 27, 2013, the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee confirmed that the recommended grant proposals are consistent with the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Senior Mini-Grant program requirements. Next Steps The funding recommendations from the Transportation Committee will be presented to the Board of Directors for approval on March 22, 2013. If approved by the Board of Directors, the selected grantees will be sent Notices of Award and projects will be included in the 2012 Regional Transportation Improvement Program at the earliest opportunity. It is anticipated that grant agreements will be issued in fall 2013.

CHARLES “MUGGS” STOLL Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning

Attachments: 1. Project Evaluation and Scoring Criteria 2. Project Descriptions and Rankings

Key Staff Contact: Danielle Kochman, (619) 699-1921, [email protected]

31

FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2012 New Freedom Project Evaluation and Scoring Criteria

The following information and scoring criteria are used to score and rate project applications for New Freedom funding.

Minimum Eligibility Criteria: Must answer Yes to each of the following five questions to be eligible.

1. Is the agency a local governmental agency, (private or public) operator of public transportation, nonprofit agency, or a tribal government?

2. In the applicant’s civil rights assurances, are adequate methods included for ensuring that the benefits of the project are distributed equitably amongst low-income and minority (LIM) and non-LIM population groups in its service area?

3. Will 80% of the served population consist of persons with disabilities?

4. Is the total grant request between $30,000 and $200,000 per year?

5. Is the project derived from a Very High or High Priority in the 2012 – 2016 Coordinated Plan?

: Very High

Develop or expand transit and nonagency client transportation services in areas with little or no other transportation options (or replace services that have been cut in those areas) based on identified gaps in transportation services included in the Coordinated Plan; or

Develop or expand transportation solutions in areas with sufficient densities to support transit or coordinated services based on identified gaps in transportation services included in the Coordinated Plan.

: High

Develop or enhance volunteer driver programs including the support of volunteer driver coalitions

Develop or expand transportation solutions for developmentally disabled individuals and veterans with service-related disabilities based on identified gaps in service included in the Coordinated Plan

Develop centralized ride scheduling, voucher programs, dispatching, and mobility management/brokerage

Increase coordination efforts by combining resources such as vehicles, riders, funds for rides, vehicle maintenance, drivers, driver training, insurance coverage, general ride subsidies, dispatching equipment, software, and gas cards for volunteers

Increase weekday service based on identified gaps included in the Coordinated Plan

Attachment 1

32

Increase weeknight and weekend service based on identified gaps in service included in the Coordinated Plan

Provide door-to-door service (and door-through-door when necessary) for trips such as nonemergency medical transportation and grocery shopping in circumstances where paratransit is insufficient, inappropriate, or unavailable

Improve accessibility for individuals with disabilities through the provision of travel training for paratransit users to encourage more individuals to ride regular fixed-route transit; improved accessible travel paths to transit stops and stations; and retrofitting of existing bus stops to ensure accessibility and ADA compliance

Expand paratransit eligibility beyond the ¾-mile boundary

SCORING CRITERIA: The information and scoring criteria below will be used to score and rate project applications for New Freedom funding.

A. Goals and Objectives (15 points)

Will the project serve the appropriate population? Does the proposal provide pertinent demographic data and/or maps? (5 points)

Will the proposed program increase or enhance the availability of transportation for disabled individuals? (5 points)

To what extent is the proposed project consistent with the goals and objectives of the New Freedom program? (5 points)

B. Operational/Implementation Plan (15 points)

How thorough is the implementation plan? Does the proposal include project tasks, timelines, benchmarks, key milestones, key personnel, deliverables, and routes and schedules as applicable? Does the implementation plan and timeline seem feasible? (5 points)

Does the applicant demonstrate the technical ability to manage the project? Has the applicant effectively implemented projects using federal or state funds in the recent past; has the applicant managed similar projects; has the applicant had sufficient experience in providing services for the targeted clientele? Does the agency have adequate staff to resources to handle the project? If applicable, are drivers properly trained? If applicable, does the agency display the ability to maintain vehicles? (5 points)

Does this project relate to other services or facilities provided by the agency or firm? Does the operational plan correspond with the project goals/objectives? (5 points)

33

C. Program Effectiveness and Performance Indicators (20 points)

Does the project make use of New Freedom funds in an efficient and cost-effective manner? (5 points)

Does the proposal describe efforts to ensure the project’s cost-effectiveness (and other measurable units of service)? Will the project experience increasing efficiencies over time? If applying for a capital project, does the applicant demonstrate that the purchase is the most cost-effective product for the service being provided? (5 points)

Does the proposal provide measurable performance indicators to measure and evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed project in meeting the identified goals? For capital-related projects, does the applicant establish milestones and methods for reporting the status of project delivery? (5 points)

Does the applicant describe methodologies and procedures for ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the project or service, and steps to be taken if original goals are not achieved? (5 points)

D. Coordination and Program Outreach (15 points)

Does the proposal describe how key stakeholders will remain involved and informed throughout the process? Did the applicant attach one or more letters from other agencies describing how they will be coordinating with the applicant in the provision of transportation services? (The CTSA and public transit operators proposing a fixed-route project are exempted from submitting letters) (5 points)

How comprehensive are the applicant’s proposed strategies for marketing the project and promoting public awareness in both low income and minority (LIM) areas and non-LIM areas included in the project’s service area? (5 points)

To what extent does the project demonstrate coordination among various entities? (5 point maximum – 1 point per type of coordination)

: Shared use of vehicles

: Dispatching or scheduling

: Maintenance

: Back up transportation

: Staff training programs

: Joint procurement of services and supplies

: Active participation in local social service transportation planning process

: Coordination of client trips with other transportation agencies

34

E. Project Budget (15 points)

Was a clearly defined budget submitted for the proposed project? (5 points)

Does the project appear to be feasible as described? (5 points)

Is the source of local share stable? (5 points)

F. Sustainability (10 points)

Does the applicant demonstrate a long-term commitment to the project to continue the effort beyond the availability of the requested grant resources? Is this applicant financially capable of sustaining operations after the initial grant funding is expended? (5 points)

Does the applicant provide sufficient justification as to why New Freedom funding is needed for this project? (5 points)

G. Innovation (10 points)

Is the proposed project an innovative solution to addressing the need, and could the innovations be applied to other services in the region? (5 points)

Are there elements of the project that are environmental sustainable (including the use of alternative fuels and clean air vehicles)? Does the project include provisions that ensure the equitable distribution of services? (5 points)

H. Past Performance (-10% to +2 % adjustment to total score)

If the applicant has held a JARC, New Freedom, or Senior Mini-Grant award from SANDAG in the past three years their performance in operating and managing the most recent 12-month period of those grants will be used to determine if an adjustment to the total score is appropriate. No adjustments will be made for applicants who have not had an active grant in the past three years.

The following four indicators will be used to determine the past performance adjustment. The data used for the first two indicators will be compared to the original proposals submitted, while the last two will be based on ongoing project evaluations and onsite assessment visits. Each category will receive a score ranging from -2.5% to +.5%. For those applicants with more than one existing grant, an average of the performance criteria scores will be used.

1. Cost per unit of service delivered (A unit can be one-way passenger trips, web hits, or referrals, etc.)

• More than10 % under proposed cost per unit (+.5%) • +/- 10% of proposed cost per unit (0%) • 10 – 14.99 % or more over proposed cost per unit (-.5%) • 15 – 19.99% or more over proposed cost per unit (-1.0%) • 20 – 24.99% or more over proposed cost per unit (-1.5%) • 25 – 29.99% or more over proposed cost per unit (-2.0%) • 30% or more over proposed cost per unit (-2.5%)

35

2. Number of units of service delivered

• More than 10 % over proposed number of units of service (+.5%) • Within 10% more or less of proposed number of units of service (0%) • 10 – 14.99 % or more under proposed number of units of service (-.5%) • 15 – 19.99% or more under proposed number of units of service (-1.0%) • 20 – 24.99% or more under proposed number of units of service (-1.5%) • 25 – 29.99% or more under proposed number of units of service (-2.0%) • 30% or more under proposed number of units of service (-2.5%)

3. Project Management – How well did the grantee manage their project? (-2.5% to +.5 %)

Project Management will be evaluated based on SANDAG’s observations of the grantees operation and management including, but not limited to, the following:

• Budget management • Administration costs • Coordination • Service area adherence • Project schedule • Invoice and report quality and consistency

4. Service Quality – Did the grantee provide a quality service? (-2.5% to +.5 %)

Service Quality will be based on written evaluations prepared by SANDAG during onsite visits to the grantee including, but not limited to, the following:

• Customer Satisfaction • Safety • Training • Outreach • Quality Control Measures

36

FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2012 Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) Project Evaluation and Scoring Criteria

The following information and scoring criteria are used to score and rate project applications for JARC funding.



7. In the applicant’s civil rights assurances, are adequate methods included for ensuring that the benefits of the project are distributed equitably amongst low-income and minority (LIM) and non-LIM population groups in its service area adequate?

8. Will 80% of the riders be considered as traveling either (can combine riders from both categories for 80% minimum):

to employment and employment related services for welfare recipients and eligible low-income individuals, or

from urbanized areas and nonurbanized areas to suburban employment opportunities.



: Very High

Develop or expand transit and nonagency client transportation services in areas with little or no other transportation options (or replace services that have been cut in those areas, such as transit or school bus transportation) based on identified gaps in transportation services included in the Coordinated Plan; or


: High

Develop or enhance volunteer driver programs, including the support of volunteer driver coalitions

Develop low-income/homeless and veteran solutions to school/education opportunities whenever none exist/were cut

Develop centralized ride scheduling, voucher programs, dispatching, and mobility management/brokerage

37


Increase work-based weekday and weekend service/extend hours of operation based on identified gaps in service included in the Coordinated Plan

Increase work-based weeknight service based on identified gaps in service included in the Coordinated Plan

Provide travel training to encourage more individuals to ride regular transit

Support collaborations between non-profit and private organizations to assist with transit pass subsidies

SCORING CRITERIA: The information and scoring criteria below will be used to score and rate project applications for JARC funding.

I. Goals and Objectives (15 points)


Will the proposed program increase or enhance the availability of transportation for low-income individuals for job related trips? (5 points)

To what extent is the proposed project consistent with the goals and objectives of the JARC program? (5 points)

J. Operational/Implementation Plan (15 points)




38

K. Program Effectiveness and Performance Indicators (20 points)

Does the project make use of JARC funds in an efficient and cost-effective manner? (5 points)

Does the proposal describe efforts to ensure the project’s cost-effectiveness (and other measurable units of service)? Will the project experience increasing efficiencies over time? If applying for a capital project, does the applicant demonstrate that the purchase is the most cost-effective product for the service being provided? (5 points)

Does the proposal provide measurable performance indicators to measure and evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed project in meeting the identified goals? For capital-related projects, does the applicant establish milestones and methods for reporting the status of project delivery? (5 points)


L. Coordination and Program Outreach (15 points)

Does the proposal describe how key stakeholders will remain involved and informed throughout the process? Did the applicant attach one or more letters from other agencies describing how they will be coordinating with the applicant in the provision of transportation services? (The CTSA and public transit operators proposing a fixed-route project are exempted from submitting letters) (5 points)





: Maintenance






39

M. Project Budget (15 points)




N. Sustainability (10 points)


Does the applicant provide sufficient justification as to why JARC funding is needed for this project? (5 points)

O. Innovation (10 points)


Are there elements of the project that are environmental sustainable (including the use of alternative fuels and clean air vehicles)? Does the project include provisions that ensure the equitable distribution of services? (5 points)

P. Past Performance (-10% to +2 % adjustment to total score)

1. If the applicant has held a JARC, New Freedom, or Senior Mini-Grant award from SANDAG in the past three years their performance in operating and managing the most recent 12-month period of those grants will be used to determine if an adjustment to the total score is appropriate. No adjustments will be made for applicants who have not had an active grant in the past three years.



• More than 10 % under proposed cost per unit (+.5%) • +/- 10% of proposed cost per unit (0%) • 10 – 14.99 % or more over proposed cost per unit (-.5%) • 15 – 19.99% or more over proposed cost per unit (-1.0%) • 20 – 24.99% or more over proposed cost per unit (-1.5%) • 25 – 29.99% or more over proposed cost per unit (-2.0%) • 30% or more over proposed cost per unit (-2.5%)

40









41

FY 2014 Senior Mini-Grant Project Evaluation and Scoring Criteria

The following information and scoring criteria are used to score and rate project applications for Senior Mini-Grant funding.



12. In the applicant’s civil rights assurances, are adequate methods included for ensuring that the benefits of the project are distributed equitably amongst low-income and minority (LIM) and non-LIM population groups in its service area adequate?

13. Will 80% of the riders be seniors?



: Very High

Develop or expand transit and nonagency client transportation services in areas with little or no other transportation options (or replace services that have been cut in those areas) based on identified gaps in transportation services included in the Coordinated Plan; or


: High

Develop or enhance volunteer driver programs, including the support of volunteer driver coalitions

Develop centralized ride scheduling, voucher programs, dispatching, and mobility management/brokerage to maximize service coverage areas


Increase weekday and weekend service based on identified gaps in service included in the Coordinated Plan

42

Provide door-to-door service (and door-through-door when necessary) for trips such as non-emergency medical transportation and grocery shopping in circumstances where paratransit is insufficient, inappropriate, or unavailable

Provide travel training to encourage more individuals to ride regular transit

SCORING CRITERIA: The information and scoring criteria below will be used to score and rate project applications for Senior Mini-Grant funding.

Q. Goals and Objectives (15 points)


Will the proposed program increase or enhance the availability of transportation for seniors? (5 points)

To what extent is the proposed project consistent with the goals and objectives of the Senior Mini-Grant program? (5 points)

R. Operational/Implementation Plan (15 points)




S. Program Effectiveness (10 points)

Does the applicant describe methodologies and procedures for ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the project or service? (5 points)


T. Coordination and Program Outreach (15 points)

Does the proposal describe how key stakeholders will remain involved and informed throughout the process? Did the applicant attach one or more letters from other agencies describing how they will be coordinating with the applicant in the provision of

43

transportation services? (The CTSA and public transit operators proposing a fixed-route project are exempted from submitting letters) (5 points)





: Maintenance






U. Performance Indicators (5 points each; maximum 15 points)

Cost Efficiency Indicator – Operating Cost in Dollars per Vehicle Service Hour

# of Years in Service Points Proposed/1st year 2nd year 3rd year 4+ year

0 >70 >65 >60 >55 1 65<x≤70 60<x≤65 55<x≤55 50<x≤55 3 60<x≤65 55<x≤60 50<x≤55 45<x≤50 5 ≤60 ≤55 ≤50 ≤45

Cost Effectiveness Indicator – Operating Cost in Dollars per Passenger


0 >32 >29 >26 >23 1 29<x≤32 26<x≤29 23<x≤26 20<x≤23 3 26<x≤29 23<x≤26 20<x≤23 17<x≤20 5 ≤26 ≤23 ≤20 ≤17

Service Effectiveness Indicator – Passenger Utilization in Percentages


0 <15 <20 <35 <30 1 15≤x<25 20≤x<30 25≤x<35 30≤x<40 3 25≤x<35 30≤x<40 35≤x<45 40≤x<50 5 ≥35 ≥40 ≥45 ≥50

44

V. Project Budget (15 points)




W. Operational Sustainability (5 points)


X. Innovation (10 points)


Are there elements of the project that are environmentally sustainable (including the use of alternative fuels and clean air vehicles)? Does the project include provisions that ensure the equitable distribution of services? (5 points)

Y. Past Performance (-10% to +2 % adjustment to total score)

If the applicant has held a JARC, New Freedom, or Senior Mini-Grant award from SANDAG in the past three years their performance in operating and managing the most recent 12-month period of those grants will be used to determine if an adjustment to the total score is appropriate. No adjustments will be made for applicants who have not had an active grant in the past three years.



• More than 10 % under proposed cost per unit (+.5%) • +/- 10% of proposed cost per unit (0%) • 10 – 14.99 % or more over proposed cost per unit (-.5%) • 15 – 19.99% or more over proposed cost per unit (-1.0%) • 20 – 24.99% or more over proposed cost per unit (-1.5%) • 25 – 29.99% or more over proposed cost per unit (-2.0%) • 30% or more over proposed cost per unit (-2.5%)

45









Section Avg. Score Max. Score Avg. Score (out of 100) Total Rank

Goals and Objectives 13.8 15

Implementation Plan 13.6 15

Program Effectiveness / Performance Indicators

17.2 20

Coordination and Program Outreach

13.2 15

Sustainability 8.2 10

Innovation 8.4 10

Project Budget 13.6 15

Average Score 88 100

Performance Adjustment +1.0% +2% -> -10%

Goals and Objectives 14 15Implementation Plan 12.4 15


17.6 20


13 15

Sustainability 9 10Innovation 8.2 10

Project Budget 13.8 15Average Score 88 100





16.4 20


13.4 15


Innovation 8.6 10

Project Budget 14 15

Average Score 85.4 100




15.5 20


12.4 15

Sustainability 8.4 10Innovation 7.9 10


Performance Adjustment n/a +2% -> -10%

Goals and Objectives 13.2 15Implementation Plan 12.1 15


15.2 20


12.8 15

Sustainability 7.3 10Innovation 9 10

Project Budget 10.9 15Average Score 80.5 100


* Final project rankings are determined using the Total Rank instead of the Average Score. The Total Rank adds up each evaluators individual rankings, with the lowest number indicating which projects scored the highest across the committee members. This measure is more objective, mitigating for evaluation committee members scoring differentials.

The proposed project seeks to sustain the "one-stop" transportation solutions needed by seniors and persons with disabilities to reach medical appointments and other quality of life related services in FY 2015. FACT refers callers to existing transportation services based on individual needs. When an existing service cannot be utilized, RideFACT will meet the need for affordable transportation connecting all of the 18 cities in San Diego County. Operating funds have been requested.

FACT - Sustain RideFACT Brokerage Services

5 81.3 30$50,000 $50,000 50%

$45,500 $45,500 50%4San Ysidro

Health Center (SYHC)

SYHC's Transportation Operations Program will provide registered SYHC patients round-trip, demand response shuttle services to non-emergency primary care, specialty care and social service appointments. The program will also provide shuttle services for scheduled "health and wellbeing" trips, such as trips to pharmacies, recreational outings and grocery trips for diabled and elderly patients. Operating funds have been requested.

20%$200,000

$37,705 $37,705

$200,000

2

Jewish Family Services (JFS) -

Northern San Diego

Rides & Smiles program

This volunteer driver program, with the support of the 501(c)3 nonprofit organization called Charitable Adult Rides and Services California, or CARS CA, will continue to provide dependable, friendly, and personal door-through-door transportation to seniors (and other individuals with disabilities) in the Clairemont, La Jolla, Linda Vista, University City community and Carmel Valley areas. This project will also be expanding to Del Mar. Operating funds have been requested.

89.8

8

Final (After Adjustment)*

15

85.8 20

84 23

$104,427 50% 88.9

50%

1 City of La Mesa

Rides4Neighbors provides transportation by volunteer drivers using their own vehicles to meet the essential needs of eligible seniors 60+ and/or disabled adults throughout East County. Essential needs include medical appointments, grocery or other shopping, personal care or business (bank, attorney), and social engagements. Rides4Neighbors also includes taxicab vouchers, accessible vans, a shuttle program, taxi script discounts, and an annual Senior Expo, which provides transportation resources and education for seniors. Operating funds have been requested.

$104,427

FY 13 Requested Grant $

Preliminary FY 13 Grant Funding Results

Req'd Match

Section Average Scores

MTS - MTS Access MDT/AVL

Equipment

Project Description

The project aims to fund the purchase of small tablet-style Mobile Data Terminals (MDTs), equipped with GPS technology. The MDTs will provide MTS's ADA Paratransit dispatchers with the tools to remain in constant contact with the vehicles and to be aware of their exact location at all times, to coordinate information immediately among vehicle operators, dispatchers and their customers, and will improve operational efficiences with access to real-time information regarding schedules, vehicle locations and client information. Capital funding has been requested.

New Freedom PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS, EVALUATION, AND GRANT REQUESTSNew Freedom Project Descriptions and Rankings

Final Rank

Sponsor

3

46

Attachment 2


Final (After Adjustment)* FY 13 Requested Grant $


Req'd Match

Section Average ScoresProject Description


Final Rank

Sponsor


Implementation Plan 11.3 15Program Effectiveness / Performance Indicators

14.4 20


13.2 15






14 20


11.8 15


Project Budget 12 15Average Score 80.4 100

Performance Adjustment -2.00% +2% -> -10%



14.2 20


12.4 15


Innovation 8.4 10Project Budget 10 15Average Score 75.6 100




15 20


13.2 15


Innovation 8.6 10Project Budget 10.2 15Average Score 77.6 100




13.4 20


13.2 15

Sustainability 6 10

Innovation 7.8 10Project Budget 9.4 15Average Score 73.2 100


Funded Project Subtotals: $887,632 $1,132,632


7FACT - RideFACT

Trip Reimbursement

This project will sustain RideFACT, a senior dial-a-ride, available for travel in all cities in San Diego County. When a senior's need does not match an existing transportation option, the trip is provided through RideFACT. These funds will be used to purchase rides from a pool of 6 transportation companies that form the brokerage. The trip is given to the lowest cost vendor in the brokerage. Operating funds have been requested.

$125,000 76.4 33

379

FACT - Sustain Mobility

Management services

The proposed project aims to fund FACT's mobility management services--telephone and web referrals to other existing services, brokerage management, outreach, and marketing (in conjunction with a Senior Mini-Grant proposal). This project will also fund the staffing and administration expenses for developing new services such as MedAccessRIDE and Veteran's mobility program. Operating funds have been requested.

78.4

10FACT - Expand

Mobility Management

This proposed project looks to expand FACT's mobility management services to the following urbanized areas in San Diego County: Fallbrook, Bonsall, Camp Pendleton and Lakeside. Mobility management services include telephone and web refferals to other existing services, brokerage management, outreach and marketing. Operating funds have been requested.

$50,000 50%

73.9

50%$120,000

50%

78.8 33

$200,000 $200,000

The proposed project will support the expansion of the "one stop" transportation solutions needed by seniors and persons with disabilities to reach medical appointments and other quality of life related services in FY 2014. This proposal is to support expansion of RideFACT brokerage services for senior transportation beyond what is currently provided by the nonurban areas of Valley Center, Rainbow, Alpine and Jamul. Operating funds have been requested.

$50,000

40

$120,000

$125,000 20%

$200,000 $200,000 50%

6

FACT - Expand RideFACT Brokerage

Servces

3279.4

This project will continue access to key destinations for disabled veterans and active duty service members seeking medical care. The project will also expand to include access to the Wounded Warrior Center on Camp Pendleton and the new Veterans Administration Clinic in Oceanside.

7

NCTD - Key Destinations for

Disabled Veterans

47


Final (After Adjustment)* FY 13 Requested Grant $


Req'd Match



Final Rank

Sponsor



11.8 20


9.4 15





Implementation Plan 9 15


12 20


8.2 15


Innovation 7 10


Average Score 61.5 100Performance Adjustment -4.0% +2% -> -10%



10.4 20


9.6 15




Unfunded Projects Subtotals: $380,400 $0


61.6 61$256,400 $050% (O) 20% (C)

13

Valley Center Community Recreation

Center

This proposed project aims to provide door-to-door and door-through-door transportation for the elderly and disabled individuals in the north east San Diego County and the greater Valley Center Area. The proposed service will provide transportation to and from non-emergency medical appointments and shopping. Additionally, the project aims to fund the purchase of equipment that will enhance service operations. Operating (O) and capital (C) funds have been requested.

59 60$60,000 $0 50%12 Renewing Life

The project will continue Renewing Life's cost effective door-to-door and door-through-door transportation service reaching over 600 low-income, disabled, seniors and domestic violence shelter clients in the South County. For domestic violence shelter clients, Renewing Life will provide no-cost, safe passage transportation to assist clients needing to attend court ordered legal meetings, couseling and therapy as well as everyday nees such as grocery shopping and doctor appointments. Operating funds have been requested.

$0$64,00011 Care 4U Mobility

The proposed project aims to fund the purchase of two new handicap vehicles, which will ensure improved operational quality and reliability, minimize the risk of vehicle breakdown, and provide greater scheduling reliability. Care 4U provides reliable, dependable, and affordable transportation service to enhance and satisfy the logistical needs of persons with disabilities throughout San Diego County. Capital funding has been requested.

61.3 5520%

48

Projects Not Recommended For Funding

hob

Typewritten Text


Goals and Objectives 14.6 15Implementation Plan 15 15


19.2 20


14.8 15






19.4 20


15 15







19.6 20


14.4 15


Innovation 8.6 10






19 20


14.6 15





4 MTS - Rt. 932 50%$200,000 $200,000 1993.1

This project aims to maintain Route 932, a fixed-route service that connects the residential areasand employment areas of San Ysidro, Imperial Beach, Otay Mesa-Nestor, Chula Vista, and NationalCity. Route 932 provides vital transit connections along major business and commercial corridors in predominantly low-income and minorityneighborhoods. Operating funds have been requested.

3

International Rescue

Committee (IRC)

Ride2Work is designed to support job seeking low-income individuals secure and retain employment, where public transportation is not sufficiently able to, by assisting individuals get driver licenses, access affordable auto loans and connect them to carpooling options with other low-income individuals. Ride2Work services will include classroom trainings, one-on-one assistance, driver’s education vouchers and an auto loan product and will be available to low-income residents in City Heights and El Cajon. Operating (O) and capital (C) funds have been requested.

16$130,000 $130,00050% (O) 20% (C)

95.6

2 MTS - Rt. 955

This project aims to maintain Route 955, a fixed-route service that connects the residential andemployment areas of National City, Southeastern San Diego, Encanto, City Heights, and the CollegeArea. Within these communities, Route 955 serves 34,551 households with household incomes below$30,000. In January 2013, in order to meet growing demand, MTS will be adding weekday and Saturday trips. Operating funds have been requested.

93.7

$155,516 50%$155,516

$200,000 50%$200,000

Final (After Adjustment)*

94.9 8

15


1 MTS - Rt. 905

This project aims to maintain Route 905 service to help transport low-income and reverse commuters to and from jobs and activities related to their employment. This fixed-route service connects the residential and employment areas of Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, San Diego, San Ysidro, Otay Mesa, and Otay Mesa-Nestor at the Iris Avenue Trolley Station. Operating funds have been requested.

JARC PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS, EVALUATION, AND GRANT REQUESTS


Req'd Match


JARC Project Descriptions and RankingsFinal Rank

Sponsor

49


Final (After Adjustment)*Section Average ScoresProject Description



Req'd Match



Sponsor




19 20


15 15


Innovation 8.6 10





Implementation Plan 15 15


18 20


15 15


Innovation 9 10






18.2 20


14.6 15


Innovation 8.8 10






15.6 20


13.6 15





50%$191,930

6MTS - Rt. 967/968

This project aims to maintain Route 967 and 968, which combined provide a circulator service throughout National City and parts of the communities of Encanto and Skyline/Paradise Hills. Beginning at the 24th Street Trolley Station, these routes connect the residents of these communities to the entire MTS transit system, and also provide access to the jobs in National City and South Bay communities. Additionally, Route 968, in particular, serves the majoremployer in Skyline/Paradise Hills: Paradise Valley Hospital. Operating funds have been requested.

8

St. Madeline Sophie's

Center (SMSC) - Operating

This project seeks operating support of SMSC's volunteer driver program through mileage reimbursement funds. The program provides adults with developmental disabilities, ages 22 to 70+, with transportation to three of SMSC's vocational training centers and to paid work. SMSC aims to expand the number of both volunteer drivers and clients in 2013. Operating funds have been requested.

$161,166 91.7

50% 91.7

$161,166

3288.9$191,930

7 MTS - Rt. 960

This project aims to maintain Route 960, a fixed-route service that connects the residential areas of Southeastern San Diego and Mid-City to jobs in both Kearny Mesa and University City. Route 960 is the only rapid public transit service that provides a single seat-ride from dense urban City of San Diego neighborhoods (mostly low-income and/or minority neighborhoods) to the San Diego region’s top two job centers (Kearny Mesa and University City). Operating funds have been requested.

25

28

$200,000 50%

3050%

$193,957$193,957

$200,000 92.15 MTS - Rt. 929

This project aims to maintain Route 929, a fixed-route service that connects the residential areas of San Ysidro, Otay Mesa-Nestor, National City, Chula Vista, 32nd Street Naval Station, Southeastern San Diego, Barrio Logan, and Downtown San Diego. In September 2012, MTS added service to Route 929 to replace services that have been cut in these areas. This project ensures that recently added services will not be cut in the future. Operating funds have been requested.

50





Req'd Match



Sponsor



15.6 20


13.2 15




Goals and Objectives 14 15Implementation Plan 14 15


15.4 20


13.6 15


Innovation 8.4 10




d l t f Goals and Objectives 14.2 15



15.2 20


13.8 15


Innovation 9 10




Funded Project Subtotals: $1,771,426 $1,690,432

* Final project rankings are determined using the Total Rank instead of the Average Score. The Total Rank adds up each evaluators individual rankings, with the lowest number indicating which projects scored the highest across the

committee members. This measure is more objective, mitigating for evaluation committee members scoring differentials.

56

50%

84.3

84.7 52

$33,201 50%

$30,262

11

NCTD - Increasing Access to

Northeastern Escondido

This project seeks to provide weekday midday and Saturday hourly service on the unserved El Norte Parkway in Escondido. This project will allow low income workers who live in northeast Escondido access to jobs during the off peak period on weekdays and Saturdays, essentially giving them access to jobs that have non-traditional and weekend schedules. Operating funds have been requested.

The project seeks funding for hourly Sunday service for BREEZE route 353, which connects low-income residents of Escondido to major employers including Palomar Health, Stone World Bistro and Gardens, and numerous other service sector and manufacturing jobs in southwest Escondido. Operating funds have been requested.

10

NCTD - Escondido

Medical Jobs Shuttle

35

$30,262

20%

$114,195

$194,4009

St. Madeline Sophie's

Center (SMSC) - Capital

This project aims to fund the purchase of four paratransit vehicles to support an expansion of services to SMSC's growing enrollment of adults with developmental disabilities in relation to their work and vocational training activities. Enrollment in SMSC's transportation services has been growing steadily at about 10% per year. Purchase of vehicles will support the expansion of service in the upcoming years. Capital funding has been requested.

$194,400 90.8

51





Req'd Match



Sponsor



15.2 20


11.6 15


Project Budget 13 15Average Score 80.4 100




15.2 20


13.4 15




Unfunded Projects Subtotals: $181,992 $0


$0 50%

82.5 58

81.6 57

$56,992 $0 50%13

NCTD - Restoring Saturday

Service on Rt. 304

This project will expand BREEZE route 304 service to Saturdays, which had previously been cut in 2008 as the economic recession forced service cuts. Hourly service will be provided between 7am and 9pm, providing job access for individuals in poverty in San Marcos to low-wage jobs in Encinitas and along the SPRINTER corridor. Operating funds have been requested.

$125,00012Alpha Project

for the Homeless

Take Back the Streets (TBS) is a program offering supportive, transitional employment for men and women who are homeless and/or facing barriers to mainstream employment. Trips will include drop-off and pick-up at participants' job sites as well as transportation to employment training partners, such as the Employment Development Department's career centers, and to educational facilities including community colleges and ROP programs. Operating funds have been requested.

52



Goals and Objectives 14.8 15Implementation Plan 15 15Program Effectiveness 9.6 10


12.8 15

Operational Sustainability 4.8 5

Innovation 8.8 10Project Budget 14.2 15

Performance Indicators 11 15



Goals and Objectives 14 15Implementation Plan 15 15Program Effectiveness 9.6 10


12 15


Innovation 7 10Project Budget 14.2 15

Performance Indicators 15 15Average Score 91 100


Goals and Objectives 14.8 15Implementation Plan 14.4 15Program Effectiveness 9.4 10


12.2 15


Innovation 8.2 10Project Budget 14 15

Performance Indicators 13 15Average Score 90.8 100



Implementation Plan 14.8 15Program Effectiveness 9.4 10


14 15





* Final project rankings are determined using the Total Rank instead of the Average Score. The total rank adds up each evaluator's individual rankings, with the lowest final rank indicating which projects scored the highest across the committee members. This measure is moreobjective, mitigating for evaluation committee members scoring differentials.

SENIOR MINI-GRANT PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS, EVALUATION, AND GRANT REQUESTSSenior Mini-Grant Project Descriptions and Rankings

Final Rank

Sponsor Project Description FY 14 Requested

Grant $ FY 15 Requested

Grant $FY 14 Recommended


Grant $Req'd Match

Section Average Scores Final (After Adjustment)*

1

Jewish Family Services - North

County Inland and Eastern Rides & Smiles programs

The North County Inland Rides & Smiles and Eastern Rides & Smiles service, a volunteer driver program, will continue to provide dependable, friendly, and personal door-through-door transportation to seniors in need in both the North County Inland and Eastern San Diego (College and Tierrasanta) areas of the County. Operating funds have been requested.

$200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 20% 92.8 15

2Peninsula

Shepherd Center

The Out and About Peninsula program will continue to provide cost-effective supplemental transportation for seniors living in the Peninsula communities (Point Loma, Ocean Beach, Midway/Sports Arena). Transportation options include volunteer/escort service and door-through-door shopping van shuttle service. Operating funds have been requested.

$42,377 $47,167 $42,377 $47,167 20% 92.4 16

3Bayside

Community Center

This project will develop a transportation, translation and advocacy (TTA) program primarily for Spanish speaking and Vietnamese speaking seniors. Door-through-door transportation services will be provided to seniors who require translation and advocacy for health-related trips. Every effort will be made to accommodate other languages. TTA will expand transportation options for seniors 60+ who are facing physical limitations and/or linguistic isolation in Linda Vista. Operating funds have been requested.

$32,194 $42,203 $32,194 $42,203 20% 90.8 17

3 City of La Mesa

Rides4Neighbors provides transportation by volunteer drivers using their own vehicles to meet the essential needs of eligible seniors 60+ and/or disabled adults throughout East County. Essential needs include medical appointments, grocery or other shopping, personal care or business (bank, attorney), and social engagements. Rides4Neighbors also includes taxicab vouchers, accessible vans, a shuttle program, taxi scrip discounts, and an annual Senior Expo, which provides transportation resources and education for seniors. Operating funds have been requested.

$176,711 $176,711 $176,711 $176,711 20% 91.1 17

53



Final Rank





Grant $Req'd Match


Goals and Objectives 15 15Implementation Plan 15 15Program Effectiveness 9.8 10


12.8 15




Performance Adjustment 2.00% +2% -> -10%




13 15

Operational Sustainability 5 5






Program Effectiveness 8.6 10


11.4 15


Innovation 7.8 10

Project Budget 13.8 15Performance Indicators 13 15

Average Score 84.8 100Performance Adjustment 1.50% +2% -> -10%



12.8 15







13 15





* Final project rankings are determined using the Total Rank instead of the Average Score. The total rank adds up each evaluator's individual rankings, with the lowest final rank indicating which projects scored the highest across the committee members. This measure is more

objective, mitigating for evaluation committee members scoring differentials.

5

Jewish Family Services -

Northern San Diego Rides &

Smiles

This volunteer driver program, with the support of the 501(c)3 nonprofit organization called Charitable Adult Rides and Services California, or CARS CA, will continue to provide dependable, friendly, and personal door-through-door transportation to seniors (and other individuals with disabilities) in the Clairemont, La Jolla, Linda Vista, University City community and Carmel Valley areas. This project will also be expanding to Del Mar. Operating funds have been requested.

$150,818 $155,254 $150,818 $155,254 20% 88.5 29

6 City of Vista

The City of Vista's Out and About Vista senior transportation program will continue to provide affordable, accessible and flexible transportation throughout the community. This is accomplished through a senior shuttle service, volunteer mileage reimbursement service and a taxi voucher component. Operating funds have been requested.

$101,720 $103,561 $101,720 $103,561 20% 87.1 34

6Alpha Project for

the Homeless

The proposed project will build on Alpha Project's existing transportation service for low-income seniors and other special needs populations. Currently the program provides free, reliable, regularly scheduled shuttle services and rides scheduled on an as-needed basis for seniors primarily in the North County and in high-need areas of the cities of San Diego, including Chula Vista and other central San Diego County areas. The program will serve the transportation needs of seniors who would otherwise have no access to transportation to support their independence through community-based services. Operating funds have been requested.

$195,000 $0 $195,000 $0 20% 86.1 34

8

Full Access and Coordinated

Transportation (FACT) - RideFACT

Trip Reimbursement

This project will sustain RideFACT, a senior dial-a-ride, available for travel in all cities in San Diego County. When a senior's need does not match an existing transportation option, the trip is provided through RideFACT. These funds will be used to purchase rides from a pool of 6 transportation companies that form the brokerage. The trip is given to the lowest cost vendor in the brokerage. Operating funds have been requested.

$0 $125,000 $0 $125,000 20% 85.2 36

9Travelers Aid Society of San

Diego

The SenioRide program will continue to provide mobility options for low and fixed income seniors (age 60+) throughout San Diego. SenioRide offers a selection of transportation options that consists of taxicab vouchers, door-to-door service reimbursement, and a volunteer driver program. Operating funds have been requested.

$111,512 $117,810 $111,512 $117,810 20% 85.6 40

54



Final Rank





Grant $Req'd Match




9.4 15








10.4 15


Innovation 9 10






Program Effectiveness 9.8 10


14.4 15


Innovation 8 10Project Budget 13.4 15






10.6 15








13 15






10Mountain Health and Community

Services, Inc.

Headquartered in Campo, the volunteer driver program assists seniors and individuals with disabilities in accessing vital services and resources, including medical, visits, shopping, and transportation to other social service organizations throughout the County. Operating funds have been requested.

$32,465 $33,857 $32,465 $33,857 20% 83.6 50

11Independent

Transportation Network (ITN)

ITN provides dependable, friendly and personal door-through-door transportation to seniors in need as well as to adults who suffer visual impairments. This successful volunteer driver program eases isolation; keeps riders connected to their community; ensures compliance in keeping medical appointments and being able to conduct personal errands. This proposed project will expand the service area to 18 zip codes throughout San Diego, including Clairemont, University City, Pacific Beach, City Heights, North Park, Hillcrest and Linda Vista. Operating funds have been requested.

$125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 20% 79.4 59

12Friends of Adult Day Health Care

Centers (FADHCC)

This project is a non-emergency medical transportation program that provides door-to-door and door-through-door transportation for adults age 60 and older. FADHCC will contract with the Poway Adult Day Health Care Center to use their buses and staff to provide the service for those enrolled in the Poway center (in addition to the family caregivers and the Residential Care Facilities). Additionally, a one-day accessible shuttle will be provided for seniors enrolled at the Ramona Senior Center who need transportation to Pomerado Hospital or the medical facilities in Poway and Ramona. Operating funds have been requested.

$114,375 $114,877 $114,375 $114,877 20% 79.4 61

13Elderhelp of San

Diego

The proposed project will help to expand the number of volunteer driver trips provided through the Concierge Club program. The Concierge Club provides lower income seniors with the help they need to remain living in their own homes and communities. Door-through-door transportation is provided for seniors needing access to vital medical/personal care appointments, errands, grocery shopping, as well as recreational activities. Operating funds have been requested.

$90,980 $99,055 $90,980 $99,055 20% 78.3 66

14

FACT - Sustain RideFACT Brokerage Services

The proposed project seeks to sustain the "one-stop" transportation solutions needed by seniors and persons with disabilities to reach medical appointments and other quality of life related services in FY 2015. FACT refers callers to existing transportation services based on individual needs. When an existing service cannot be utilized, RideFACT will meet the need for affordable transportation connecting all of the 18 cities in San Diego County. Operating funds have been requested.

$0 $200,000 $0 $63,505 20% 75.3 69

55



Final Rank





Grant $Req'd Match



Implementation Plan 13.8 15Program Effectiveness 9 10


13 15








12.6 15




Performance Adjustment -3.5% +2% -> -10%Funded Project Subtotals: $1,603,152 $1,740,495 $1,450,847 $1,404,000


15

FACT - Sustain Mobility

Management services

The proposed project aims to fund FACT's mobility management services--telephone and web referrals to other existing services, brokerage management, outreach, and marketing (in conjunction with a New Freedom grant proposal). This project will also fund the staffing and administration expenses for developing new services such as MedAccessRIDE and Veteran's mobility program. Operating funds have been requested.

$30,000 $0 $30,000 $0 20% 75.1 72

16 City of Oceanside

The proposed project will provide seniors with the following transportation options: curb-to-curb taxi scrip subsidies, door-to-door shuttle services, and door-through-door volunteer driver services. The program is available for seniors that no longer drive a personal vehicle. Operating funds have been requested.

$200,000 $200,000 $47,695 $0 20% 75.3 75

56



Final Rank





Grant $Req'd Match




13.2 15







13.2 15







12.4 15





Unfunded Projects Subtotals: $330,800 $50,000 $0 $0


17

FACT - Expand RideFACT Brokerage Services

The proposed project will support the expansion of the "one stop" transportation solutions needed by seniors and persons with disabilities to reach medical appointments and other quality of life related services in FY 2014. This proposal is to support expansion of RideFACT brokerage services for senior transportation beyond what is currently provided by the nonurban areas of Valley Center, Rainbow, Alpine and Jamul. Operating funds have been requested.

$200,000 $0 $0 $0 20% 74.3 76

18FACT - Expand

Mobility Management

This proposed project looks to expand FACT's mobility management services for the following urbanized areas in San Diego County: Fallbrook, Bonsall, Camp Pendleton and Lakeside. Mobility management services include telephone and web referrals to other existing services, brokerage management, outreach and marketing. Operating funds have been requested.

$0 $50,000 $0 $0 20% 74.7 81

19Valley Center Community

Recreation Center

This proposed project aims to provide door-to-door and door-through-door transportation for the elderly and disabled individuals in the north east San Diego County and the greater Valley Center Area. The proposed service will provide transportation to and from non-emergency medical appointments and shopping. Operating funds have been requested.

$130,800 $0 $0 $0 20% 66.6 92

57



TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

58

March 15, 2013 AGENDA ITEM NO.: 4

Action Requested: INFORMATION

SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION GRANT PROGRAM STATUS UPDATE File Number 3320200

Introduction

This report provides an update through December 31, 2012, on three competitive grant programs

that SANDAG manages for specialized transportation projects and services: (1) the Job Access and

Reverse Commute (JARC) program; (2) the New Freedom program; and (3) the Senior Mini-Grant

program. The JARC and New Freedom programs are funded by the Federal Transit Administration

(FTA), and the Senior Mini-Grant program is funded through the TransNet Extension Ordinance.

All three programs require that SANDAG conduct a competitive selection process to distribute the

funds. The first set of awards under the JARC and New Freedom projects were made in

February 2007 and additional funds have been awarded through four subsequent cycles. Senior

Mini-Grant projects were first awarded in September 2008 and again in February 2011.

Discussion

Grant Programs Overview

The JARC program provides funding for transportation projects for reverse commuters and

employment-related transportation for persons of limited means. Since the program became a

formula program required to be distributed through a competitive process in 2006, 35 JARC projects

totaling over $9 million have been awarded funding. The New Freedom program provides funding

for transportation projects serving individuals with disabilities that go beyond the minimum

requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Since the program began in 2006, 34

projects have been awarded funding totaling over $4 million. The Senior Mini-Grant program funds

specialized transportation services for seniors whose special needs cannot be met by conventional

transit or paratransit service. Since the Senior Mini-Grant program began in 2009, 26 projects have

been awarded funding totaling almost $6 million.

Grant Oversight

SANDAG staff provides ongoing oversight of the three specialized transportation program grantees

through review of progress reports and project performance submitted with each invoice. The

grantees must maintain documentation of the services provided, and are inspected by SANDAG at

regular site visits to ensure compliance with grant agreement service delivery requirements and

SANDAG Board Policy No. 035: Competitive Grant Program Procedures (Attachment 1). This

information is used to provide regular status updates to the Transportation Committee. The last

report was presented at the December 14, 2012, meeting. Additionally, staff provides annual

updates to the Social Services Transportation Advisory Council on all specialized transportation

Agenda Item #11 SSTAC

March 18, 2013

59

grant programs and to the TransNet Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee on the Senior

Mini-Grant program.

Service Delivery

Attachment 2 includes a “performance watch list,” which compares the grantees actual cost/unit of

service delivery to the original proposal. Grant agreements for these programs executed after

January 1, 2012, include a provision where a grantee’s inability to achieve within 130 percent of its

proposed cost per unit by the end of the sixth month of the project would trigger a requirement for

the grantee to complete a Recovery Plan. By the end of the first year, if the grantee is still unable to

achieve the 130 percent threshold, the grant agreement would be terminated. The “performance

watch list” denotes grantees that may be required to complete a recovery plan or are in danger of

contract termination because performance is not in line with the level of service delivery included in

the original proposal, per the contract requirements.

SANDAG Board Policy No. 035

SANDAG Board Policy No. 035 was adopted in January 2010 and applies to all SANDAG grant

programs. The intent of the policy is to hold grantees accountable to the project schedules they

proposed in order to ensure fairness in the competitive process and encourage on-time project

completion so the public can benefit from the project deliverables as soon as possible. Per Policy

No. 035, in some circumstances, requests for extensions received by SANDAG from the grantee must

be considered by the Transportation Committee. Attachment 2 includes a “schedule watch list,”

which denotes those grantees that appear in danger of not being able to fully draw down on funds

without requiring an extension request to be considered by the Transportation Committee.

Next Steps

Staff will continue to monitor grantee progress relative to the grant agreements, proposals, and

Policy No. 035. The next report will be presented to the Transportation Committee in summer 2013.

CHARLES “MUGGS” STOLL

Director of Land Use and Transportation Planning

Attachments: 1. SANDAG Board Policy No. 035, Competitive Grant Program Procedures

2. Status of Active Specialized Transportation Grants

Key Staff Contact: Danielle Kochman, (619) 699-1921, [email protected]

4

BOARD POLICY NO. 035 COMPETITIVE GRANT PROGRAM PROCEDURES Applicability and Purpose of Policy This Policy applies to the following grant programs administered through SANDAG, whether from TransNet or another source: Smart Growth Incentive Program, Environmental Mitigation Program, Bike and Pedestrian Program, Senior Mini Grant Program, Job Access Reverse Commute, New Freedom, and Section 5310 Elderly & Persons with Disabilities Transportation Program. Nothing in this Policy is intended to supersede federal or state grant rules, regulations, statutes, or contract documents that conflict with the requirements in this Policy. There are never enough government grant funds to pay for all of the projects worthy of funding in the San Diego region. For this reason, SANDAG awards grant funds on a competitive basis that takes the grantees’ ability to perform their proposed project on a timely basis into account. SANDAG intends to hold grantees accountable to the project schedules they have proposed in order to ensure fairness in the competitive process and encourage grantees to get their projects implemented quickly so that the public can benefit from the project deliverables as soon as possible.

Procedures

1. Project Milestone and Completion Deadlines

1.1. When signing a grant agreement for a competitive program funded and/or administered by SANDAG, grant recipients must agree to the project delivery objectives and schedules in the agreement. In addition, a grantee’s proposal must contain a schedule that falls within the following deadlines. Failure to meet the deadlines below may result in revocation of all grant funds not already expended. The final invoice for capital, planning, or operations grants must be submitted prior to the applicable deadline.

1.1.1. Funding for Capital Projects. If the grant will fund a capital project, the project must be completed according to the schedule provided in the grant agreement, but at the latest, any necessary construction contract must be awarded within two years following execution of the grant agreement, and construction must be completed within eighteen months following award of the construction contract. Completion of construction for purposes of this policy shall be when the prime construction contractor is relieved from its maintenance responsibilities. If no construction contract award is necessary, the construction project must be complete within eighteen months following execution of the grant agreement.

1.1.2. Funding for Planning Grants. If the grant will fund planning, the project must be completed according to the schedule provided in the grant agreement, but at the latest, any necessary consultant contract must be awarded within one year following execution of the grant agreement, and the planning project must be complete within two years following award of the consultant contract. Completion of planning for purposes of this policy shall be when grantee approves the final planning project deliverable. If no consultant contract award is necessary, the planning project must be complete within two years of execution of the grant agreement.

Attachment 1

60

mmo

Rectangle

5

1.1.3 Funding for Operations Grants. If the grant will fund operations, the project must be completed according to the schedule provided in the grant agreement, but at the latest, any necessary services contract for operations must be awarded within one year following execution of the grant agreement, and the operations must commence within six months following award of the operations contract. If no services contract for operations is necessary, the operations project must commence within one year of execution of the grant agreement.

1.1.4 Funding for Equipment or Vehicles Grants. If the grant will fund equipment or vehicles, the project must be completed according to the schedule provided in the grant agreement, but at the latest, any necessary purchase contracts for equipment or vehicles must be awarded within one year following execution of the grant agreement, and use of the equipment or vehicles for the benefit of the public must commence within six months following award of the purchase contract.

2. Project Milestone and Completion Deadline Extensions

2.1. Schedules within grant agreements may include project scopes and schedules that will identify interim milestones in addition to those described in Section 1 of this Policy. Grant recipients may receive extensions on their project schedules of up to six months for good cause. Extensions of up to six months aggregate that would not cause the project to miss a completion deadline in Section 1 may be approved by the SANDAG Executive Director. Extensions beyond six months aggregate or that would cause the project to miss a completion deadline in Section 1 must be approved by the Policy Advisory Committee that has been delegated the necessary authority by the Board. For an extension to be granted under this Section 2, the following conditions must be met:

2.1.1. For extension requests of up to six months, the grantee must request the extension in writing to the SANDAG Program Manager at least two weeks prior to the earliest project schedule milestone deadline for which an extension is being requested. The Executive Director or designee will determine whether the extension should be granted. The Executive Director’s action will be reported out to the Board in following month’s report of delegated actions.

2.1.2. A grantee seeking an extension must document previous efforts undertaken to maintain the project schedule, explain the reasons for the delay, explain why the delay is unavoidable, and demonstrate an ability to succeed in the extended time frame the grantee proposes.

2.1.3. If the Executive Director denies an extension request under this Section 2, the grantee may appeal within ten business days of receiving the Executive Director’s response to the responsible Policy Advisory Committee by sending the appeal to the SANDAG Program Manager.

2.1.4. Extension requests that are rejected by the Policy Advisory Committee will result in termination of the grant agreement and obligation by the grantee to return to SANDAG any unexpended funds within 30 days. Unexpended funds are funds for project costs not incurred prior to rejection of the extension request by the Policy Advisory Committee.

61

mmo

Rectangle

6

3. Project Delays and Extensions in Excess of Six Months

3.1. Requests for extensions in excess of six months, or that will cause a project to miss a completion deadline in Section 1 (including those projects that were already granted extensions by the Executive Director and are again falling behind schedule), will be considered by the Policy Advisory Committee upon request to the SANDAG Program Manager.

3.2 A grantee seeking an extension must document previous efforts undertaken to maintain the project schedule, explain the reasons for the delay, explain why the delay is unavoidable, and demonstrate an ability to succeed in the extended time frame the grantee proposes. The grantee must provide the necessary information to SANDAG staff to place in a report to the Policy Advisory Committee. If sufficient time is available, and the grant utilized TransNet funds, the request will first be taken to the Independent Taxpayer Advisory Committee (ITOC) for a recommendation. The grantee should make a representative available at the meeting to present the information to, and/or answer questions from, the ITOC and Policy Advisory Committee.

3.3 The Policy Advisory Committee will only grant an extension under this Section 3 for extenuating circumstances that the grantee could not have reasonably foreseen.

4. Resolution and Execution of the Grant Agreement

4.1 Two weeks prior to the review by the Policy Advisory Committee of the proposed grants, prospective grantees must submit a resolution from their authorized governing body that includes the provisions in this Subsection 4.1. Failure to provide a resolution that meets the requirements in this Subsection 4.1 will result in rejection of the application and the application will be dropped from consideration with funding going to the next project as scored by the evaluation committee. In order to assist grantees in meeting this resolution deadline, when SANDAG issues the call for projects it will allow at least 90 days for grant application submission.

4.1.1 Grantee governing body commits to providing the amount of matching funds set forth in the grant application.

4.1.2 Grantee governing body authorizes staff to accept the grant funding and execute a grant agreement if an award is made by SANDAG.

4.2 Grantee’s authorized representative must execute the grant agreement within 45 days from the date SANDAG presents the grant agreement to the prospective grantee for execution. Failure to meet the requirements in this Subsection 4.2 may result in revocation of the grant award.

5. Increased Availability of Funding Under this Policy

5.1. Grant funds made available as a result of the procedures in this Policy may be awarded to the next project on the recommended project priority list from the most recent project selection process, or may be added to the funds available for the next project funding cycle, at the responsible Policy Advisory Committee’s discretion. Any project that loses funding due to failure to meet the deadlines specified in this Policy may be resubmitted to compete for funding in a future call for grant applications.

Adopted: January 2010

62

mmo

Rectangle

Status of Active Specialized Transportation GrantsSenior Mini-Grant Program through 12/31/12

Cost $230,737.50Trips 13,000 Performance NO

Cost/Trip $17.75 Schedule NO

Cost $123,670.00Trips 7,275 Cost Efficiency NO

Cost/Trip $17.00 Schedule YES















* Proposed cost and trip figures for first year of proposal** Cumulative to date*** 130% of proposed first year cost/trip

Redwood Elderlink - 5001698 Proposal* Actual** Grant Term Watch List

City of Oceanside - 5001100 Proposal* Actual** Grant Term Watch List

StatusPerformance Threshold***

$43.90$67,286.21


$19.20$694,916.22 07/01/2009 - 06/30/2013

38,710 Percent of Funding Expended$17.95 75.31%

04/01/2012 - 06/30/20133,317 Percent of Funding Expended

$20.29 62.56%

ElderHelp - #5001693 Proposal* Actual** Grant Term StatusPerformance Threshold***

$22.10At the current draw down rate Elderhelp would require a 10 month extension. This is an improvement from last quarter, in which their draw down rate called for a 17 month extension.35.31%

$86,608.195,098 Percent of Funding Expended

01/01/2012 - 12/31/2013

Watch List

$16.99

City of Vista - #5001692 Proposal* Actual** Grant Term StatusPerformance Threshold***

$14.37At the current draw down rate City of Vista would require a 6 month extension. This is an improvement from last quarter, in which their draw down rate called for a 9 month extension.$10.01

04/01/2012 - 03/31/2014

29.55%7,197 Percent of Funding Expended

Watch List

$72,008.81

Jewish Family Services - #5001697 Proposal* Actual** Grant Term Status

Performance Threshold***

$23.07

$15.91 53.32%

Watch List

$253,788.0315,952

1/1/2012 - 12/31/2013Percent of Funding Expended

Travelers Aid Society - #5001700 Proposal* Actual** Grant Term Watch List


$16.00$80,128.36 04/01/2012 - 03/31/2014 At the current draw down rate Travelers Aid would require a 14 month

extension to draw down on all funding.7,539 Percent of Funding Expended$10.63 29.10%

City of La Mesa - #5001690 Proposal* Actual** Grant Term Watch List


$22.26$82,611.96 07/01/2012 - 06/30/2014


FACT - 5001103 Proposal* Actual** Grant Term Watch List


$49.11$74,713.90 05/01/2009 - 12/31/2012 The contract term has ended. FACT will continue the project in 2014

using new funding through the Senior Mini-Grant and New Freedom programs.

2,968 Percent of Funding Expended$25.17 48%

Friends of Adult Day Health Care Centers - 5001694 Proposal* Actual** Grant Term Watch List


$51.20$13,129.45 07/01/2012 - 06/30/2014 At the current draw down rate, Friends of Adult Day Health Care

Centers would require a 17 month extension to draw down on all funding.

317 Percent of Funding Expended$41.42 5.17%

Attachment 2

63

Status of Active Specialized Transportation GrantsNew Freedom Program through 12/31/12





Cost $348,598.75Units 19,200 Cost Efficiency NO

Cost/Unit $18.16 Schedule NO





$35.62

Proposal*Jewish Family Services - #5001713

City of La Mesa - #5001709 Proposal* Actual**


$35.94Grant Term Actual**

Watch List

Watch List


$158,903.82 01/01/2012 - 3/31/2013

Grant Term

$27.40 36.88%

$132,063.38 04/01/2012 - 03/31/20135,332 Percent of Funding Expended

FACT - #5001081 Proposal* Actual** Grant Term Watch List


$23.60$841,705.03 10/01/2008 - 6/30/2013

62,845 Percent of Funding Expended13.39 80.48%

Renewing Life - #5001714 Proposal* Actual** Grant Term Watch List


$36.11$30,522.42 06/01/2012 - 05/31/2013

At the current draw down rate Renewing Life would require an 11 month extension to draw down on all funding.1,194 Percent of Funding Expended$25.56 30.52%

64

Status of Active Specialized Transportation GrantsJARC Program through 12/31/12

Cost $82,127.50Units 548 Cost Efficiency NO

Cost/Unit $149.87 Schedule NO

Cost $88,753.00Car Loan 4 Cost Efficiency NO

Cost/Loan $22,188.25 Schedule NO

Cost $156,072.00Car Loan 20 Cost Efficiency NO

Cost/Loan $7,803.60 Schedule YES

Cost $193,418.00Trips 54,638 Cost Efficiency YES






Cost $302,430.00Trips 85,550 Cost Efficiency YES










International Rescue Committee - #5001706 Proposal* Actual** Grant Term Watch List


$10,144.68$44,424.52 04/01/2012 - 03/31/2013 At the current draw down rate IRC would require a 20 month extension to draw down on all funding.

However, this program is new and is expected to grow significantly. 5 Percent of Funding Expended$8,884.90 5.33%

MTS Route 905 Proposal* Actual** Grant Term Watch List


$1.83$176,774.00 07/01/2012 - 06/30/2013 MTS is a direct recipient of the FTA and therefore does not have a grant agreement with SANDAG for JARC

funding. Ridership on this route has been higher than expected, which means higher revenues and therefore a lower net cost for the route.


$4.19

$302,430.0057,349$8.23

NCTD SPRINTER Weekend Service Proposal* Actual** Grant Term Watch List


$1.2507/01/2012 - 06/30/2013

Percent of Funding Expended122.80%

$263,060.00148,018

$0.95

$28,844.73$1,102.19 05/01/2011 - 12/31/2017

2 Percent of Funding Expended$551.09 0.99%

NCTD Medical Jobs Shuttle Proposal* Actual** Grant Term Watch List


$4.6003/01/2012 - 02/28/2013 NCTD is a direct recipient of the FTA and therefore does not have a grant agreement with SANDAG for

JARC funding. Percent of Funding Expended100.00%

$341,598.00119,565

$2.86

$259,454.00


$194.83

$74.41 71.49%

$58,711.23 04/01/2012 - 03/31/2013789 Percent of Funding Expended

Watch ListInternational Rescue Committee - #5001705 Proposal* Actual** Grant Term

NCTD is a direct recipient of the FTA and therefore does not have a grant agreement with SANDAG for JARC funding.

$193,418.0023,576$10.84

North County Transit District (NCTD) Route 302 Proposal* Actual** Grant Term Watch List


$4.6003/01/2012 - 02/28/2013

Status

St. Madeleine Sophie's Center - #5001342 Proposal* Actual** Grant Term Watch List


07/01/2012 - 06/30/2013


Actual** Grant Term Watch List


$4.6103/01/2012 - 02/28/2013


Actual**


Status


103,335

NCTD Route 351 & 352 Proposal*

NCTD Route 355/357 El Norte Parkway Proposal* Grant Term Watch List


$4.7103/01/2012 - 02/28/2013



$5.31$140,238.00


$3.27$530,568.00 07/01/2012 - 06/30/2013


Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) Route 960 Proposal* Actual** Grant Term Watch List

65

Status of Active Specialized Transportation GrantsJARC Program through 12/31/12

Cost $400,000.00Trips 1,291,624 Cost Efficiency NO


Cost $400,000.00Trips 1,657,850 Cost Efficiency NO





MTS Route 967/968 Proposal* Actual** Grant Term Watch List




$4.02$182,916.00 07/01/2012 - 06/30/2013



$0.31$200,000.00 07/01/2012 - 06/30/2013


Status


$0.40$200,000.00 07/01/2012 - 06/30/2013


66

meeting notice and agenda · 2013-03-12 · meeting notice and agenda social services...

Documents