transportation authority of marin board of …€¦ · marin transit’s annual presentation...

TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY OF MARIN

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING JUNE 22, 2017

7:00 P.M. MARIN COUNTY CIVIC CENTER, ROOM 330 3501 Civic Center Drive, San Rafael, California

Late agenda material can be inspected in TAM’s office between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The TAM Office is located at 900 Fifth Avenue, Suite, 100, San Rafael.

The meeting facilities are accessible to persons with disabilities. Requests for special accommodations (assisted listening

device, sign language interpreters, etc.) should be directed to Denise Merleno, 415-226-0820 or email:[email protected] no later than 5 days before the meeting date.

The Marin County Civic Center is served by several bus lines including Marin Transit Routes 45, 45K, 49, 233, and 259. Route 45 provides service to the Civic Center Hall of Justice Arch until 8:43 PM. In the evening, Golden Gate Transit provides service until 11:24 PM with routes 70 and 80 along Highway 101 from the San Pedro Road bus pads, which are about a half mile away. To access the San Pedro bus pad NB, walk south down San Pedro Rd and take the footpath to the NB 101 onramp where the bus stop is located. To access the SB pad, walk down San Pedro Rd and under the freeway, turn right on Merrydale and then take the footpath near the SB onramp to the bus pad. For arrival and departure times, call 511 or visit www.marintransit.org, or www.goldengate.com

900 Fifth Avenue Suite 100 San Rafael California 94901 Phone: 415/226-0815 Fax: 415/226-0816 www.tam.ca.gov Belvedere James Campbell Corte Madera Diane Furst Fairfax John Reed Larkspur Dan Hillmer Mill Valley Stephanie Moulton-Peters Novato Eric Lucan Ross P. Beach Kuhl San Anselmo Tom McInerney San Rafael Gary Phillips Sausalito Ray Withy Tiburon Alice Fredericks County of Marin Damon Connolly Katie Rice Kathrin Sears Dennis Rodoni Judy Arnold

AGENDA

1. Chair’s Report (Discussion)

2. Commissioner Matters Not on the Agenda (Discussion)

3. Executive Director’s Report (Discussion)

a. Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Third Lane and Multi-Use Path Report

b. Look Ahead Report - Attachment

4. Commissioner Reports (Discussion)

a. MTC Report - Commissioner Connolly

b. Marin Transit Report – Commissioner Rice

c. SMART – Vice-Chair Arnold

5. Open time for public expression, up to three minutes per speaker, on items not on the Board of Commissioners’ Agenda. (While members of the public are welcome to address the Board, under the Brown Act, Board members may not deliberate or take action on items not on the agenda, and generally may only listen.)

6. CONSENT CALENDAR (Action) – Attachment

a. Approve TAM Board Meeting Minutes June 22, 2017

1

TAM Board Agenda June 22, 2017

b. Authorize San Rafael to exchange Transportation Sales Tax (Measure A) Funds from the Grand Avenue Bridge Project with One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Funds from the Francisco Boulevard West Multi-Use Path

c. Allocate Transportation Sales Tax (Measure A) to Marin County for the Sir Francis Drake Rehabilitation Project in West Marin

d. Update Revenue Projections for the Transportation Sales Tax (Measure A) Strategic Plan

e. Allocate Transportation Sales Tax (Measure A) Funds from Strategy 3.2 and Reserve Funds for Local Road and Related Infrastructure Projects

f. Appointments to the Citizens’ Oversight Committee

g. Contract Addendum for Crossing Guard Services

h. Changes to Crossing Guard Program Location Scoring Methodology

i. Contract Award Street Smarts Banner Installation

j. TAM Strategic Vision Plan Contract Extension

k. Authorize One-Year Contract Extension for Safe Routes to School Program

l. Approve Funding Agreement with the City of Larkspur for the East Sir Francis Drake Blvd Project Approaching the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge

m. Review and Acceptance of 2017 Measure A Half-cent Transportation Sales Tax Compliance Audit Selection List

n. Resolution of Appreciation to Assemblyman Jim Frazier and Senator Jim Beall for their sponsorship of AB1 and SB1, which created substantial funds to address transportation needs in California, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017

7. a. State Legislative Update and Adopt Position on Senate Bill (SB) 86 (Action) – Attachment

b. Update on Implementation of SB1 (Discussion)

8. Assessment of Crossing Guard Program (Action) - Attachment

9. Marin Transit

a. Marin Transit’s Annual Presentation (Discussion) - Attachment

b. Allocate FY 17/18 Measure A Transportation Sales Tax Funds to Marin Transit (Action) - Attachment

c. Allocate FY 17/18 Vehicle Registration Fee (Measure B) Funds to Marin Transit (Action) - Attachment

10. Commute Alternatives Program Update (Action) - Attachment

11. Caltrans Report (Discussion)

2

3 b EDR- Look-Ahead-Reportrev 6/22/17

NOTE: Work regarding renewal of the Marin 1/2 cent transportation sales tax is not included in this chartAnticipated Timing

PLANNING• Board to consider Draft Strategic Vision Plan for review and approval. Includes capturing Transportation Setting, Transportation Vision(including Innovation Workshop Recap), and Strategic Revenue element July• Participate as partner with Golden Gate and San Rafael (lead agencies) regarding environmental document and design of PermanentBettini Transit Center Relocation (Discussion) Ongoing• Hear Marin Transit Status Report and Plans for Update to their Short Range Transit Plan July• Present to TAM Board Congestion Mangement Program update and System Monitoring report September• Present to TAM Board Safe Routes to Schools Program Workplan for 17/18 July• Seek TAM Board approval of Next Steps for Sales Tax renewal and approval of Baseline Polling Ongoing

PROJECT DELIVERY• Present regular updates on State Route 37 Project (Discussion item) July - Ongoing• Manage creation of a new crossing guard ranked location list July - September• TAM staff manages on ongoing construction of Class II Bikeway Almonte/Shoreline July - September• Provide Update to TAM Board on status of Bellam Blvd & East Sir Francis Drake Blvd Approach improvements to Richmond San RafaelBridge September• Seek TAM Board approval of Design Contract services for Marin Sonoma Narrows- final project phases September

PROGRAMMING• Track and participate in County of Marin Environmental Studies and Preliminary Engineering for the Sir Francis Drake Boulevard Projectin the Central Marin Planning Area/Ross Valley Ongoing• Announce projects selected for TDA/TFCA funds September

FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION• Various Potential Board Actions Needed Related to TAM Entering Into Contract with CalPERS Directly July - Sep

LEGISLATION• Track 2017 legislation and considers adopting positions on new bills Ongoing

LOOK-AHEAD - ANTICIPATED MAJOR TAM BOARD ITEMS July-September 2017

Item 3b

3

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

4

MEETING OF THE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY OF MARIN

TAM

JUNE 1, 2017 7:00 PM

MARIN COUNTY CIVIC CENTER, ROOM 330 3501 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA

Page 1 of 10

MEETING MINUTES

Members Present: Stephanie Moulton-Peters, City of Mill Valley, TAM Chair Judy Arnold, Marin County Board of Supervisors, TAM Vice Chair Damon Connolly, Marin County Board of Supervisors Alice Fredericks, Tiburon Town Council Diane Furst, Corte Madera Town Council Renee Goddard, Fairfax Town Council (Alternate) Ford Greene, San Anselmo Town Council (Alternate) Dan Hillmer, Larkspur City Council P. Beach Kuhl, Ross Town CouncilEric Lucan, Novato City CouncilKathrin Sears, Marin County Board of SupervisorsDennis Rodoni, Marin County Board of SupervisorsRay Withy, Sausalito City CouncilKate Colin, San Rafael City Council (Alternate)

Members Absent: Katie Rice, Marin County Board of Supervisors John Reed, Fairfax Town Council Gary Phillips, San Rafael City Council Tom McInerney, San Anselmo Town Council James Campbell, Belvedere City Council

Staff Members Present Dianne Steinhauser, Executive Director Bill Whitney, Deputy Executive Director Dan Cherrier, Principal Project Delivery Manager David Chan, Manager of Programming and Legislation Derek McGill, Planning Manager Li Zhang, Chief Financial Officer Nick Nguyen, Principal Project Delivery Manager Molly Graham, Public Outreach Coordinator Scott McDonald, Senior Transportation Planner

Vice Chair Arnold called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., noting that Chair Moulton-Peters had been delayed but would be arriving soon.

Item 6a

5

TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY OF MARIN TAM June 1, 2017

Page 2 of 10

1. Public Hearing on the Draft FY2017-18 Annual Budget

Executive Director (ED) Dianne Steinhauser indicated that the budget would be presented to and discussed by the Board later in the meeting, but she indicated now was the time for any members of the public to make whatever comments they wanted.

Vice Chair Arnold opened and closed the public hearing with no speakers coming forward.

2. Chair’s Report (Discussion)

Vice Chair Arnold said she had nothing to report.

3. Commissioner Matters Not on the Agenda (Discussion)

There were none.

4. Executive Director's Report (Discussion)

ED Dianne Steinhauser asked the Board to consider adjourning the meeting tonight in memory of Dietrich Stroeh, who passed away suddenly on May 30th. She reviewed items in her written Executive Director’s Report, including the successful car-share launch today with Whistlestop and Zipcar; support services for SMART first/last mile access offered through TAM, including the Lyft subsidy and coupons for first/last mile service; participation in Marin County’s TDM Workshop; the Plan Bay Area Open House on May 20th; changes in funding with the Golden Gate Bridge District programming additional federal money for the Bettini Transit Center with appreciation to Golden Gate for an increasing match of their funds; a brief summary of SB 1 (Senate Bill 1) and workshops planned to help explain how allocations will work; the progress of RM 3 (Regional Measure 3) legislation through the Assembly; consideration by the Trump Administration of federal transportation funding; the TAM Junction Bike Path Project (in the Almonte area) about ready to start construction with anticipated night-time road closures, and the ED’s participation in a national conference with a successful presentation on Marin’s Safe Routes to Schools program.

Chair Moulton-Peters entered and was seated during the ED report.

There was no public comment on the Executive Director Report.

a. Richmond – San Rafael Bridge Third Lane and Multi-Use Path Report

At the request of Chair Moulton-Peters, ED Steinhauser updated the Board on the status of the bridge projects, with the Third Lane progressing well through construction, and the upper deck bike path yet to be advertised.

Chair Moulton-Peters expressed regret at arriving late to this meeting, and she also mentioned that Commissioner Rice had passed on her apologies for being unable to attend.

Item 6a

6


Page 3 of 10

5. Commissioner Reports (Discussion)

a. Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Report Commissioner Connolly reported that a Memorandum of Understanding has been signed between ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments) and MTC to consolidate the staff of the two agencies under MTC, the result of a successful mediation process, hopefully the first step in the process of merging both organizations. He also reported on a recent workshop on Plan Bay Area 2040 in Mill Valley, next steps in the process, Regional Measure 3, Senate approval of the RM3 toll legislation, SB 595, and the support from the MTC board overall.

b. Marin Transit Report

In the absence of Commissioner Rice, Chair Moulton-Peters discussed support for Marin Transit programs, sale of school bus passes for the youth in Ross Valley, Reed Union and Mill Valley School Districts, and service throughout the county for the Senior Travel Navigator program, including training for the program at the San Rafael Transit Center.

c. SMART

Commissioner Sears stated that SMART (Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit) is currently in test mode, expressing concern about quiet zones and the potential risk to pedestrians. She also noted that SMART would soon be announcing its anticipated start date, and she expressed appreciation for the pending collaboration TAM has developed with Lyft. Chair Moulton-Peters asked if SMART had safety information available for individual jurisdictions to share with their constituents, and Commissioner Sears confirmed it did.

6. Open Time for Public Expression Cindy Winter of Greenbrae said she was excited about the Lyft service and the potential for SMART to be less dependent on bus transportation. She also discussed an article in the New York Times on rideshare options that are offered in Europe and New Jersey, and the difficulties that have become apparent with Uber. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR (Action)

a. Approve TAM Board Minutes of June 1, 2017 b. Revised Programming OBAG and Local Funds c. Accept 2017 Update to the OBAG Transportation Investment Strategy d. Appointments to the Technical Advisory Committee e. Appointments to the Citizens’ Oversight Committee

ED Steinhauser noted the misspelling of a name on page 6 of 9 in the minutes; and she indicated it will be corrected. Chair Moulton-Peters said she had minor edits as well, which she will give staff to correct. There was no public comment on the Consent Calendar.

Item 6a

7


Page 4 of 10

Commissioner Fredericks moved to approve the Consent Calendar (including edits to the Minutes), and Commissioner Sears seconded the motion. It was approved unanimously.

8. Approve Letter to MTC on HOV Hours of Operation (Action) ED Steinhauser indicated she would be presenting this item which recommended that the TAM Board approve the letter, as presented in the staff report, to be sent to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) on High Occupant Vehicle (HOV) lane hours of operation. She indicated that Deputy Executive Director Bill Whitney would assist to answer questions. ED Steinhauser discussed the actions staff is presenting for the Board’s consideration, a brief review of the history of HOV lanes in the Bay area, involvement of Caltrans, MTC, and the CHP as a partnership, changes to HOV hours proposed by MTC for implementation in June, concerns expressed by the TAM Executive Committees as well as the TAM Board – potential impacts, what will determine the success (or failure) of the change, other management efforts that should be combined with the changed hours, such as ramp metering, and inclusion of a public information campaign prior to implementation of the changes. She also reviewed the strength of the proposed resolution as compared with the earlier draft letter to MTC and staff’s recommendation for approval. She noted that a copy of the proposed resolution was included in the supplemental packet, as well as a letter from Jonathan Frieman who asked that it be shared with the Board. Commissioner Withy questioned why the original concern about the impacts of HOV lane operation was now mixed up with several different variables (ramp metering etc.). He thought that the first issue of the proposed pilot study considering the effects should be studied independently from the other matters. ED Steinhauser explained that the hours change should not be an experiment on commuters, she was worried that concerns regarding the impacts on workers and residents in Marin could overshadow the benefits that could result. Chair Moulton-Peters clarified that potential delays in the general-purpose lanes could be perceived as a negative by the general public. She thought that a full study of the potential negative impacts would be helpful to the public’s understanding of the concept. Commissioner Sears added that one goal of the change in HOV hours is for more commuters to form carpools and/or use public transit instead. Commissioner Fredericks commented on the economy found in considering more than one variable at a time, and she noted that most of the variables mentioned are already included as current issues but there is not enough time to consider each one separately. She indicated her support of combining different mechanisms discussed by ED Steinhauser to relieve congestion on 101. Commissioner Lucan commented on the consideration of a letter to MTC compared with a resolution from TAM. He asked Commissioner Connolly as an MTC representative which he thought was best. Commissioner Connolly said he thought the resolution would be more effective, which encapsulates more of the issues that have been raised. He also commented on the unique situation that Marin has, with the freeway functioning as a main street for many of the towns. Commissioner Greene agreed the resolution was better, noting that it is better written. He also said that the goal should be to benefit all groups of commuters, and to move away from the concept of one person, one car. He indicated his support.

Item 6a

8


Page 5 of 10

Commissioner Goddard discussed her concern that the implementation date of summer 2017 provides insufficient time for outreach and she asked if other Commissioners had any thoughts in that regard. Commissioner Kuhl said he thought the resolution should be more specific about timing for reasons he discussed. Commissioner Hillmer expressed agreement about the timelines as well as specific dates. He also noted that the goal of the study is to attain optimal system design, which is by nature multi-variant. He was concerned that there are not enough variables to evaluate the pushing of traffic onto local streets, especially with multiple local projects that would be under construction simultaneously. Chair Moulton-Peters asked whether adding “consideration of impacts to local roads” would be sufficient, and Commissioner Hillmer said yes. Vice Chair Arnold said she shared the concerns of many residents that increasing the HOV hours at this point in time would dramatically increase commute times. She noted that an informal survey she sent out to her mailing list showed 87% of respondents were opposed to extension of the carpool lane hours at this time. Vice Chair Arnold indicated she did not support changing the hours at the current time. However, she said that if the plans move ahead, she strongly suggested that TAM continues to work to assess the benefits and impacts of the changes and a broader approach be implemented to manage traffic appropriately. Commissioner Colin noted that for her the statements in the resolution are more appropriate for opposing the change in hours at this time. She thought it would be better to advocate for beginning the study now, to ensure that the questions are answered first. ED Steinhauser explained that the reason for suggesting a 3-month pilot program, rather than a six-month program, is because the success or failure of the program should become apparent quickly, without an extended period of negative impact being necessary. Chair Moulton-Peters suggested phrasing it “the pilot shall begin when studies are completed.” She also expressed it is obvious a public information campaign should be implemented first. Commissioner Hillmer asked that the study results be collected and assessed first and ED Steinhauser noted that MTC will be presenting their studies shortly to Caltrans, after which they will decide whether or not to begin the pilot. She reminded the Board that the decision is not TAM’s to make, but Caltrans, MTC and CHP. There was more discussion of the types of study – preliminary information provided to MTC to help them make their decision, and then additional information gathered through ongoing traffic review. Commissioner Greene and ED Steinhauser discussed the reasons for the timing of the pilot program over summer. Commissioner Fredericks clarified the need for two kinds of studies, including studies following implementation of the pilot program to determine the program’s success. Commissioner Lucan recommended the adoption of a phased-in approach for the changes, and ED Steinhauser noted that there had not been any indication that this was acceptable to the operators Caltrans, MTC and the CHP. Commissioner Hillmer asked what recourse is available if the study is not successful and ED Steinhauser questioned how that could be determined. Mr. Hillmer asked about increased impacts to local streets, and ED Steinhauser discussed actions that could be proposed or promoted through our legislators. Commissioner Hillmer suggested that TAM include a quantifiable definition for failure of the system and/or a delay to the implementation. ED Steinhauser indicated staff thought the owner/operators should decide the definition of failure and what that would trigger.

Item 6a

9


Page 6 of 10

Commissioner Kuhl suggested TAM not define success or failure in the resolution, and Chair Moulton-Peters stated that Caltrans has clear standards to apply, which she discussed. Vice Chair Arnold moved to approve the Resolution with suggestions made by the Board and with the understanding that MTC, CHP or Caltrans will make the decision for success or failure of the changed hours and act accordingly, which was seconded by Commissioner Fredericks. Commissioner Withy stated that he supported the resolution, but he expressed great concern that Sausalito will be impacted by the combination of proposed changes to the HOV lanes and ramp metering. ED Steinhauser reviewed the proposed changes from the Board discussion – adding a bullet to consider impacts to local roads to be evaluated in advance of the pilot study, consideration of which elements should be studied preliminarily and a pilot implemented within a shorter time period if possible, definition of success and establishing what actions will be taken, consideration of seasonal commute evaluation periods prior to initiating the pilot project, and that there should be a clear idea of what constitutes success and what constitutes unacceptable impacts specifically regarding congestion in the mixed flow lanes and local roads. There was no public comment on the item. The motion for approval was unanimously approved. 8. Next Steps in Sales Tax Renewal Process ED Steinhauser presented the staff report, discussing the process thus far and likely next steps. She reviewed the questions now before the Board, the city/county educational briefings on what project/program improvements the current sales tax measure is providing, potential formation of a Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee, and consultant support for the Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee effort.

a. Report on City/County Briefings (Discussion) ED Steinhauser summarized the educational presentations made to the cities, towns, and county in the past months and input received from those presentations as presented in the staff report.

b. Review Polling Results on Renewal or Expansion of Local Transportation Sales Tax (Discussion) Godbe & Associates

Bryan Godbe of Godbe Research stated that his firm was commissioned to conduct a survey of local voters to gauge their transportation needs and priorities. He reviewed the methodology used, types of questions used in the survey, purposes of each, significance of the data whether support or opposition, probability of success of renewal versus increase, commute transit method, commute time, summary and recommendations including the recommendation that TAM consider starting the process for a November 2018 sales tax measure. ED Steinhauser explained that there was a deliberate difference in the question regarding support of local street and road rehabilitation on major roads and separately, local residential streets, and there was strong support for both. Regarding Q2: Satisfaction with Transportation in Marin County, Commissioner Hillmer asked about tracking of satisfaction versus dissatisfaction relative to the current transportation conditions in Marin to see which position is more likely to support a new sales tax measure. Mr. Godbe stated that he does have that data but acknowledged

Item 6a

10


Page 7 of 10

it was a difficult question to answer, however cross-referencing shows that there are supporters in both categories that will support the tax measure. Commissioner Hillmer also noted that the percentages that show such low support for transit alternatives are similar to the percentages that drive. He wondered whether their support for the measure is a direct result of their preference to drive; i.e. they would rather pay an increased sales tax and continue to drive. Mr. Godbe said he thought that was likely. Commissioner Rodoni asked whether there was increased reliability of placing a measure on the ballot in 2018 vs 2020. Mr. Godbe acknowledged that is possible, but there is also the chance of political and economic risks when a later date is chosen. Commissioner Rodoni asked about the viability of this measure against others in the same election cycle. Mr. Godbe noted there was comparison with the tax measure and SB1 and RM3, although they were not labeled as such, and they proved the strongest argument against – i.e. we’re giving you the money from those measures so do a better job. Commissioner Rodoni asked about potential county measures. Mr. Godbe explained that a general question was asked since no specific measures were identified, but when one is, then a follow-up poll could ask specific comparative questions. Commissioner Lucan asked about average age of the respondents. Mr. Godbe did not have the average, but he did review the age breakdowns for either the 2018 or 2020 election. Commissioner Goddard asked about the limited sales tax cap which may limit a local jurisdiction’s ability to absorb more than a quarter percent sales tax. ED Steinhauser said that is not a factor that would be discussed tonight, nor was it part of the poll process, but it will need to be considered before a future election if raising the sales tax was called for. Chair Moulton-Peters asked, and Mr. Godbe confirmed that a 60% poll-based approval is a good place to be, but below 50% is a good indication that a ballot measure would not be successful. Mr. Godbe also confirmed that it’s difficult to bring approval up from 50-60%, but he noted as well that the margin of error for each means it could still change. Chair Moulton-Peters commented on information she learned at the Executive Committee meeting regarding how one takes the survey and what the results will be. Mr. Godbe discussed the finding and the implications noting that landline and phone respondents tend to be less supportive in total but more definitive. The opinions of on-line respondents are not as solidified. This supports the reasoning for taking a hybrid approach when conducting a poll. Chair Moulton-Peters opened public comment on the item. Steve Kinsey, former County Supervisor and TAM Commissioner, noted that the single most important thing that TAM does in his opinion is to manage and finance Marin’s transportation improvements. He acknowledged it is never easy to ask constituents for money, especially these days, but he commented on the benefit to the community overall in investing in these improvements. He encouraging the Board to move forward with an expenditure plan advisory committee to get clarity and specificity on developing a good measure. He advocated for the EPAC to prioritize the improvements in terms of funding that is anticipated. He noted that many people in the community look at the amount spent for transportation – roads in particular - and believe it is too much, but he pointed out that the TAM Board members know the truth behind those numbers – that there never will be too much to be spent on transportation infrastructure.

Item 6a

11


Page 8 of 10

c. Create a Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee (Action) ED Steinhauser presented the staff report which recommended that the TAM Board approve establishing a Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee (EPAC), comprised of individuals representing diverse stakeholder groups in Marin County, to develop a Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan defining the transportation projects and programs in a future sales tax measure to be considered by Marin County voters. She noted that the creation of the Advisory Committee will not obligate the Board to go forward with a ballot measure but will allow for important information to be gathered and analyzed. She discussed the role of the Advisory Committee, its membership, and the anticipated meeting sequence schedule. She finalized her comments by stating that TAM’s Citizen’s Oversight Committee was supportive of formation of this group and their willingness to participate as part of this EPAC. There was no public comment on the item. Vice Chair Arnold moved to approve creation of a Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee. Commissioner Lucan second the motion, which was unanimously approved.

d. Approve Consultant Support for the Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee (Action) ED Steinhauser presented this item which recommended that the TAM Board approve consultant support for the Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee (EPAC) and associated public information efforts. She discussed the anticipated range of costs for the Advisory Committee process. There was no public comment on the item. Commissioner Furst moved to approve the consultant support for the Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee. Commissioner Greene seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. 9. Lyft Partnership Program –Approve ADA Services Agreement with Whistlestop (Action) ED Steinhauser introduced Planning Manager Derek McGill and Senior Planner Scott McDonald to present the staff report that recommended the TAM Board to receive update of the Lyft Partnership Pilot Program and authorize TAM Executive Director to enter into contract with Whistlestop for ADA bus transit services associated with the Lyft Partnership at an estimated cost not to exceed $15,000. Mr. McGill reviewed the background of the coupon-based Lyft Partnership Program, marketing and outreach for the GetSMART17 plan, ADA Service component with Lyft and Whistlestop, how the program will work, and finalized his comments with the recommendation for the TAM Board. Commissioner Colin expressed excitement at the concept, and she asked whether it would be possible to promote Lyft through SMART’s website as well. Mr. McGill said staff will be coordinating with SMART to see if they want to advertise the service on their website and email blasts, as well as for the distribution stands at SMART Stations, already agreed upon. There was no public comment on the item. Commissioner Connolly moved to approve the staff recommendation, and Commissioner Arnold seconded the motion. It was unanimously approved.

Item 6a

12


Page 9 of 10

ED Steinhauser noted that this program, the TAM sponsored Emergency Ride Home, the Zip cars (carshare program), and the bikeshare program which will be presented next month, will complete options for the first/last mile SMART access program. 10. Measure B, Vehicle Registration Fee, Current Fiscal Year Alternative Fuel Program Update and

Fiscal Year 2017-18 Program Adoption (Action) ED Steinhauser introduced Project Manager Nick Nguyen to present the staff report which recommended that the TAM Board receive an update of the current fiscal year Measure B – Element 3.3 Alternative Fuel Program and adopt Fiscal Year 2017-18 program proposal. The FY 2017-18 program is designed to review and refresh the program we have made since inception, with a continued emphasis on electric vehicle (EV) adoption, new EV marketing effort and additional review of new clean transportation fuel technologies. Mr. Nguyen discussed an update to the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure and Promotion element under Measure B, the goals of the Alternative Fuels program, the adopted 2016-17 budget of $240,000 and the six activities which comprise that budget. He concluded with a summary of the latest statistics regarding EV rebates and plans for next year. Mr. Nguyen then showed a short video presentation produced in conjunction with the Marin School of Environmental Leadership to promote electric vehicle use by high school students. Vice Chair Arnold asked what makes diesel fuel renewable, which Mr. Nguyen discussed and stated that this is new technology which takes oils and through a proprietary process converts it to diesel. He noted that this synthetic diesel has the same chemistry as regular diesel but burns cleaner and costs the same to produce as conventional diesel when the state’s carbon tax credits are taken into consideration. Commissioner Hillmer asked about the potential for cost recovery for electric vehicles, such as a fee for use of charging stations. Mr. Nguyen said yes, and he reviewed some of the jurisdictions that have begun to do so. Chair Moulton-Peters asked if TAM has the ability to install a charging station at the TAM office, and Mr. Nguyen said yes, they are working towards that based on approval by the TAM Board last year. There was no public comment. Commissioner Lucan moved to accept the report and approve the budget for the next fiscal year. Commissioner Arnold seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. 11. Review and Adoption of the Draft TAM FY17-18 Annual Budget (Action) ED Steinhauser introduced Chief Financial Officer Li Zhang to present the report which recommended that the TAM Board review and adopt the Draft TAM FY2017-18 Annual Budget. Ms. Zhang reviewed the annual budget process and timeline, including the public hearing held at the beginning of tonight’s meeting, and the five budget components attached to the budget report. She discussed revenue projections for Measure A Sales Tax for FY2017-18 as compared with other years, a comparison of sales tax generated by various industries for FY2015-16, the same information by jurisdiction, Measure B VRF revenue generated, and TAM’s CMA (congestion management agency) funding.

Item 6a

13


Page 10 of 10

Ms. Zhang also gave an overview of Expenditure budget categories and proposed changes for the next year, Professional Services Category, Measure A Sales Tax Category, Measure B VRF Category amounts, Interagency Agreement amounts, TFCA Programs/Projects, Timeline, the TAM Workplans, and action requested by the Board tonight to adopt the FY2017-18 Annual Budget which included the approval of a 3 percent employee cost-of-living (COLA) adjustment effective July 1, 2017. ED Steinhauser briefly discussed the usual budget development and approval process, including anticipated budget amendments within the next twelve months. Commissioner Goddard indicated she would recuse herself from the vote because she is involved and works with the Safe Routes to Schools program which is a TAM program. Commissioner Greene was appreciative of the workplans submitted by TAM staff which gives him a better understanding of the work that TAM is taking on, and particularly Mr. McGill’s workplan. Chair Moulton-Peters agreed with Commissioner Greene’s comments. Vice Chair Arnold moved to adopt the budget for FY2017-18 which included the approval of a 3 percent COLA, and Commissioner Fredericks seconded the motion. It was unanimously approved. 12. Caltrans Report (Discussion) ED Steinhauser highlighted work done earlier in the week with needs around the southern Marin Tiburon Blvd. and Blithedale Avenue interchange. She also commented on efforts to reopen sections of Highway 1 closed after the floods earlier this year. As requested earlier in the meeting, Chair Moulton-Peters adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m. in memory of Dietrich Stroeh after a moment of silence in his honor.

Item 6a

14

DATE: June 22, 2017 TO: Transportation Authority of Marin Board of Commissioners FROM: David Chan, Programming Manager SUBJECT: Authorize San Rafael to exchange Transportation Sales Tax (Measure A) Funds from the

Grand Avenue Bridge Project with One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Funds from the Francisco Boulevard West Multi-Use Path (Action), Agenda Item No. 6b

RECOMMENDATION Authorize San Rafael to exchange $288,000 in Transportation Sales Tax (Measure A) Funds from the Grand Avenue Bridge Project with $288,000 in MTC-granted One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Funds from the Francisco Boulevard West Multi-Use Path. BACKGROUND Grand Avenue Bridge Project The Grand Avenue Bridge Project will construct a pedestrian/bicycle bridge across the San Rafael Canal along the east side of Grand Avenue, new sidewalk construction on the west side of Grand Avenue, and elimination of an uncontrolled crosswalk crossing Francisco Boulevard East, all to provide safer, critical access to the Bettini Transit Center, schools, and shopping for residents of the Canal Neighborhood. In December 2015, the TAM Board programmed $484,000 in Measure A funds to the Grand Avenue Bridge Project. Francisco Boulevard West Multi-Use Path The Francisco Blvd West Multi-Use Path Project will construct a multi-use pathway adjacent to the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) alignment from 2nd Street to Andersen Drive. A standard asphalt pathway with a width that varies from 8 feet wide to 10 feet wide will be constructed. The project includes the replacement of an existing pedestrian bridge, which is too narrow, with a new pedestrian bridge near Irwin Street. In December 2016, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) programmed $1,000,000 in OBAG funds to the Francisco Boulevard West Multi-Use Path. DISCUSSION San Rafael has requested MTC to exchange the $1,000,000 in OBAG funds programmed to the Francisco Blvd West Multi-Use Path Project with $1,000,000 of local funds from the Grand Avenue Bridge Project to avoid “federalizing” the Francisco Blvd West Multi-Use Path Project.

15

TAM Board Meeting, Item 6b Page 2 of 2 June 22, 2017

SMART will be awarding a design build contract for the Larkspur Rail Extension. Since most of the Multi-Use Path alignment is in SMART’s right-of-way, the Multi-Use Path is anticipated to parallel the rail tracks. While San Rafael is the sponsor Multi-Use Path, San Rafael anticipates using SMART to construct the Multi-Use Path concurrent with the rail extension, which would offer valuable time-saving and cost-efficiency since SMART already is retaining a design-build contractor on the rail project. Since the rail project is not federalized, federal funds cannot be used on the Multi-Use Path if San Rafael uses SMART for construction unless programmed federal funds are exchanged with non-federal funds. San Rafael has proposed to exchange $712,000 in local funds and $288,000 in Measure A funds from the Grand Avenue Bridge Project with $1,000,000 in federal OBAG funds granted from MTC from the Francisco Blvd West Multi-Use Path Project. MTC will authorize the funding exchange on the condition that TAM authorizes the transfer of $288,000 in Measure A funds from the Grand Avenue Bridge Project to the Francisco Blvd West Multi-Use Path Project. As noted above, the TAM Board allocated $484,000 in Measure A funds to the Grand Avenue Bridge Project in December 2015. Only $288,000 of the $484,000 will need to be exchanged to fulfill the commitment. The remaining $196,000 in Measure A will remain with the Grand Avenue Bridge Project for construction. FISCAL IMPACTS There are no fiscal impacts. The Measure A funds were anticipated in the development of the FY 17/18 TAM Budget and has been included as expected reimbursement of $484,000 under the Measure A Strategy 2 for the Grand Avenue Bridge Project. The FY 17/18 TAM Budget will be amended to show $288,000 in Measure A funds for the Francisco Boulevard West Multi-Use Path, leaving $196,000 for the Grand Avenue Bridge Project. NEXT STEP Inform MTC that the TAM Board has authorized the exchange of Measure A funds with OBAG funds between the Grand Avenue Bridge Project and the Francisco Blvd West Multi-Use Path Project.

16

DATE: June 22, 2017 TO: Transportation Authority of Marin Board of Commissioners FROM: David Chan, Programming Manager SUBJECT: Allocate Transportation Sales Tax (Measure A) to Marin County for the Sir Francis Drake

Rehabilitation Project in West Marin (Action), Agenda Item No. 6c RECOMMENDATION Recommend the allocation of $702,000 in Transportation Sales Tax (Measure A) to Marin County for the Sir Francis Drake Rehabilitation Project in West Marin to complete construction. Any residual Measure A revenues collected for the West Marin Planning Area before the completion of the construction phase of this project will also be made available for this project. BACKGROUND The Measure A Expenditure Plan provides funds for Major Roads and Related Infrastructure under Strategy 3, Sub-strategy 3.1. Projects funded under this strategy are described as the most heavily traveled, and include significant roads and their related infrastructure. A list of eligible roads was adopted with the Measure A Expenditure Plan. The Expenditure Plan assigned the responsibility for establishing priorities for Sub-strategy 3.1 funding to the Marin Public Works Directors in collaboration with the TAM Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) based on criteria such as condition of roadway, average daily traffic, transit frequency, bicycle and pedestrian activity, school access, accident history, matching funds opportunity, and geographic equity. Based on a thorough process of evaluation over many months, the Marin Public Works Association (MPWA) and TAC selected Sir Francis Drake Blvd from Platform Bridge to Samuel P. Taylor Park as the first prioritized project in the West Marin Planning Area and Sir Francis Drake Blvd from Samuel P. Taylor Park to Fairfax limit as the second prioritized project. Marin County completed construction on the first prioritized project (SFD from Platform Bridge to Samuel P. Taylor Park) in 2013. The first prioritized project used approximately $7.9 million of the $8.7 million available for the West Marin Planning Area, leaving approximately $802,000 available for the second prioritized project (SFD from Samuel P. Taylor Park to Fairfax limit). PROJECT DESCRIPTION With $802,000 available, Marin County will not be able to complete the entire stretch of SFD Blvd from Samuel P. Taylor to Fairfax limit without contribution of local funds. Marin County is concentrating the available funds in Lagunitas from Lagunitas Road to Wild Iris Drive, a distance of 1.35 miles and within the unincorporated Marin County through downtown Lagunitas. This segment of Sir Francis Drake Boulevard

17

TAM Board Meeting, Item 6c Page 2 of 3 June 22, 2017

is an arterial roadway that acts as the major thoroughfare between Olema, the San Geronimo Valley and urban areas of Marin County. The road will be resurfaced as the existing pavement is in poor condition and has an average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of 28. The project improvements will comply with the current American Disability Act standards and will further analyze opportunities to improve pedestrian safety as there are two existing crosswalks and two transit stops within the project limits. Minor improvements to improve bicycle safety will also be considered as part the of the design process. REMAINING FUNDS AVAILABLE TAM previously allocated $7.9 million in Measure A funds to Marin County for the first prioritized project that was completed in 2013, leaving $802,000 available in the West Planning Area. These remaining funds are eligible for the second prioritized project after the completion of the first prioritized project. PRIOR ALLOCATION In October 2016, the TAM Board allocated $100,000 to Marin County to complete preliminary engineering on Sir Francis Drake Blvd between Lagunitas Road and Wild Iris Drive to get the project ready for construction. The October 2016 allocation leaves $702,000 for construction. CURRENT ALLOCATION REQUEST The construction phase of the Sir Francis Drake Blvd Rehabilitation Project from Lagunitas Road and Wild Iris Drive is approximately $2.1 million. Marin County is requesting the remaining amount of $702,000 in Measure A funds from the Major Road category (Strategy 3.1) and contributing the remaining amount from its own funding source to complete construction of the Sir Francis Drake Blvd Rehabilitation Project from Lagunitas Road and Wild Iris Drive. Marin County has completed design and can commence with construction as soon as July 2017. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) At its June 15, 2017 meeting, the TAC reviewed the request and passed a unanimous motion of support to recommend the allocation of $702,000 in Measure A funds to Marin County for the Sir Francis Drake Blvd Rehabilitation Project from Lagunitas Road to Wild Iris Drive. FISCAL IMPACTS The allocation of these funds was anticipated in the development of the TAM FY 17/18 Budget and has been included as expected reimbursement under the Measure A Strategy 3.1 for major roads. NEXT STEP Upon approval from the TAM Board, a funding agreement for the approved amount will be issued to Marin County. ATTACHMENT

18


Attachment A – Marin County Allocation Request Form

19


20

ATTACHMENT A

Page 1 of 1

ALLOCATION REQUEST FORM

Fiscal Year of Allocation: 2016/17

Expenditure Plan: Strategy 3.1 Major Roads and Related Infrastructure

Project Name: Sir Francis Drake Boulevard Road Rehabilitation in Lagunitas

Implementing Agency: County of Marin

Scope of Work: The project will analyze opportunities and constraints and conduct preliminary engineering, design and construction for improvements to Sir Francis Drake Boulevard between Lagunitas Road and Wild Iris Drive, a distance of 1.35 miles and within the unincorporated Marin County through downtown Lagunitas. This segment of Sir Francis Drake Boulevard is an arterial roadway that acts as the major thoroughfare between Olema, the San Geronimo Valley and urban areas of Marin County.

The road will be resurfaced as the existing pavement is in poor condition and has an average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of 28. The project improvements will comply with the current American Disability Act standards and will further analyze opportunities to improve pedestrian safety as there are two existing crosswalks and two transit stops within the project limits. Minor improvements to improve bicycle safety will also be considered as part the of the design process.

Cost of Scope:

Preliminary Engineering & Design $ 100,000 Construction & Construction Management $2,100,000 Total Cost $2,200,000

Previous Allocation: $100,000 for PE

Strategic Plan Programmed Amount: $802,000 total, $100,000 was previously allocated for PE in October 2016.

Requested Amount: $702,000 for Construction & Construction Management and any residual Measure A revenues collected for the West Marin Planning Area before the completion of the construction phase of this project.

Other Funding: $1,398,000 in local funds

Cash flow Availability: 100% available upon TAM Board approval based on reimbursement.

Project Delivery Schedule (include start & completion milestones):

Project Component Start Date Estimated Completion Survey, PE & Design September, 2016 May, 2017 Construction July, 2017 October, 2017

Environmental Clearance: A Categorical Exemption in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is being completed as all work is anticipated to occur within the existing roadway prism.

Item 6c - Attachment A

21


22

DATE: June 22, 2017 TO: Transportation Authority of Marin Board of Commissioners FROM: Dianne Steinhauser, Executive Director

David Chan, Programming Manager SUBJECT: Update Revenue Projections for the Transportation Sales Tax (Measure A) Strategic Plan

(Action), Agenda Item No. 6d RECOMMENDATION Update revenue projections for the Transportation Sales Tax (Measure A, hereafter) Strategic Plan. BACKGROUND The Measure A Expenditure Plan called for a Strategic Plan to provide a 20-year outlook on how local transportation sales will be allocated in the context of anticipated demands, timing, and other available revenues. It serves as the overall roadmap for programming Measure A funds to the four strategies, as identified in the Measure A Expenditure Plan. The Measure A Strategic Plan was originally adopted in June 2006 with the requirement that it would be substantially updated every two years on even-numbered years. The last substantial Measure A Strategic Plan Update was approved in June 2016. Even when the full Measure A Strategic Plan wasn’t updated, the Revenues and Expenditures Element of the Measure A Strategic Plan has been updated annually to ensure that funds are readily available for the years needed and to prepare for debt issuance to accommodate project delivery, particularly for projects in the Major Road category. The Strategic Plan Update provides a mechanism to assess and report on the need for bonding forward the sales tax stream. REVENUE ADJUSTMENT With the recent update of the Strategic Plan in June 2016, there are no major updates due until 2018 since there are no looming needs for debt financing because of slower than anticipated project delivery on major roads and Strategy 2 of the Measure A Strategic Plan has been closed out with the remittance on the final loan payment in 2016 to MTC on the Gap Closure Project. Based on these factors, staff has ascertained that there are no critical needs to conduct another full Strategic Plan Update (SPU) that would have required a public comment period for adoption. While staff is not proposing to conduct a formal Strategic Plan Update for 2017, staff is recommending adjusting the Measure A revenues so that the amounts made available for FY 17/18 to Transit and Local Road categories are more accurately reflected of the revenues collected. In June of each year, TAM allocates Measure A funds to transit and local road projects for the upcoming fiscal year that commences on July 1st based on projected revenue collection. The Strategic Plan Update in

23

TAM Board Meeting, Item 6d Page 2 of 3 June 22, 2017

2016 anticipated Measure A revenues in FY 17/18 to be $26.81 million. However, the Measure A revenues in TAM’s FY 17/18 Budget show a slightly lesser amount at $25.96 million. The 2016 SPU included a standard growth rate projection for FY 17/18 that didn’t reflect actual revenue collection. The 2017 SPU adopted a more conservative projection, which was incorporated in TAM’s FY 17/18 Budget and adopted by the TAM Board in May 2017. The budgeted numbers are the more reliable and up-to-date figures that account for actual collections and most recent growth rate projections. It would be beneficial to Measure A recipients if the revenues for the Strategic Plan are adjusted to be consistent with the projected budget amounts. This revenue adjustment would allow TAM to allocate Measure A funds to transit and local road projects more accurately reflected of the latest revenue projection. While the change is not particularly significant, it still amounts to an approximate 3.2% decrease in maximum allocation amounts to transit and local road projects for FY 17/18. Below are tables that show the increase funds that will be allocated to transit and local road projects with this revenue adjustment.

FY 17/18 Programmed Amounts for Transit

2016 SPU 2017 Adjustment Difference Local Bus Transit Service $9,180,948 $8,857,527 -$323,421 Rural Bus Transit System $744,401 $718,178 -$26,223 Transit Services for Those with Special Needs $2,233,204 $2,154,534 -$78,670 Capital Investment $1,488,802 $1,431,048 -$57,754

Total $13,647,355 $13,161,287 -$486,068 The 2017 Adjustment column does not reflect the actual amounts available to Marin Transit in FY 17/18 because the column does not include carryovers from prior years. Additional funds of nearly $8.5 million will be available from carryovers to Marin Transit for request in FY 17/18.

FY 17/18 Programmed Amounts for Local Road Projects

Agency 2016 SPU 2017 Adjustment Difference Belvedere $31,778 $31,232 -$546 Corte Madera $115,775 $112,179 -$3,595 Fairfax $91,098 $87,640 -$3,458 Larkspur ** $127,062 $125,246 $-1,816 Mill Valley $183,106 $181,654 -$1,451 Novato $586,647 $580,019 -$6,628 Ross $33,085 $32,507 -$579 San Anselmo $143,656 $141,499 -$2,157 San Rafael $632,916 $625,592 -$7,324 Sausalito $86,749 $84,453 -$2,296 Tiburon $110,933 $110,267 -$666 County $1.097,519 $1,074,628 -$22,890

Total $3,240,324 $3,186,917 -$53,407

24

TAM Board Meeting, Item 6d Page 3 of 3 June 22, 2017

FISCAL IMPACTS Changes in revenue projections were anticipated in the development of TAM’s FY 17/18 Budget. The adjusted revenues were incorporated and no further action is needed.

25


26


David Chan, Programming Manager SUBJECT: Allocate Transportation Sales Tax (Measure A) Funds from Strategy 3.2 and Reserve

Funds for Local Road and Related Infrastructure Projects (Action), Agenda Item No. 6e RECOMMENDATION Allocate a total of $3,301,115 in Transportation Sales Tax (Measure A) funds to cities, towns, and Marin County for local roads and related infrastructure projects that include $3,186,916 from Strategy 3.2 and $114,199 from Reserved Funds of the Measure A Transportation Sales Tax Strategic Plan for FY 2017/18. BACKGROUND Strategy 3 of the Measure A Expenditure Plan Measure A funds for Strategy 3 in the Expenditure Plan are used to maintain, improve, and manage Marin County’s local transportation infrastructure, including roadways, bikeways, sidewalks, and pathways. Strategy 3 includes two sub-strategies: 3.1 for major roads and related infrastructure and 3.2 for local roads and related infrastructure. Funds apportioned to Strategy 3.2 for local roads and related infrastructure are programmed in the Strategic Plan to be distributed on an annual basis to each city, town, and Marin County calculated from a formula based on a 50/50 split derived from lane miles maintained and population. Measure A Reserve Funds With the initial adoption of the Measure A Strategic Plan in 2006, the TAM Board established a 5% annual reserve for the first five years of the Strategic Plan, collecting $5.382 million in the first five year period. Those funds have been available since that time as an emergency reserve. In the Fall of 2016, Marin Transit requested funds from TAM for an urgent need - the award of a contract for the Redwood and Grant Bus Facility in Novato. In December 2016, the TAM Board agreed to allow Marin Transit’s share of the Reserve Funds to be released for the award the contract. TAM staff set a target of $3.5 million in Reserve Funds to remain, which left approximately $1.882 million for programming to the four strategies established in the Measure A Expenditure Plan. Marin Transit was allocated its share of nearly $1.12 million. The remaining shares were programmed to Strategies 3 and 4 in February 2017. Strategy 2 was not being considered for its share of the Reserve because the lone project in Strategy 2, Highway 101 Gap Closure Project, is complete and funding commitments have been fulfilled.

27

TAM Board Meeting, Item 6e Page 2 of 3 June 22, 2017

Of the $1.882 million in programming, approximately $1.12 million was made available for Strategy 1 (Transit), $539,000 is available for Strategy 3 (Streets and Roads), and $224,000 is available for Strategy 4 (Safe Routes to Schools). Of the $539,000 available for Strategy 3, $269,502 is available for Strategy 3.1 for major roads and $269,502 is available for Strategy 3.2 for local roads. The apportionment for each jurisdiction with these Reserve Funds follows the same formula used for Strategy 3.2, which is based on a 50/50 split from lanes miles maintained and population. In conjunction with programming Reserve Funds to Marin Transit, the TAM Board in December 2016, also diverted $177,839 in Measure A Reserve Funds from Mill Valley ($15,229) and Marin County ($91,282) under Strategy 3.1 and Safe Pathway ($71,328) under Strategy 4.3 to the TAM Junction Project to defray a deficit. The amount diverted from Mill Valley and Marin County equates to $106,511 in Measure A Reserve Funds. As noted above, the available amount of Reserve Funds for Strategy 3.2 is $269,502. After deducting $106,511 from the previous diverted amounts, the remaining amount available for allocation is $162,991 in Measure A Reserve Funds. MEASURE A STRATEGY 3.2 REQUIREMENTS Measure A funds for Strategy 3.2 may be used for local infrastructure projects including street and road projects, local transit projects, and bicycle and pedestrian projects. Where feasible, locally defined bicycle and pedestrian projects will be implemented in conjunction with a related roadway improvement. This could include safety improvements, pedestrian facilities including disabled access, or bicycle facilities such as bike lanes or signage. Local Infrastructure funds can be used for any eligible local transportation need identified by the local agency’s Public Works Department and approved by the respective governing board. The allocation of Measure A funds is described in the Strategic Plan and requires an approved allocation from the TAM Board and an executed agreement between the local agency and TAM. FUNDS AVAILABLE The available amount of Measure A funds for programming to Strategy 3.2 is $3,186,916 for FY 2017/18. As mentioned above, the available Reserve funds amount is $162,991 for a total of $3,349,907 available for allocation. This available amount was scheduled for adoption by the TAM Board on June 22, 2017 in an earlier item on the Measure A Strategic Plan Update and incorporated in the FY 2017/18 Budget. CALL FOR PROJECTS On April 24, 2017, a Call for Projects was issued to the Public Works Directors of each agency, requesting applications for FY 2017/18. The Public Works Directors were informed of the allocation process and the amount of available funds for each agency. The FY 2017/18 funding allocations for local infrastructure projects as programmed in the Strategic Plan and the amounts requested in the funding allocation requests are highlighted in the table.

28

TAM Board Meeting, Item 6e Page 3 of 3 June 22, 2017

Agency

Measure A Strategy 3.2 Available

Measure A Reserve Available

Previously Allocated

Total Available

Total Requested

Carry-over

Belvedere $31,323 $2,643 $0 $33,875 $33,875 $0 Corte Madera $112,179 $9,629 $0 $121,808 $121,808 $0 Fairfax $87,640 $7,577 $0 $95,217 $95,217 $0 Larkspur $125,246 $10,568 $0 $135,814 $135,814 $0 Mill Valley $181,654 $15,229 $15,229 $181,654 $181,654 $0 Novato $580,019 $48,792 $0 $628,811 $580,019 $48,792 Ross $32,507 $2,752 $0 $35,259 $35,259 $0 San Anselmo $141,499 $11,948 $0 $153,477 $153,477 $0 San Rafael $625,592 $52,641 $0 $678,233 $678,233 $0 Sausalito $84,453 $7,215 $0 $91,668 $91,668 $0 Tiburon $110,267 $9,226 $0 $119,493 $119,493 $0 County $1,074,628 $91,282 $91,282 $1,074628 $1,074628 $0 Total $3,186,916 $269,502 $106,511 $3,349,907 $3,301,115 $48,792

Attachment A contains a summary of projects from each agency describing anticipated project(s) that will be funded with Measure A funds for FY 2017/18. Novato is not requesting its share of the Measure A Reserve Funds at this time, deferring the option to request the funds for another project at a later date. The total requested amount for Measure Strategy 3.2 Funds is $3,186,916 and for Measure Reserve Funds is $114,199 for a total of $3,301,115, leaving $48,792 in Reserve Funds available for request from Novato at a later date. FISCAL IMPACTS While Novato did not request its share of Measure A Reserve funds, Novato anticipates returning later in FY 17/18 to submit a request for the remaining amount. These amounts were anticipated in the development of the FY 17/18 TAM Budget and have been incorporated in its adoption in May 2017. No further action is needed at this time. NEXT STEP If approved by the TAM Board, funding agreements for the amounts listed will be issued to the agencies. ATTACHMENT Attachment A: FY17/18 Local Infrastructure Allocation Requests

29


30

of 1

Transportation Authority of Marin Measure A – Transportation Sales Tax Funds

Allocation Request Form


Expenditure Plan: Local Roads and Related Infrastructures (Strategy 3.2 of Measure A)

Project Name: Beach Road Retaining Wall

Implementing Agency: City of Belvedere

Scope of Work: Install approximately 25’ of concrete retaining wall along 200 block of Beach road to address slope erosion.

Cost of Scope: $41,000

Measure A Strategy 3.2 Funds Available Amount: $31,232

Measure A Reserve Funds Available Amount: $2,643

Total Requested Amount: $33,875

Other Funding: General Fund

Cash flow Availability: 100% available in FY 17/18

Project Delivery Schedule (include start & completion milestones): August, 2017 start and complete.

Environmental Clearance: N/A

Item 6e - Attachment

31

of 1



Fiscal Year of Allocation: 2017/18 Expenditure Plan: Local Roads and Related Infrastructures (Strategy 3.2 of Measure A) Project Name: Paradise Drive at Prince Royal Passage Pedestrian Crossing Improvements (Project No. 15-024) Implementing Agency: Town of Corte Madera Scope of Work: The project will add bulb outs, upgraded handicap ramps, rapid flashing beacons, median island refuge, and additional advanced warning signage and striping. Cost of Scope: $230,000 (Construction only) Measure A Strategy 3.2 Funds Available Amount: $112,179 Measure A Reserve Funds Available Amount: $9,629 Total Requested Amount: $121,808 Other Funding: Town of Corte Madera Sales Tax ($108,192) Cash flow Availability: 100% available in FY 17/18 Project Delivery Schedule (include start & completion milestones): Design 12-2016 to 7-2017, bidding 7-2017 to 8-2017; Construction 9-2017 to 10-2017 Environmental Clearance: It is anticipated the project will be found to be Categorically Exempt under CEQA.


32

of 1



Fiscal Year of Allocation: 2017/18 Expenditure Plan: Local Roads and Related Infrastructures (Strategy 3.2 of Measure A) Project Name: Reconstruction of Tamalpais Rd from Mountain View to Scenic Rd. Implementing Agency: Town of Fairfax Scope of Work: Reconstruction of the Tamalpais Rd. Cost of Scope: $115,000 Measure A Strategy 3.2 Funds Available Amount: $87,640 Measure A Reserve Funds Available Amount: $7,577 Total Requested Amount: $95,217 Other Funding: Local funds Cash flow Availability: 100% available in FY 17/18 Project Delivery Schedule (include start & completion milestones): Complete plans and spec July 2017 Bid in July/Aug. 2017, Award bid in August/Sept. 2017 Complete construction December 2017. Environmental Clearance: n/a


33

of 1



Fiscal Year of Allocation: 2017/18 Expenditure Plan: Local Roads and Related Infrastructures (Strategy 3.2 of Measure A) Project Name: Corte Alejo Storm Drain Implementing Agency: City of Larkspur Scope of Work: Rehabilitation of public storm drain between Via La Paz and Corte Alejo Cost of Scope: $1,004,511 Measure A Strategy 3.2 Funds Available Amount: $125,246 Measure A Reserve Funds Available Amount: $10,568 Total Requested Amount: $135,814 Other Funding: $71,324 Measure A funding (previous allocations)

$ 98,465 Measure B funding (2016/17 allocation) $698,911 Gas Tax

Cash flow Availability: 100% available in FY 17/18 Project Delivery Schedule (include start & completion milestones): • Core sampling: completed • Engineering/design & PS&E prep: Spring 2017 • Solicit bids & award contract: Summer 2017 • Substantial completion: Winter 2017 Environmental Clearance: Categorically Exempt under CEQA


34

of 2



Fiscal Year of Allocation: 2017/18 Expenditure Plan: Local Roads and Related Infrastructures (Strategy 3.2 of Measure A) Project Name: 2017 Street and Sewer Rehabilitation Project Implementing Agency: City of Mill Valley Scope of Work: This is an annual capital improvement project that focuses on several streets identified and prioritized per the City’s Pavement Management System and the City’s 10 Year Plan. The improvements include road rehabilitation, slurry seal application, ADA ramp improvements, and sewer rehabilitation. Measure A funds will be used for slurry seal and ADA improvement. The streets to be improved are listed in the table below. Pavement Rehabilitation Streets:

Street Name Begin End Lower Drive Underhill Road Underhill Road Portola Lane Eldridge Avenue North End Seaver Drive Kipling Drive Hamilton Drive Stetson Avenue Woodbine Drive South End Upperhill Road Underhill North end

Slurry Seal Streets:

Street Name Begin End Alvarado Avenue Alta Vista Sidney Street Amicita Avenue E. Blithedale Avenue Sycamore Avenue Cascade Drive Cornwall Avenue Marion Avenue Cascade Drive Molino Avenue Throckmorton Avenue Cornelia Avenue Throckmorton Avenue Summit Avenue Coronet Avenue Eldridge Avenue End of street East Manor Drive Alvarado Avenue End of street Elm Avenue E. Blithedale Avenue Locust Avenue Hilarita Avenue E. Blithedale Avenue Locust Avenue Juanita Avenue Hilarita Avenue Amicita Avenue Locust Avenue E. Blithedale Avenue Miller Avenue Oxford Avenue Valley Circle Surrey Avenue Plymouth Avenue Surrey Avenue West end Plymouth Circle Plymouth Avenue End of street Presidio Avenue Forrest Street Millwood Avenue Robertson Terrace Area near 6 Robertson Terrace only Surrey Avenue Sycamore Avenue South end Street Name Begin End Wainwright Place Cascade Drive West end Walnut Avenue Park Avenue E. Blithedale Avenue Willow Street Miller Avenue East end Woodbine Drive Eldridge Avenue Coronet Avenue


35

of 2

Crack Seal Streets:

Street Name Begin End Bay Tree Lane Country Club North end Bigelow Avenue W. Blithedale Avenue Hillside Avenue Bolsa Avenue Hillside Avenue Oakdale Avenue Buena Vista Avenue Country Club Vista Linda Drive Carmelita Avenue E. Blithedale Avenue Buena Vista Avenue Cascade Drive Marion Avenue Laurel Street Catalpa Avenue E. Blithedale Avenue Fern Avenue Corte Madera Avenue W. Blithedale Gardner Street Crown Court Carmelita Avenue End of pavement Edgewood Avenue Molino Avenue Sequoia Valley Elm Avenue Locust Sidney Street Elma Street Lovell Avenue Throckmorton Avenue Fern Avenue Locust Avenue Sycamore Avenue Hillside Avenue W. Blithedale Avenue Elinor Avenue La Goma Street Miller Avenue Locke Lane Lyon Place Corte Madera Avenue West end Manor Terrace Elm Avenue North end Park Avenue Walnut Avenue Miller Avenue Sunnyside Avenue E. Blithedale Avenue Carmelita Avenue Valley Circle Plymouth Avenue Sycamore Avenue

Cost of Scope: $1,765,720 (street rehabilitation portion of project only) Measure A Strategy 3.2 Funds Available Amount: $181,654 Measure A Reserve Funds Available Amount: $0 Total Requested Amount: $181,654 Other Funding: Municipal Service Tax $ 585,000 Gas Tax $ 300,000

Road Impact Fee $ 243,000 Local Funding $ 460,000 Cash flow Availability: 100% available in FY 17/18 Project Delivery Schedule (include start & completion milestones): START END DESIGN 7/1/2016 5/23/2017 CONSTRUCTION 7/10/2017 10/31/2017 Environmental Clearance: CEQA – Categorical Exemption


36

of 1



Fiscal Year of Allocation: 2017/18 Expenditure Plan: Local Roads and Related Infrastructures (Strategy 3.2 of Measure A) Project Name: Downtown Smart Station Phase II Implementing Agency: City of Novato Scope of Work: In early 2016 the City Council approved funding to construct the first phase of improvements for a downtown SMART station. The station construction was split into three phases; Phase I included a platform base, siding rails and other infrastructure required to be completed prior to commencement of revenue service, Phase II will install track switching electronics and platform amenities to allow for the station to serve passengers, and Phase III will develop the adjacent railroad lot property. Cost of Scope: $3,100,000 Measure A Available Amount: $580,019 Measure A Reserve Funds Available Amount: $48,792, will be requested at a later date for another project. Total Requested Amount: $580,019 Other Funding: $488,510 16/17 TAM Measure A

$456,206 16/17 TAM Measure B $269,981 Infrastructure LT Maintenance $1,305,284 Hamilton Trust Loan

Cash flow Availability: 100% available in FY 17/18 Project Delivery Schedule (include start & completion milestones): Construction of Phase II work is anticipated to commence along with other construction on the SMART corridor in mid-to-late 2017. Environmental Clearance: EIR completed


37

of 1



Fiscal Year of Allocation: 2017/18 Expenditure Plan: Local Roads and Related Infrastructures (Strategy 3.2 of Measure A) Project Name: Brookwood Ln. & Redwood Dr. pavement rehabilitation Implementing Agency: Town of Ross Scope of Work: Brookwood Ln: grind & 0.2’ AC overlay from Bridge to Redwood. Redwood Dr.: grind & 0.2’ AC overlay from Brookwood to C.L. Cost of Scope: $237,000 est. Measure A Strategy 3.2 Funds Available Amount: $32,507 Measure A Reserve Funds Available Amount: $2,752 Total Requested Amount: $35,259 Other Funding: Town of Ross FY17/18 Roadway Fund Cash flow Availability: 100% available in FY 17/18 Project Delivery Schedule (include start & completion milestones): 6/1/2017-10/15/2017 Environmental Clearance: CEQA Categorically Exempt


38

of 1



Fiscal Year of Allocation: 2017/18 Expenditure Plan: Local Roads and Related Infrastructures (Strategy 3.2 of Measure A) Project Name: 2017 Pavement Rehabilitation Project: Phase 1 Project Includes: Terrace Ave, Humboldt Ave, Sais Ave, Vista Ln and Myrtle Ln Implementing Agency: Town of San Anselmo Scope of Work: Curb Ramps and Paving Cost of Scope: $500,000 Measure A Strategy 3.2 Funds Available Amount: $141,499 Measure A Reserve Funds Available Amount: $11,948 Total Requested Amount: $153,447 Other Funding: Measure D Local Sales Tax Fund and General Fund Cash flow Availability: 100% available in FY 17/18 Project Delivery Schedule (include start & completion milestones): Expected Start date of July 2017, Expected Completion date of September 2017 Environmental Clearance: Submitted as Categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines because the work involves restoration and rehabilitation of existing improvements.


39

of 2



Fiscal Year of Allocation: 2017/18 Expenditure Plan: Local Roads and Related Infrastructures (Strategy 3.2 of Measure A) Project Name: Street Resurfacing FY 2017/18 Implementing Agency: City of San Rafael Scope of Work: Each year, the City identifies 2-3 miles of local roads that are in critical need of resurfacing. Local roads to be resurfaced are selected based on their Pavement Condition Index (PCI), which is a rating based on the last time the street was overlayed and the physical condition of the roadway. Roads with the highest need, PCI rating of 60 or lower, are selected for that year’s resurfacing. Resurfacing includes a grind of the existing roadway and overlay of new asphalt. Some streets will be microsealed as well – which can extend the life of the resurfacing. The installation of ADA ramps may be included, depending upon the extent of the resurfacing work done on the road. Resurfacing of an entire road will trigger replacement of non-accessible curb ramps, however deep lift asphalt concrete pavement repairs will leave existing curb ramps in place. The exact roadways which will be resurfaced in FY 2017-18 have not yet been finalized, however the preliminary list is included below: Street Name Begin Location End Location Las Ovejas Avenue Del Ganado Road Street End Marquard Avenue West Street West End Avenue Marinita Avenue Belle Avenue Jewell Street Oak Tree Court Upper Oak Drive End Windsor Avenue 110 Windsor Avenue Chestnut Avenue Hazel Court Irwin Street End Bayview Street Taylor Street D Street Broadview Court Broadview Drive End Cost of Scope: $1,500,000 for FY 2017-18 (proposed to use $678,233 of requested funds) Measure A Strategy 3.2 Funds Available Amount: $625,592 Measure A Reserve Funds Available Amount: $52,641 Total Requested Amount: $678,233 Other Funding: The remaining $821,767 ($1,500,000 - $678,233) for FY 2017-18 Street Resurfacing will be financed with State Gas Tax monies. Cash flow Availability: 100% available in FY 17/18


40

of 2

Project Delivery Schedule (include start & completion milestones): Start Design: 11/1/2017 Complete Design: 12/31/2017 Start Bid: 3/1/2018 Complete Bid: 3/31/2018 Start Construction: 5/15/2018 End Construction: 8/13/2018 Environmental Clearance: Categorically exempt.


41

of 1



Fiscal Year of Allocation: 2017/18 Expenditure Plan: Local Roads and Related Infrastructures (Strategy 3.2 of Measure A) Project Name: Sausalito 2017/18 Streets Projects Implementing Agency: City of Sausalito Scope of Work: Street Repair Program including Pavement Marking Replacement, Dig-Outs, Overlays, Reconstructions, and Related Work Consistent with Expenditure Plan and City Budget (see Attachment 5 to City Council Staff Report, item 4J, March 28, 2017 meeting) Cost of Scope: $403,500 Measure A Strategy 3.2 Funds Available Amount: $84,453 Measure A Reserve Funds Available Amount: $7,215 Total Requested Amount: $91,668 Other Funding: City Measure "A" Sales Tax, General Fund Cash flow Availability: 100% available in FY 17/18 Project Delivery Schedule (include start & completion milestones): Start 1JUL17, complete 30JUN18 Environmental Clearance: CatEx


42

of 2



Fiscal Year of Allocation: 2017/18 Expenditure Plan: Local Roads and Related Infrastructures (Strategy 3.2 of Measure A) Project Name: 2018 Various Streets Overlay Implementing Agency: Town of Tiburon Scope of Work: Grind and overlay a number of existing roadway segments in Tiburon. See attached sheet for list. Cost of Scope: $1.5 Million Measure A Strategy 3.2 Funds Available Amount: $110,267 Measure A Reserve Funds Available Amount: $9,226 Total Requested Amount: $119,493 Other Funding: Measure A 2016/17 - $46,625; Gas Tax and Impact Fees for remainder Cash flow Availability: 100% available in FY 17/18 Project Delivery Schedule (include start & completion milestones): Design starts August 2018, Bid February 2019, construction start June 2019, construction complete October 2019. Note this is a one year delay from previous reports due to the number of other projects that will be done in summer 2018. Environmental Clearance: The project should be Catex under pursuant to Section 15301 © of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations as it consists of the repair and maintenance of existing facilities with no expansion of existing use.


43

of 2

Street Name From To PCI Length (ft) Width (ft) Area (SF)LAS LOMAS LANE MAR WEST END 12 400 14 5,600 HAWTHORNE DRIVE ROCK HILL WEST END 23 1160 27 31,320 ROCK HILL DRIVE TIBURON DEL MAR 35 751 37 27,787 HAWTHORNE DRIVE EAST END ROCK HILL 46 360 20 7,200 APOLLO ROAD MERCURY MERCURY 55 960 26 24,960 BEACH ROAD MARSH MAR WEST 56 640 24 15,360 JUNO ROAD MERCURY VENUS 61 1200 26 31,200 BLACKFIELD DRIVE 1075 FT N/O VIA SAN FERNANDO END 64 675 23 15,525 PLACE MOULIN SUGARLOAF END 16 911 14 12,754 HEATHCLIFF DRIVE SUGARLOAF END 19 400 17 6,800 VIA SAN FERNANDO BLACKFIELD PASEO MIRASOL 19 468 30 14,040 UPPER CECILIA WAY CECILIA CUL DE SAC 29 1200 24 28,800 VIA SAN FERNANDO PASEO MIRASOL PASEO MIRASOL 33 800 30 24,000 HACIENDA DRIVE TRESTLE GLEN 300 FT E/O ACACIA 42 2305 22 50,710 INDIAN ROCK COURT REED RANCH CUL DE SAC 42 800 22 17,600 CENTRO WEST CENTRO EAST ESPERANZA 48 2705 20 54,100

Street List 2018 Various Streets Project


44

of 1



Fiscal Year of Allocation: 2017/18 Expenditure Plan: Local Roads and Related Infrastructures (Strategy 3.2 of Measure A) Project Name: 2018 Road Rehabilitation Project – Western Region Implementing Agency: Marin County Scope of Work: Rehabilitation of Point Reyes-Petaluma Road from Platform Bridge Road to Highway 1. Improvements will include pavement resurfacing, base failure repair, minor drainage improvements, shoulder widening (where possible), replacement of guardrail, and traffic safety improvements to signage and striping. Cost of Scope: $2,200,000 Measure A Available Amount: $1,074,628 Measure A Reserve Funds Available Amount: $0 Total Requested Amount: $1,074,628 Other Funding: local general fund Cash flow Availability: 100% available in FY 17/18 Project Delivery Schedule (include start & completion milestones): Construction anticipated between June 2018 and November 2018 Environmental Clearance: CEQA CatEx


45


46

DATE: June 22, 2017 TO: Transportation Authority of Marin Board of Commissioners FROM: Dianne Steinhauser, Executive Director Li Zhang, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Appointments to the Citizens’ Oversight Committee (Action), Agenda Item No. 6f RECOMMENDATION: The TAM Board accepts the nomination and appoints the following COC alternate to a four-year term on TAM’s Citizens’ Oversight Committee (COC).

• Alternate: Nancy Okada, Environmental Organizations

BACKGROUND: The COC oversees the Measure A Half-cent Transportation Sales Tax and the Measure B $10 Vehicle Registration Fee revenue and expenditure activities. As an independently functioning group, the COC assure that the voter approved Measure A Sales Tax and Measure B VRF Expenditure Plans are carried out accordingly. The COC is composed of 12 members and 12 alternates who are private citizens residing in Marin County and collectively represent the diversity of Marin County. All COC members should have no economic interest in TAM’s projects. Over the years, due, in part, to the dedication and strong support of the members, the COC has become an indispensable part of TAM. DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: A number of positions on TAM’s COC were set to expire on May 31, 2017. Staff reached out to all current members/alternates to re-apply or to recommend suitable candidates to replace them on this committee. A Call for Applications was also posted on the TAM website and staff reached out to various organizations to seek interest parties to apply as part of ongoing effort to continue to fill out the remaining vacant positions. Most of the current members decided to continue their service on the Committee and, on April 27, the TAM Board appointed three returning members and one new member to this Committee. This month, staff is pleased to submit the names of one more member who is interested in serving another term on the COC. The table below illustrates all COC positions by representing organization or planning area. Staff will continue to actively solicit nominations for the COC and fill any remaining vacancies.

47

TAM Board Meeting, Item 6f Page 2 of 2 June 22, 2017

TAM Citizens’ Oversight Committee Membership Table

FISCAL CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable. NEXT STEPS: Staff will continue to actively solicit nominations and applications to fill the remaining expiring and vacant positions and will bring the names of qualified candidates to a future TAM Board meeting for consideration.

Position Candidate Term Expiration

Northern Marin Planning Area – (1) Member – V-Anne Chernock Alternate – Vacant

2021

Central Marin Planning Area – (1) Member - Joy Dahlgren Alternate – Jeffrey Olson

2021

Ross Valley Planning Area – (1) Member – Paul Roye Alternate – Vacant

2019

Southern Marin Planning Area – (1) Member - Robert Burton Alternate – Jayni Allsep

2019

West Marin Planning Area – (1) Member – Scott Tye Alternate – Vacant

2019

Marin County Paratransit Coordinating Council – (1)

Member - Allan Bortel Alternate – Rocky Birdsey

2019

Advocacy Group Representing Bicyclists and Pedestrians – (1)

Member – Vince O’Brien Alternate – Vacant

2019

Environmental Organizations – (1) Member – Kate Powers Alternate – Nancy Okada

2021

School Districts – (1) Member – Vacancy Alternate – Vacancy

2021

Major Marin Employers – (1) Member – Peter Pelham Alternate – TBD

2021

Taxpayer Group – (1) Member – Paul Premo Alternate - Vacancy

2021

League of Women Voters – (1) Member – Pamela Gach Alternate – Kay Noguchi

2019

48

DATE: June 22, 2017 TO: Transportation Authority of Marin Board of Commissioners FROM: Dianne Steinhauser, Executive Director Dan Cherrier, Principal Project Delivery Manager SUBJECT: Contract Addendum for Crossing Guard Services (Action), Agenda Item No. 6g RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Executive Director to execute Addendum 3 of Contract C-15/16-01 with All City Management Services to increase the Not to Exceed Amount by $1,566,000 to $4,344,000 for Crossing Guard Services. Contract is extended to July 31, 2018. Note, this is the final year of this contract. BACKGROUND: The TAM Crossing Guard program provides trained crossing guards for critical intersections throughout Marin County. As committed in the Transportation Sales Tax (Measure A) Expenditure Plan, the program uses trained crossing guards under contract to a professional company that specializes in crossing guard programs. Under contract to TAM, All City Management Services currently provides guards under the close supervision of TAM staff. The current 2016/2017 school year is the eleventh year during which crossing guards have been funded by the TAM Crossing Guard Program. TAM has an agreement with several school districts to provide guards on a reimbursed basis. DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: All City Management Services (ACMS) is completing the second year of service under this contract. ACMS was the service provider from 2006 to 2009 and experienced performance issues during the 2008/2009 school year. A different contract vendor was brought on following this period. Staff have closely monitored the performance of ACMS during the past two years (unannounced audits and unobserved observation of locations) and has found the service to be much improved from 2009. Staff is recommending that the contract with ACMS be extended for the 2017/2018 school year and that the ACMS request for an increase in the hourly rate to $23.19 be authorized. This rate comes with a four hour minimum which results in a daily rate of $92.76 or approximately $16,700 per year per guarded location. As part of this approval, the increase in the Marin County Living Wage will be automatically granted on January 1, 2018.

49

TAM Board Meeting Item 6g Page 2 of 2 June 22, 2017

FISCAL CONSIDERATION: The requested contract increase is listed in the approved 2018 Transportation Sales Tax and Vehicle Registration Fee budgets. The eight reimbursed guards for various school districts are handled as an “off budget” expenditure. The requested increase from ACMS was slightly higher than anticipated; however, a budget amendment is not expected to be required. Costs for the program continue to rise faster than expected revenues. Staff plan to adopt the recommendation from the Crossing Guard Ad-Hoc Committee and utilize a multi-year contract starting in August 2018. NEXT STEPS: Staff will be presenting a new ranked list of locations in Winter of 2018 and a recommendation for the number of guards to be placed with the expected funding levels. It is expected that the number of guards in the field will be reduced for the 2018/2019 school year. Staff is continuing to explore additional funding opportunities. The ranked list will be released in time for school districts and/or local jurisdictions to fund guards through their budget cycles, that would otherwise be cut from the TAM program. TAM staff will continue to monitor the performance of All City Management Services. Unannounced audits are performed by TAM staff, checking on guard attendance and performance. The frequency of these audits will be increased during the initial months of the upcoming school year as frequently new personnel are utilized in the Fall. ATTACHMENTS: None

50


Dan Cherrier, Principal Project Delivery Manager James O’Brien, Crossing Guard Coordinator

SUBJECT: Changes to Crossing Guard Program Location Scoring Methodology (Action), Agenda Item 6h

RECOMMENDATION Approve the recommendation of the TAM Programming and Projects Executive Committee to change the Location Scoring Criteria and Methodology as described below. BACKGROUND The TAM Crossing Guard program provides trained crossing guards for critical intersections throughout Marin County. As committed in the Transportation Sales Tax (Measure A) Expenditure Plan, the program uses trained crossing guards under contract to a professional company that specializes in crossing guard programs. Under contract to TAM, All City Management Services currently provides guards under the close supervision of TAM staff. The current 2016/2017 school year is the eleventh year during which crossing guards have been funded by the TAM Crossing Guard Program. TAM also has an agreement with several school districts to provide guards on a reimbursement basis. History of Original Program

The TAM Measure A Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan envisioned providing guards at up to 70 locations around Marin’s schools. The implementation policies and the original list of locations for the TAM Crossing Guard Program were developed during the 2005/2006 school year. The process began with a questionnaire distributed to all public and private schools in Marin County and to members of the Marin Public Works Association (MPWA). While the questionnaire was being distributed and the responses collected, the MPWA together with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) established a set of “qualifying” criteria for prioritizing potential crossing guard locations. The evaluation criteria were based on the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the Criteria for Adult Crossing Guards published by Caltrans. These resources are generally used by communities in California to determine if crossing guards are warranted and cost effective at specific locations. In order to apply the criteria to the 70 locations identified at that time, traffic data was collected for each of the locations. The traffic data included vehicle and pedestrian counts during a morning period for trips to school and an afternoon period for trips leaving school. In addition to the traffic data, information about the roadway characteristics, such as the number of lanes and the type of intersection control (e.g. stop sign, signal, etc.), was also collected. About 85 sites were reviewed for the potential to have a guard.

This process resulted in 54 locations receiving a crossing guard from the program during the 2006/2007 school year. The locations consisted of 44 qualifying locations and ten pilot locations. Pilot locations were

51

TAM Board, Item 6h Page 2 of 6 June 22, 2017

considered by MPWA and the TAC and took into account other facts besides MUTCD criteria. A funding commitment was made for three years for the qualifying locations and annually for the pilot locations. For the 2008/2009 school year, five qualifying locations and four additional pilot locations were added, which increased the program to 63 locations.

Current Program based on 2008-09 Revised Criteria

The discussions at the MPWA and TAC meetings in early 2008 brought to light the need to address the consideration of other factors in the process for evaluating potential future crossing guard locations. The evaluation based on the vehicular and pedestrian volumes is numerical and lends itself straightforwardly to developing a ranked list. The evaluation of other factors such as roadway geometry, sight distance, the speed of traffic and other site-specific conditions is based in large part on engineering judgment and presents a greater challenge when developing a ranked list. The MPWA and TAC both recommended developing a new set of scoring criteria for the next round of location evaluations.

The TAC, MPWA, and TAM staff spent several months between Fall 2008 to Summer 2009 developing a revised scoring criteria that incorporated the general intent of MUTCD along with the inclusion of these other factors. An Ad-Hoc committee was formed to apply the new criteria to several locations throughout the County. The Ad-Hoc committee recommended several changes to the scoring criteria that were incorporated before acceptance by the TAC and MPWA membership in July of 2009. In Fall 2009, the number of locations evaluated in the process increased to 125. Note this was due to the successful reception of the program by schools, parents and communities, as well as cash-strapped schools being unable to fund guards and turning their sites over to TAM. Counts were conducted in March and April of 2010 and again in May 2014. Care was taken to communicate with each school near each location to determine special days that might affect the number of children walking. The exact day that counts were to take place was not provided to the school; however, no counts were conducted on Fridays or within two days of Spring Break. Counts were performed for two hours in the morning and two hours in the afternoon. Data was collected in 15 minute intervals to determine peak hours of use. Counting staff were provided the following parameters:

• School age bicyclists and pedestrians were to be separated from all other bicyclists and pedestrians; • A school age pedestrian was defined as age 5 to 13; • School age bicyclists using the crosswalk were counted as school age pedestrians; • Vehicle counts included all turning movements; • Volume for a crosswalk was determined by all vehicles that actually crossed the crosswalk.

After sorting for the initial criteria, each crosswalk was scored in accordance with the new adopted criteria. The scoring includes points applied for vehicle volumes, school age pedestrian volumes, intersection skew angle, stopping sight distance, location on a horizontal curve, speed limit, and other factors provided by public works staff. Other factors included accident history involving pedestrians or bicyclists, nearby intersections, bus stops limiting visibility, and multiple lanes to cross. The list also assumed that pedestrians who cross on opposite sides of a location will utilize the services of a crossing guard. School age pedestrian volumes were combined across an intersection where applicable. Public Work Directors were provided the list and asked to state any objections. The ranked list was approved by the full TAM Board at the June 2010 meeting (revised in 2012), and again in July 2014. The most recent list has been in place since the 2014/2015 School Year. Counts normally occur on a four year cycle and are not scheduled to occur again until the 2017/2018 School Year. During that time period conditions may change at schools including new travel patterns, changed attendance boundaries, grade level reconfiguration, school openings and closing, and several other factors.

52


At the December 2011 Board meeting, the TAM Board adopted a policy allowing for mid-cycle modifications to the ranked list based on requests for new locations from Public Works Directors and new counts of existing locations based on changed conditions. Two additional locations were added to the Program during the 2016/2017 School Year. A guard was added at McAllister Avenue and Stadium Way near Kent Middle School. An additional guard was placed in front of San Ramon elementary School in Novato. Currently the program provides 82 crossing guards with eight additional guards entirely paid for by Novato Unified School District, Kentfield School District, and Mark Day School, Dixie School District, and Larkspur-Corte Madera School District. San Rafael City Schools, Ross School District, Reed Union School District, and Larkspur-Corte Madera School District also provide guards at locations on the approved list; however, these guards are paid through direct payment to All City Management Services or utilize District forces. DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS Proposed Changes in Scoring Methodology The Transportation Authority of Marin Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) formed the TAM Crossing Guard Program Recertification Ad Hoc Subcommittee to review the recertification process and provide recommendations and findings related to the following elements of the TAM Crossing Guard Program recertification process:

1) The timing of the pedestrian and vehicle counts during the school year to allow for thorough coordination with local agencies, schools, school districts, and other interested parties during the recertification process, and for the reevaluation to be complete in time to notify schools and school districts, along with local jurisdictions of changes to the Program in the Winter prior to budget development, well in advance of the school year during which changes to the Program will take effect;

2) The method used for collecting the pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle count data, e.g. video, manual, or other method(s);

3) A method to eliminate some of the locations from the master list that are evaluated during the recertification process to minimize the cost of collecting, compiling and analyzing the pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle count data for the recertification process; and

4) The “TAM Crossing Guard Program Location Scoring Criteria” adopted in 2009 for use in developing a relative ranking of the locations for determining which locations will receive funding through the Crossing Guard Program.

There are currently 147 locations on the master list. Locations on the master list are evaluated and scored during “recertification” cycles to comply with the Measure A Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) requirements. The recertification process uses the “TAM Crossing Guard Program Location Scoring Criteria” adopted in 2009 to develop a relative ranking of the locations.

The number of locations to be scored has a direct impact on the cost of the recertification process (funding which could otherwise fund additional locations), and as the number of locations on the master list has increased, so has the cost of the recertification process. The number of locations scored for the 2010 recertification was 125. In 2012, four (4) locations were added to the list for a total of 129 locations, and in 2014, 132 locations were scored as part of the recertification cycle with five (5) locations added after the recertification for a total of 137 currently ranked locations. There are currently 147 locations on the master list for the next recertification, including ten (10) locations which do not have scores adopted by the TAM

53


Board. Attachment A shows the current list of 147 locations and their rankings from 2012 and 2014. Note, the 2012 ranking was an update of the 2010 ranking with a few new locations added. Most scores used in the 2012 List were generated as part of the 2010 list.

The Subcommittee met with TAM staff in May, June and September of 2016 to review the TAM Crossing Guard Program recertification process. This item was discussed at the January 19, 2017, and February 16, 2017 TAC meetings, and adopted at the March 16, 2017 TAC meeting.

Currently, all of the locations on the master list are evaluated and scored during “recertification” cycles to comply with the Measure A Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) requirements. The location scoring criteria, adopted in 2009, are based primarily on pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle count data gathered at each location during the recertification process. Data is collected for all the locations on the master list and each location is given a score for ranking relative to all other locations on the list. The ranked list is then used to determine which locations will be funded through the TAM Crossing Guard Program.

The Authority Board has adopted policies to address the need for adding locations to the list between recertification cycles, and for updating the scoring data for locations which experience changes in conditions affecting school travel patterns between recertification cycles. TAM staff maintains a current set of scoring data for each location on the master list.

Recommendations

The Executive Committee and the TAC approved the following recommendations related to the TAM Crossing Guard Program recertification process: 1) Pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle count data should be collected during the early part of the school year,

i.e. before mid-November to allow for thorough coordination with local agencies, schools, school districts, and other interested parties during the recertification process;

2) Pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle count data should be collected using the most cost-effective method, or methods, available to provide the data required for scoring. Data should be collected for two days, unless circumstances warrant additional collection to ensure sufficient data for scoring;

3) New data should only be collected for locations that were not ranked in the top 30 or that ranked 110 or below in the 2012 and 2014 rankings as shown in Attachment A;

4) The “TAM Crossing Guard Program Location Scoring Criteria” adopted in 2009 should continue to be used in developing a relative ranking of the locations for determining which locations will receive funding through the Crossing Guard Program;

5) The limit of only one guard per location, even where opposite crosswalks qualify, should be continued; and

6) Locations at which TAM is providing a crossing guard funded by others should remain on the master list of locations, and scoring data for such locations should be collected during recertification cycles.

Recommendation Detail:

The Subcommittee developed the following in depth recommendations (summary of which is presented above). Further detail of each recommendation is presented below:

1) Pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle count data should be collected during the early part of the school year, i.e. before mid-November, so the scoring can take place to allow for a draft ranked list to be developed and coordinated with local agencies, schools, school districts and other interested parties during the December-January timeframe, with a final draft being developed during February. Coordination with interested parties should include discussions about options for local entities to reimburse TAM for crossing guards at locations which do not rank high enough for funding from the TAM Crossing

54


Guard Program, especially locations which are currently funded by the TAM Crossing Guard Program and are subject to falling below the cutoff line during the recertification process. A final ranking in March would allow time to notify the schools and school districts about any pending changes to the Crossing Guard Program before the end of the school year. TAM has historically notified individual schools and school districts about upcoming changes to the Crossing Guard Program before the changes are implemented so the schools and districts can notify students and families about the pending changes. Changes have typically been implemented at the beginning of the school year, so the schools and districts must be notified before the end of the preceding school year.

2) Pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle count data should be collected using the most cost-effective method, or combination of methods, available to provide the data required for scoring. In the most recent data collection cycle, video data capture methods were used and complemented by manual counts. Previous data collection cycles used only manual counts. The numbers of days on which data is collected should be reduced to two days (the video data was typically collected over three days). Additional data can be collected for certain locations on a case-by-case basis to ensure sufficient data for scoring.

3) Identify any locations that have ranked in the top 30 in both the 2012 and 2014 rankings as shown in Attachment A, and any locations that have ranked 110 or below, in both the 2012 and 2014 rankings. Only perform data collection for locations that are not included in either the “Top 30,” or the “110 or Below,” groups to reduce the number of locations for which count data must be collected and analyzed. Some concerns were expressed at the TAC meeting related to locations getting “stuck” in the bottom group and not being considered for future eligibility based on lack of updated count data. A similar concern was expressed for locations being “grandfathered” into the top 30 group. It was noted that concerns about locations being excluded from future funding eligibility due to the lack of updated count data are addressed by the current policy which allows for an evaluation of any location at any time upon request by the local public works department. A public works department can request an evaluation in the future based on an observed increase, or decrease, in pedestrian and bicycle volumes at any location, including locations which are not counted in the upcoming recertification cycle based on this recommendation. This recommendation will eliminate the need to collect data for 28 locations (11 locations in the 110 or below group plus 17 locations in the top 30 group as shown in Attachment A).

4) Continue to use the “TAM Crossing Guard Program Location Scoring Criteria” adopted in 2009 for use in developing a relative ranking of the locations for determining which locations will receive funding through the Crossing Guard Program with minor revisions to provide clarification. The Ad Hoc Subcommittee made a clarification regarding pedestrian count data for uncontrolled intersections to be used for scoring. The current scoring criteria states that the scoring for school-aged pedestrian volumes at uncontrolled intersections is based on the daily pedestrian volume, but daily volumes are not counted. The clarification is that the scoring for school-aged pedestrian volume is based on the combined a.m. and p.m. peak hour volume rather than the daily volume. The Subcommittee also made recommendations for incorporating accident data gathered by others into the scoring process. The location scoring criteria includes extra points for documented accident histories. Attachment B shows the scoring criteria with the change from “daily” to “combined a.m. and p.m.” reflected.

5) An overall goal of the Program has been to maximize the number of locations with a crossing guard. At one site, two opposite crosswalks score high enough to qualify for separate guards. Efforts have been made to consolidate users to one side of the intersection without success. Requests have been made by the crossing guard vendor and the School District to add a second guard. The Ad-Hoc felt that the Program would be better served limit the guards to one per location.

6) The TAM Crossing Guard Program currently allows for a crossing guard to be deployed through the TAM contract with the company providing crossing guards at locations requested and funded by others, i.e. the sponsoring entity reimburses TAM for cost of crossing guard. It is recommended that

55


locations at which a crossing guard is deployed through the TAM contract and funded by others should remain on the TAM Crossing Guard Program master list of locations.

7) A location exists where the students experience no conflict with vehicles due to traffic signal phasing that has eliminated all other movements during crossing. The Ad-Hoc felt this crossing guard should be maintained.

FISCAL CONSIDERATION Staff recently received proposals for performing the counting. Costs ranged from approximately $1,000 per location to almost $3,000. Depending on the selected counting vendor, the reduction of 28 sites will allow an additional $30,000 or more to be used towards guards in the field rather than counting. NEXT STEPS Staff will be bringing a recommendation for the vendor to perform the counts at the July meeting. Counts are expected to be completed in the September and October timeframe. Completion of the ranked list is expected around the end of the 2017 calendar year. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – List showing Rankings in 2012 and 2014 Lists Attachment B – Proposed Changes to Crossing Guard Scoring Criteria

56

Transportation Authority of MarinTAM Crossing Guard Program Recertification Process

TAM Board Meeting June 22, 2017Attachment A

Attachment APage 1 of 6

TAMSite No. Location City/Community

2012Rank

2014Rank Notes

Countin

2017

1 Mt Shasta & Idylberry Lucas Valley 43 68 Y

2 Las Gallinas & Miller Creek Rd Marinwood 12 62 Y

3 Nova Albion Way at Vallecito School San Rafael 4 3 Note 1 N

4 Nova Albion Way & Arias Street San Rafael 90 64 Y

5 Sir Francis Drake Blvd & Laurel Grove Ave Kentfield 58 49 Y

6 College Ave & Woodland Ave (East Side) Kentfield 47 58 Y

7 College Ave & Stadium Way Kentfield 34 50 Y

8 Sir Francis Drake Blvd & Wolfe Grade Kentfield 105 123 Y

9 Sir Francis Drake Blvd & College Ave Kentfield 65 71 Y

10 Tam Racket Club & Doherty Rd Larkspur 3 42 Y

11 Corte Madera & Tamalpais Dr (& Redwood) Corte Madera 92 128 Y

12 Doherty Dr at Piper Park Crosswalk Larkspur 36 4 Y

13 Magnolia Ave & King St Larkspur 51 45 Y

14 E Blithedale & Lomita Ave Mill Valley 19 9 Note 1 N

15 Throckmorton Ave & Old Mill St Mill Valley 22 74 Y

16 E Strawberry Dr at Strawberry School Marin County 9 14 Note 1 N

17 Bell Lane & Enterprise Concourse Mill Valley 20 37 Y

18 Tiburon Blvd & Blackfield Dr Tiburon 80 27 Y

19 Camino Alto & Sycamore Ave Mill Valley 18 18 Note 1 N

20 Tiburon Blvd & Avenida Mireflores Tiburon 66 53 Y

21 Tiburon Blvd & Lyford Dr Tiburon 13 20 Note 1 N

22 Tiburon Blvd & Trestle Glen Tiburon 72 80 Y

23 Lagunitas & Allen Avenue Ross 39 35 Y

24 Lagunitas & Ross Common Ross 59 15 Y

25 Sir Francis Drake Blvd & Lagunitas Ross 106 91 Y

26 Sir Francis Drake Blvd & Oak Manor Fairfax 108 120 Y

27 Butterfield Rd & Green Valley Court Sleepy Hollow 25 26 Note 1 N

TAM Crossing Guard Program 2012 and 2014 Location Rankings

Item 6h - Attachment A

57





2012Rank

2014Rank Notes

Countin

2017


28 Sir Francis Drake Blvd & Broadmoor Ave San Anselmo 97 121 Y

29 Sir Francis Drake Blvd & Bolinas Ave San Anselmo 103 133 Y

30 Sir Francis Drake Blvd & Tamal Ave San Anselmo 48 69 Y

31 Sir Francis Drake Blvd & Barber Ave/Ross Ave San Anselmo 113 124 Note 2 N

32 Bahia Way & Kerner Blvd San Rafael 7 1 Note 1 N

33 N San Pedro & Roosevelt Santa Venitia 63 72 Y

34 Bahia Way at School Entrance San Rafael 28 32 Y

35 Kerner Blvd & Canal St San Rafael 35 33 Y

36 177 N San Pedro Road Santa Venitia 5 30 Note 1 N

37 Knight Dr & Ashwood Ct San Rafael 49 13 Y

38 Woodland Ave & Siebel San Rafael 94 118 Y

39 5th Ave & River Oaks Dr San Rafael 23 38 Y

40 Happy Lane & 5th Ave San Rafael 50 40 Y

41 Oak Manor (mid-block at school) Fairfax 60 17 Y

42 Sir Francis Drake Blvd & Oak Tree Lane Fairfax 8 5 Note 1 N

43 Center Rd & Wilson Ave Novato 64 31 Y

44 Center Rd & Leland Dr Novato 6 8 Note 1 N

45 S Novato Blvd & Sunset Pkwy Novato 53 83 Y

46 Sutro Ave & Dominic Dr Novato 24 10 Note 1 N

47 Arthur & Cambridge St Novato 14 110 Y

48 S Novato Blvd & Yukon Way Novato 56 77 Y

49 San Marin Dr & San Ramon Way Novato 79 85 Y

50 San Ramon Way & San Benito Way Novato 21 28 Note 1 N

51 Diablo Ave & Hotchkin Dr Novato 102 111 Y

52 Alameda De La Loma & Calle De La Mesa Ignacio 17 56 Y

53 Paladini & Vineyard Novato 10 11 Note 1 N

54 Wilson & Vineyard Novato 76 25 Y


58





2012Rank

2014Rank Notes

Countin

2017


55 W Castlewood Dr & Knight Dr San Rafael 54 99 Y

56 Avenida Mireflores at School Tiburon 29 46 Y

57 Mohawk (in front of Neil Cummins School) Corte Madera 26 39 Y

58 Tamalpais Dr & Eastman Ave Corte Madera 84 103 Y

59 Butterfield Rd (in front of School) San Anselmo 46 61 Y

60 Sunset Pkwy & Lynwood Dr Novato 73 34 Y

61 Karen Way (in front of school) Tiburon 30 43 Y

62 Blackstone & Las Gallinas Marinwood 74 86 Y

63 Las Gallinas & Elvia Ct Marinwood 75 54 Y

64 Lomita Dr (in front of Edna Maguire School) Mill Valley 40 75 Y

65 Sir Francis Drake Blvd & Marinda Dr Fairfax 44 7 Y

66 Ross & Kensington San Anselmo 95 108 Y

67 Sir Francis Drake Blvd & Butterfield Rd San Anselmo 93 95 Y

68 Sunset Pkwy & Ignacio Blvd Novato 86 12 Y

69 Olema-Bolinas Rd & Mesa Bolinas 127 126 Note 2 N

70 Olema-Bolinas Road (in front of school) Bolinas 96 59 Y

71 Marinwood Ave & Miller Creek Rd Marinwood 99 105 Y

72 Nova Albion Way & Las Gallinas Ave San Rafael 52 89 Y

73 Sir Francis Drake Blvd & Meadow Way San Geronimo 110 114 Note 2 N

74 Hickory Ave (near Mohawk) Corte Madera 27 44 Y

75 Magnolia Ave & Wiltshire Ave Larkspur 62 66 Y

76 Harvard Ave & Wellesley Tamalpais Valley 117 132 Note 2 N

77 E Blithedale & Elm Ave Mill Valley 70 70 Y

78 Ricardo Ln & E Strawberry Dr Marin County 101 78 Y

79 Gibson & Shoreline Tamalpais Valley 120 87 Y

80 Montford Ave & Melrose Ave Tamalpais Valley 109 127 Y

81 Melrose Ave & Evergreen Ave Tamalpais Valley 91 81 Y


59





2012Rank

2014Rank Notes

Countin

2017


82 Tiburon Blvd & E Strawberry Dr Marin County 118 92 Y

83 Evergreen Ave & Ethel Ave Tamalpais Valley 114 113 Note 2 N

84 Richmond & Belle San Anselmo 38 100 Y

85 Richmond & Mariposa San Anselmo 115 119 Note 2 N

86 Tiburon Blvd & Kleinert Way Tiburon 61 57 Y

87 Tiburon Blvd & Stewart Dr Tiburon 87 67 Y

88 Blackfield Dr & Karen Way Tiburon 107 134 Y

89 Woodland (at back entrance of school) San Anselmo 77 117 Y

90 Sir Francis Drake Blvd & Aspen Court San Anselmo 128 130 Note 2 N

91 Sir Francis Drake Blvd & Saunders Ave San Anselmo 122 102 Y

92 Sequoia & Miracle Mile San Anselmo 112 129 Note 2 N

93 Woodland Ave & Eva San Rafael 68 96 Y

94 Woodland Ave & Lovell Ave San Rafael 98 94 Y

95 Racquet Club Dr & 5th Ave San Rafael 88 101 Y

96 Bellam Blvd & Francisco Blvd East San Rafael 126 135 Note 2 N

97 Bellam Blvd & I-580 on ramp San Rafael 124 106 Y

98 Bellam Blvd & I-580 off ramp San Rafael 125 104 Y

99 Bellam Blvd & Anderson Dr San Rafael 121 97 Y

100 Olive Ave & Summers Ave Novato 119 107 Y

101 One Main Gate Road at School Novato 41 19 Y

102 Wilson Ave at X-walk to field Novato 83 55 Y

103 Tinker Way & Bowling Circle Novato 116 76 Y

104 Center Rd & Tamalpais Ave Novato 37 73 Y

105 Center Rd & Diablo Ave Novato 45 79 Y

106 Adams St & Johnson St Novato 33 47 Y

107 Sunset Parkway & Merritt Dr Novato 69 2 Y

108 Lovell Ave & Old Mill St Mill Valley 42 29 Y


60





2012Rank

2014Rank Notes

Countin

2017


109 Nova Albion & Monticello San Rafael 15 109 Y

110 Belle Ave (in front of school) San Rafael 89 51 Y

111 Lincoln Ave & Paloma (east side of Lincoln) San Rafael 111 131 Note 2 N

112 Grand Ave & Jewell St San Rafael 85 122 Y

113 Sir Francis Drake Blvd & Manor Rd Kentfield 100 88 Y

114 Sir Francis Drake Blvd & Bon Air Rd Kentfield 82 90 Y

115 Sir Francis Drake Blvd & S Eliseo Dr Kentfield 129 116 Note 2 N

116 Golden Hind Passage (in front of school) Corte Madera 71 112 Y

117 E Blithedale & Buena Vista Ave Mill Valley 67 84 Y

118 Woodland Ave & Lindaro St San Rafael 16 23 Note 1 N

119 Miller Ave & Evergreen Ave Mill Valley 2 21 Note 1 N

120 San Marin Dr & San Carlos Way Novato 123 93 Y

121 Sir Francis Drake & Glen Dr Fairfax 1 16 Note 1 N

122 Miller Ave & Almonte Blvd Mill Valley 55 36 Y

123 Sutro Ave (in front of Pleasant Vly Elementary) Novato 11 24 Note 1 N

124 Olive Avenue (in back of school) Novato 31 48 Y

125 Wilson Ave & Hansen Road Novato 104 136 Y

126 Shoreline Hwy & Almonte Blvd Tamalpais Valley 32 65 Y

127 Redwood Hwy & S.B. Seminary Dr Ramp Mill Valley 57 63 Y

128 Redwood Hwy & DeSilva Dr (at POC) Marin County 81 137 Y

129 Marin St & Bayview St San Rafael 78 125 Y

130 Shoreline Highway & Pine Hill Road Tamalpais Valley NA 41 Note 3 Y

131 Kleinert Way & Neds Ave Tiburon NA 82 Note 3 Y

132 San Benito Way & San Ramon Way (south) Novato NA 52 Note 3 Y

133 Arthur Street & Taft Court/Tyler Street Novato NA 115 Note 3 Y

134 Ross Common (at Post Office) Ross NA 22 Note 3 Y

135 Paradise Drive at Seawolf Passage Corte Madera NA 98 Note 3 Y


61





2012Rank

2014Rank Notes

Countin

2017


136 Tiburon Blvd & Mar West St Tiburon NA 6 Note 3 Y

137 Spindrift Passage & Prince Royal Passage Corte Madera NA 60 Note 3 Y

138 Arthur Street (in front of HS) Novato NA NA Note 4 Y

139 Sutro Avenue & Center Road Novato NA NA Note 4 Y

140 Shoreline Highway (in front of West Marin School) Point Reyes Station NA NA Note 4 Y

141 Arias Street & Trellis Drive San Rafael NA NA Note 4 Y

142 Tiburon Boulevard and San Rafael Avenue Tiburon NA NA Note 4 Y

143 South Novato Boulevard and Lark Court Novato NA NA Note 4 Y

144 Main Gate Road and C Street Novato NA NA Note 4 Y

145 San Ramon Way and San Juan Court Novato NA NA Note 4 Y

146 Almonte Boulevard and Rosemont Avenue Tamalpais Valley NA NA Note 4 Y

147 McAllister Avenue and Stadium Way Kentfield NA NA Note 4 Y

Notes:1) Location ranked in top 30 in 2012 and 2014 lists2) Location ranked below 110 in 2012 and 2014 lists3) New location and count data added in 20144) New location added since 2014 Ranked List was approved5) 17 Locations ranked in top 30 for both 2012 and 2014 Rankings6) 11 Locations below Rank 110 for both 2012 and 2014 Rankings


62

Index Criterion Scoring Score WeightWeighted

Score1 Actual vehicular volume crossing crosswalk as percent of

qualifying volume (use highest hourly volume a.m. or p.m.)One point, rounded to the nearest whole number, for each ten percentage points of maximum actual volume counted (a.m. or p.m. - hourly or daily) to applicable "qualifying volume." (Maximum of 20 points)

2

2 Actual school-aged pedestrian volume as percent of qualifying volume (use highest hourly volume a.m. or p.m., or daily combined a.m./p.m. volume depending on the type of intersection control)

One point, rounded to the nearest whole number, for each ten percentage points of maximum actual volume counted (a.m. or p.m. - hourly or daily combined a.m./p.m.) to applicable "qualifying volume." (Maximum of 20 points)

5

3 Intersection Skew Angle Maximum skew from 0 to 5 degrees = 0Maximum skew from 6 to 15 degrees = 1 pointMaximum skew from 16 to 25 degrees = 2 pointsMaximum skew from 26 to 35 degrees = 3 pointsMaximum skew from 36 to 45 degrees = 4 pointsMaximum skew greater than 45 degrees = 5 points

1

4 Stopping Sight Distance at Intersection Stopping sight distance not impaired = 0Stopping sight distance slightly impaired = 1 pointStopping sight distance significantly impaired = 2 points

10

5 Location of intersection on a horizontal curve with posted warning or speed reduction sign(s)

No = 0Yes = 1 point

5

6 Posted speed limit (highest on any approach to pedestrian crossing)

Posted Speed Limit 25 mph or less = 0Posted Speed Limit 30 mph = 1 pointPosted Speed Limit 35 mph = 2 pointsPosted Speed Limit 40 mph = 3 pointsPosted Speed Limit 45 mph = 4 pointsPosted Speed Limit 50 mph or greater = 5 points

2

7 Other factors Use total score (i.e. total for all factors) (Maximum of 4 points total) Ped-Vehicular accident history documented = 1 point Multiple ingress-egress within 50 feet of crosswalk = 1 point Crossing more than 4 lanes total (i.e. both directions) = 1 point Other factor documented/concurred by Public Works = 1 point ea.

5

Total

TAM Crossing Guard Program Location Scoring Criteria

Item 6h - Attachment B

63


64


Dan Cherrier, Principal Project Delivery Manager

SUBJECT: Contract Award Street Smarts Banner Installation (Action), Agenda Item 6i RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Executive Director to award a three year contract to DC Electric for Street Smarts Banner Installation and Removal for a contract amount not to exceed $60,000 which will terminate June 30, 2020. Funding for the recommended contract is available from the approved federal Non-motorized Transportation Pilot Program grant and the TAM Vehicle Registration Fee Congestion Reduction Program . BACKGROUND The TAM Board approved implementation of the Street Smarts program in 2009 and has been using a mix of funding to maintain the program. Funds originally came from the County’s Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot Program (NTPP). The initial NTPP funds were exhausted in 2012 and since then, Street Smarts capital costs have been funded through a Board approved Measure B Vehicle Registration Fee Congestion Reduction allocation. Street Smarts program management and support costs are funded through the Measure A ½ cent Transportation Sales Tax approved as part of the Safe Routes to School program. The recommended contract will be funded by a federal authorization for another grant from the NTPP. This is an additional allocation from the original funds from NTPP. Banner installation and removal has historically been the primary capital expense associated with the Street Smarts program followed closely by sign placement on the back of Golden Gate buses. The Transportation Authority of Marin issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a contract to install, and subsequently take down, banners mounted on existing roadway facilities such as street light poles throughout various cities in Marin County in coordination with the Marin County Safe Routes to School coalition. The banners display messaging related to the Countywide Streets Smart Program. The estimated cost of the contract is $60,000 over a three-year period, with one banner deployment assumed each year at a cost of approximately $20,000. The RFP was issued on March 30, 2017. The RFP was posted on the TAM website, advertised in a newspaper, and available at an on-line exchange. Notification of the RFP was distributed to the TAM RFP email list, which includes interested parties that sign up on the TAM website. Proposals were due April 27, 2017. TAM only received one proposal by the deadline. The proposal was analyzed and determined to be responsive. The cost proposal was within the budget established for the contract. Federal funding requirements require implementing agencies to determine that it is in the public interest to award a contract when only one response to an RFP is received. The funding requirements require that

65

TAM Board Meeting Item 6i Page 2 of 2 June 22, 2017

reissuing the RFP be considered as an option to ensure that sufficient opportunities for competition exist. TAM has considered re-advertising as an option to solicit additional proposals, but the cost and time required to repeat the process is not anticipated to result in any appreciable increase in competition, especially given the relatively small total budget for the project. Given the small contract amount, and the efforts to make the RFP available to a wide range of potential bidders, TAM has determined that the procurement process was sufficient to allow for adequate competition. TAM staff submitted a Public Interest Finding (PIF) to Caltrans Local Assistance and received approval to award the contract to the sole respondent to the RFP. FISCAL CONSIDERATION The $20,000 for the 2017/2018 banner deployment is included in the approved budget. NEXT STEPS Award the contract and prepare for the upcoming banner installation when school starts in the fall. ATTACHMENTS None

66

DATE: June 22, 2017 TO: Transportation Authority of Marin Board of Commissioners FROM: Dianne Steinhauser, Executive Director Derek McGill, Planning Manager SUBJECT: TAM Strategic Vision Plan Contract Extension (Action), Agenda Item No. 6j RECOMMENDATION: Authorize TAM staff to amend the term of the Nelson \ Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. contract for the Strategic Vision Plan from its current expiration date of June 26, 2017 for an additional 6-month period. There is a budget to complete the work and no budget increase is included in this recommendation. Work is expected to end on this plan by September 2017. BACKGROUND: On June 25, 2015, the TAM board authorized a contract with Nelson \ Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc to conduct the TAM Strategic Vision Plan in concurrence with the update to the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). A draft Vision Plan is expected to be released in late June. DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: In 2003 TAM’s predecessor agency, the Marin County Congestion Management Agency prepared “Moving Forward: a 25-year Transportation Vision for Marin County.” This 2003 Vision Plan provided direction for planning activities and future revenue discussions, ultimately assisting in the development of TAM’s ½-cent Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan. As many of the projects and programs envisioned have been carried out, an update to the original vision plan was warranted. The process to update this vision plan was approved by the TAM board in February 2015. The overall goal of the vision plan is to build consensus around “what we want to accomplish in the future.” The update to this plan, known as the Strategic Vision Plan 2017 will:

• incorporate the past developments and accomplishments made to the Transportation System, • incorporate a substantial amount of planning and studies that have advanced our understanding of

the local and regional issues our transportation system faces, • Consider the expansive public outreach and stakeholder outreach that has occurred since 2003, • Provide guidance and strategies for new revenue sources • Incorporate examples of technological advancement and innovations

67

TAM Board Item 6j Page 2 of 2 June 22, 2017

Since May of 2015, work on the strategic vision plan has progressed steadily, beginning with support of the Regional Transportation Plan update in Fall of 2015. During this process an extensive outreach process and workshop was held. In 2016, TAM staff and Nelson/Nygaard prepared an existing conditions discussion with the TAM board, prepared a second round of public outreach including the development of a website and survey that reached out to over 3,600 respondents. Nelson Nygaard and staff have developed an initial vision and are working towards the development of a draft document for review, expected to be released for comment and input by the end of June. TAM staff have brought forth elements of the plan in pieces, beginning in May 2015 with the Public Outreach Plan for the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Strategic Vision Plan (SVP) outreach of 2015. Since that time TAM has:

• Conducted Round 1 of outreach - Summer 2015 • Adopted Principles of RTP/SVP - July 2015 • Submitted Long Range Projects for RTP - October 2015 • Revised Long Range Projects - June 2016 • Board discussion on Transportation Setting - April 2016 • Conducted round 2 of Public Outreach - Fall 2016 • Board Discussion on public outreach - January 2017 • TAM Innovation Workshop - February 2017

With the contract expiring in June, TAM staff are recommending the contract length is extended to allow for support in reviewing comments and preparing the final draft of the vision plan. This work is within the existing budget and no additional budget is necessary. FISCAL CONSIDERATION: This contract extension is for term only, and does not include any budget changes or have any fiscal impact. NEXT STEPS: Staff will amend the Nelson \ Nygaard contract. ATTACHMENTS: N/A

68


Derek McGill, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Authorize One-Year Contract Extension for Safe Routes to School Program (Action). Item

No. 6k RECOMMENDATION Authorize TAM staff to extend Parisi Transportation Consulting Safe Routes to Schools Program Contract for FY 17/18, with a not to exceed amount of $955,000 for FY 17/18. This item was discussed by the Safe Routes to School Adhoc Committee with a recommended approval by the Board. BACKGROUND In May 2013, the TAM Board of Commissioners approved a 3-year contract with Parisi Transportation Consulting s to operate the very successful Marin Safe Routes to Schools education and encouragement program. Parisi has assembled a strong team in Marin, with subcontractors that are well versed in managing the various elements of the program, such as the Marin County Bicycle Coalition, MCBC, who does the educational programs in schools, managing training of students, creative encouragement programs, unique events and contests such as Walk and Roll Wednesdays, and interaction with school personnel. The Parisi team also manages the Street Smarts banner and messaging program, the travel and route maps that parents are widely using, and the development of local safe pathway capital projects, coordinated through neighborhood meetings and walkabouts with local Safe Routes Task Forces, which bring the community together with the school, local public works and law enforcement, and interested parents, to review issues and recommend solutions. Leadership at Parisi ties all the components together, making the Marin program a model regionally, statewide, and nationally. The 3-year contract has the option of two one-year contract extensions. As of July 2016, the three-year period of the contract has passed, and the TAM board authorized the first one-year option of the contract with Parisi for FY 16/17. TAM staff propose the TAM board authorize the second one-year option for FY 17/18. Funds are available in the FY17/18 Budget for this program In June of 2014, the TAM board authorized an amendment to this contract to supplement the original scope of work with additional programs funded under OBAG 1. The OBAG1 funds are limited to three years, with the last year of fund availability in FY 2016-17, the year ending now. The OBAG1 funds have increased the Safe Routes program work to enable more activity in the schools, more Hispanic interpretation, and additional route maps for neighborhoods around schools. Due to the OBAG1 Funding plug, the reserve of local Transportation Sales Tax measure Funds for Safe routes has grown, along with increased revenues collected resulting in adequate cash-flow to fund this program at its current level. This was discussed at the safe routes Ad-hoc and recommended for approval to the TAM Board.

69

TAM Board Item 6k Page 2 of 2 June 22, 2017

DISCUSSION / ANALYSIS The contract amendment requested from the TAM board is for a not to exceed for the second option year of FY 17/18 of $955,000 from local Measure A Transportation Sales Tax Measure funds, and Measure B Vehicle Registration Funds. Note the Safe Routes to Schools program contract is funded through a variety of sources, primarily the Measure A Transportation Sales Tax Strategy 4.1 Safe Routes to Schools, and OBAG 1 funding as specified above. During the OBAG Safe Routes to Schools programming of 16/17, staff gathered the Safe Routes to Schools Ad-hoc of the TAM board of Commissioners to determine a sustainable level of the Safe Routes Program until the current end of the sales tax Measure. The proposed budget is within the sustainable amount, largely due to cost savings of the program, increased revenues from the local sales tax, and previous grant awards. TAM staff will prepare a request for proposals for the next Safe Routes to Schools contract during this fiscal year, as this contract will be reaching its five year limit, with this extension. The current scope of work provides for a continued level of effort as the current fiscal year. FISCAL CONSIDERATION The new not to exceed budget is $955,000. This amount can be sustained through FY 2017-18, from existing Measure A Transportation Sales Tax Strategy 4.1 Safe Routes to Schools funding and is included in the budget for FY 17/18. ATTACHMENTS N/A

70

DATE: June 22, 2017 TO: Transportation Authority of Marin Board of Commissioners FROM: Dianne Steinhauser, Executive Director Bill Whitney, Deputy Executive Director

SUBJECT: Approve Funding Agreement with the City of Larkspur for the East Sir Francis Drake Blvd

Project Approaching the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge (Action) – Agenda Item No.6l RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the TAM Board authorize the Executive Director to execute a funding agreement with the City of Larkspur for the construction of the East Sir Francis Drake Blvd Project approaching the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge.. It is staff’s desire to have the East Sir Francis Drake Blvd (ESFD) improvements in-place and in operation either before or soon after the third lane on the Richmond San Rafael bridge is opened. The Executive Committee considered this item and recommended it be forwarded to the Board for approval. BACKGROUND: MTC/ BATA and Caltrans continue their efforts to open an eastbound third lane on the lower deck of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. A construction contract for the third lane is underway and completion is estimated to be in November 2017. Beginning in January 2015 TAM initiated a series of meetings with Caltrans, MTC, Golden Gate Transit, Marin Transit, the County of Marin, the City of San Rafael, and the City of Larkspur to coordinate a possible set of improvements for the two approaches to the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge using Sir Francis Drake Blvd and the US101 northbound off-ramp to Bellam Blvd. The group generally agreed any improvements to East Sir Francis Drake Blvd and the Bellam Blvd intersection would need to have a positive effect in providing access to the bridge while not damaging access to the adjacent business districts and communities. Ideally, any recommended improvements should have a positive effect on local access as well as reducing travel time for through trips to the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. In January 2016 staff introduced conceptual improvements for both approach routes to the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge as well as proposed bicycle access improvements to the westbound Sir Francis Drake Blvd flyover from I-580. Note the westbound SFDrake flyover improvement is necessary to assure safe passage of bicyclists exiting and entering the Bridge bike lane from Anderson Drive. In July 2016 these concepts were again presented to the Board and a funding strategy was approved to provide $7.45M for these three elements of work. The projects are being pursued as individual stand-a-lone projects in order to accelerate delivery. DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

71

TAM Board Meeting, Item 6l Page 2 of 3 June 22, 2017

Staff has worked closely with the City of Larkspur to develop and finalize the scope of work. The ESFD work is within the City limits and will become the operational and maintenance responsibility of Larkspur. The following vehicular and bicycle improvements are being pursued and incorporated into the final design and construction documents:

• At the intersection of Larkspur Landing Circle West (LLC) – add a double right tune lane configuration onto westbound SFD Blvd, add pedestrian bulb-outs, and update signal equipment to allow the intersection to operate at an increased level of service (LOS).

• At the intersection of Larkspur Landing Circle East (LLC) – make minor traffic signal improvements to increase to operational capacity of the intersection.

• Relocate the existing eastbound lane drop on ESFD Blvd approximately 1000 feet to the east. Moving the location of the lane drop reduces the congestion that spills back into the intersection at LLC East.

• Relocate a small portion of the existing Class 1 path to accommodate the lane drop relocation and widen the shoulder to accommodate bicycle traffic.

• Add conduit infrastructure to allow for the future implementation of adaptive traffic signal control in the SFD corridor.

Permits A resource agency permit is required from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) as certain project features fall within their jurisdiction. TAM and Larkspur staff have worked closely with BCDC staff to secure the permit in order to meet our desired schedule. An encroachment permit is required from Caltrans to authorize the installation of conduits to allow for the future connection and implementation of adaptive signal control in the SFD corridor from the Town of Ross to the Richmond San Rafael Bridge. Discussions with Caltrans are underway but require more detailed study that may impact the schedule. Staff has developed a strategy to deliver the major scope of work without delay. This signal work could be included in future contracts if necessary. Lead Agency TAM has acted as lead agency during the environmental and design phases of the project. TAM had discussions with the Larkspur Public Works Director regarding who will assume the lead role during construction. Since this scope of work is a routine part of their day-to-day operations TAM has requested, and the City has agreed to assume this role. FISCAL CONSIDERATION: The Board has allocated funding to implement improvements to the two approaches to the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, (include bicycle access improvements) in the amount of $7.45M which includes capital and capital support costs. TAM is estimating the ESFD Project construction and construction support to be $2.3M. Estimated project costs continue to be refined for all three projects and no additional allocation is needed at this time. . However it should be noted the TAM Board allowed further use of TAM Debt Reserve funds if need be to assure the projects are fully funded and can move forward. NEXT STEPS:

72

TAM Board Meeting, Item 6l Page 3 of 3 June 22, 2017

Execute a funding agreement with the City of Larkspur in the amount of $2.3M to implement the construction and construction management phase of the East Sir Francis Drake Blvd Project. It is envisioned the project will be advertised in August, with construction starting in September. Construction will be complete in approximately the November/ December time frame, when the Third Lane Eastbound on the Richmond San Rafael Bridge is open to the public.

73


74

DATE: June 22, 2017 TO: Transportation Authority of Marin Board of Commissioners FROM: Dianne Steinhauser, Executive Director Li Zhang, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Review and Acceptance of 2017 Measure A Half-cent Transportation Sales Tax

Compliance Audit Selection List (Action), Agenda Item No. 6m RECOMMENDATION: The Board reviews and accepts the 2017 Measure A Half-cent Transportation Sales Tax Compliance Audit Selection List. The Finance and Policy Executive Committee Executive Committee reviewed the list of the funding recipients selected for the 2017 compliance audit cycle and voted unanimously to refer it to the TAM Board for review and approval. BACKGROUND: The Measure A Half-cent Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan provides TAM with the authority to audit all Measure A fund recipients for their use of the sales tax proceeds. Independent compliance audits are explicitly permitted under the terms and conditions of TAM’s funding agreements/contracts with all Measure A Half-cent Transportation Sales Tax funding recipients. The TAM Board adopted the Measure A Compliance Audit Policy at its October 28, 2010 Board meeting and the implementation of the Policy started in 2011, with audit of Measure A Half-cent Sales Tax expenditures occurred in or prior to FY2010-11. DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: Funding Recipients Recommended for the 2017 Compliance Audit: The seventh round of compliance audits will cover Measure A Half-cent Sales Tax expenditures occurred in or prior to FY2016-17. Based on the requirement of the Compliance Audit Policy, a total of five compliance audits are recommended to be conducted for this round to confirm that all Measure A Half-cent Sales Tax funds are spent in accordance to the requirements of the Expenditure Plan, as presented in the table on Page 2.

75

TAM Board, Item 6m Page 2 of 2 June 22, 2017

Measure A Fund Recipients Selected for the 2017 Compliance Audit Cycle

No. Fund Recipient Measure A Funding Strategy Interest Revenue Funding Usage

None Strategy 1 Local Bus Transit System

1 Marin Transit Local Transit, for all Measure A funds received for its FY2016-17 transit operation and capital needs

Strategy 2 Highway 101 Gap Closure None Strategy 3 Local Transportation Infrastructure

2 County of Marin Strategy 3.1, Major Roads, for Sir Francis Drake Boulevard Rehabilitation in Ross Valley

3 Town of San Anselmo Strategy 3.2, Local Roads, for its usage of the Measure A Local Roads funds in or prior to FY2016-17

Strategy 4 School Related Congestion and Safer Access to Schools

4 Town of Corte Madera

Strategy 4.3, Safe Pathways to School, major capital project, for Measure A funds received for Tamalpais Drive Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement Project

5 Town of Fairfax

Strategy 4.3, Safe Pathways to School, small capital project, for Measure A funds received for Sir Francis Drake Blvd and Taylor Road Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons

FISCAL CONSIDERATION: Funding needed for this effort is included in the FY2017-18 Annual Budget and staff expects the task will be finished on schedule and within budget. NEXT STEPS: Funding recipients selected for the 2017 Compliance Audit cycle will be formally notified once the TAM Board approves the staff recommendation. Staff will also conduct a workshop in August to provide fund recipients opportunities to fully understand the compliance audit process and requirements. A detailed audit timeline will be made available at the workshop as well. All compliance audit reports will be presented to the Citizens’ Oversight Committee, Finance and Policy Executive Committee, and the TAM Board for review and acceptance once they are finalized.

76

DATE: June 22, 2017 TO: Transportation Authority of Marin Board of Commissioners FROM: Dianne Steinhauser, Executive Director SUBJECT: Resolution of Appreciation to Assemblyman Jim Frazier and Senator Jim Beall for their

sponsorship of AB1 and SB1, which created substantial funds to address transportation needs in California, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Action), Agenda Item 6n

______________________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION Approve the attached Resolution of Appreciation to Assemblyman Jim Frazier and Senator Jim Beall for their work to develop AB1 and SB1, receive legislative approval, and guide the final package through approval by Governor Brown’s Administration. BACKGROUND The State of California has considered the needs of our statewide, as well as local, transportation systems for several years. After the substantial completion of projects in 2014 that were funded through the 2006 Proposition 1B- the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, the State has struggled to fund transportation needs, especially the maintenance and rehabilitation of our aging infrastructure. The Assembly Transportation Committee, chaired by Assemblyman Jim Frazier of Contra Costa/ Solano, as well as the Senate Transportation Committee, chaired by Senator Jim Beall of Santa Clara, took up the task of working through the Legislature and the Administration to increase revenue for infrastructure. Working diligently in 2014-15-16, the removal of almost $1 billion in projects from the State Transportation Improvement Program, STIP, in early 2016 due to lack of revenue, shone a bright light on the issue. With the Governor weighing options and balancing a variety of statewide needs, the issue was not addressed at the end of the legislative session in 2016. However, a Special Session was called then cancelled in the Fall of 2016, to address the issue. There was a commitment by the Administration to take up the issue as a first Order of Work in the 2017 legislative session. Never backing down to a level that was just not enough to meet the needs, Assemblyman Frazier and Senator Beall stayed true to the needs of all the member agencies of the transportation community. The final package of revenue, over $5 billion annually, will enable the state along with counties, cities, and towns to meet the needs of our aging infrastructure

77

TAM Board Meeting, Item 6n Page 2 of 2 June 22, 2017

NEXT STEP TAM extends its appreciation to Assemblyman Jim Frazier and Senator Jim Beall for their tireless efforts to end years of inaction by the state, and approve a fiscally responsible plan to address our decrepit infrastructure. The creation of new revenue does not burden future generations, and the addition of expanded accountability measures ensures the funds will stay dedicated to transportation, and be spent efficiently and effectively. The Resolutions of Appreciation will be presented to Assemblyman Jim Frazier and Senator Jim Beall at upcoming ceremonies. Attachments: Resolutions of Appreciation

78

TAM RESOLUTION NO. 2017-03

RESOLUTION OF THE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY OF MARIN IN APPRECIATION OF SENATOR JIM BEALL FOR HIS SPONSORSHIP OF SB1, WHICH

CREATED SUBSTANTIAL FUNDS TO ADDRESS TRANSPORTATION NEEDS IN CALIFORNIA, THE ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017

Whereas, the State of California has struggled for many years to identify sufficient resources to address its transportation infrastructure needs, causing decrepit roads and bridges to fall further into a state of disrepair; and

Whereas, since the passage of Proposition 1B in 2006, which allowed bonding of revenues, but little new revenue, the state has not established a source for new revenue to address these growing transportation needs; and

Whereas, in his role as Chair of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee for the State of California, Senator Jim Beall championed discussions for years over how to address the plight of unfunded transportation needs; and

Whereas, Senator Jim Beall kept a shining light on transportation needs when many others looked away; and

Whereas, Senator Jim Beall has been a valiant partner to the counties of the Bay Area including Marin in bringing state revenue to help us meet our needs; and

Whereas, Senator Jim Beall has recognized and supported the passage of local transportation revenue measures and facilitated the critical partnering between the state and local counties in meeting transportation needs; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, The Transportation Authority of Marin as the Congestion Management Agency and Sales Tax Authority for Marin County hereby extends its wholehearted appreciation for the tireless work of Senator Jim Beall in championing the passage of the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 approved by the legislature on April 6 and Governor on April 28, 2017.

AYES: Commissioners: Arnold, Campbell, Connolly, Fredericks, Furst, Hillmer, Kuhl, Lucan, McInerney, Moulton-Peters, Phillips, Reed, Rice, Rodoni, Sears, Withy

NOES: Commissioners: None

ABSENT: Commissioners: None

__________________________ Stephanie Moulton-Peters, Chair Transportation Authority of Marin

ATTEST:

___________________________ Dianne Steinhauser Executive Director

Item 6n - Attachment A

79

TAM RESOLUTION NO. 2017-04

RESOLUTION OF THE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY OF MARIN IN APPRECIATION OF ASSEMBLYMAN JIM FRAZIER FOR HIS SPONSORSHIP OF AB1, WHICH

CREATED SUBSTANTIAL FUNDS TO ADDRESS TRANSPORTATION NEEDS IN CALIFORNIA, THE ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017

Whereas, the State of California has struggled for many years to identify sufficient resources to address its transportation infrastructure needs, causing decrepit roads and bridges to fall further into a state of disrepair; and

Whereas, since the passage of Proposition 1B in 2006, which allowed bonding of revenues, but little new revenue, the state has not established a source for new revenue to address these growing transportation needs; and

Whereas, in his role as Chair of the Assembly Transportation Committee for the State of California, Assemblyman Jim Frazier championed discussions for years over how to address the plight of unfunded transportation needs; and

Whereas, Assemblyman Jim Frazier kept a shining light on transportation needs when many others looked away; and

Whereas, Assemblyman Jim Frazier has been a valiant partner to the counties of the Bay Area including Marin in bringing state revenue to help us meet our needs; and

Whereas, Assemblyman Jim Frazier has recognized and supported the passage of local transportation revenue measures and facilitated the critical partnering between the state and local counties in meeting transportation needs; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, The Transportation Authority of Marin as the Congestion Management Agency and Sales Tax Authority for Marin County hereby extends its wholehearted appreciation for the tireless work of Assemblyman Jim Frazier in championing the passage of the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 approved by the legislature on April 6 and Governor on April 28, 2017.

AYES: Commissioners: Arnold, Campbell, Connolly, Fredericks, Furst, Hillmer, Kuhl, Lucan, McInerney, Moulton-Peters, Phillips, Reed, Rice, Rodoni, Sears, Withy

NOES: Commissioners: None

ABSENT: Commissioners: None

__________________________ Stephanie Moulton-Peters, Chair Transportation Authority of Marin

ATTEST:

___________________________ Dianne Steinhauser Executive Director

Item 6n - Attachment B

80


David Chan, Programming and Legislation Manager SUBJECT: State Legislative Update and Adopt Position on Senate Bill (SB) 86 (Action), Agenda Item

No. 7a RECOMMENDATION Recommend the TAM Board adopts position on SB 86. BACKGROUND TAM staff and/or Khouri Consulting will be recommending positions to be taken on pending legislation before the close of the 2017 State Legislation Session in August 2017, particularly those that are related to our adopted Legislative Platform. Letters of support or opposition may also be developed at the appropriate time and Mr. Khouri may be requested to testify at Legislative hearings, if warranted, to convey TAM’s positions on specific legislation. STATE LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Governor Brown released his proposed May Revision to the FY 2017/18 State Budget on May 11, 2017. Most of his revisions center on the passage of SB 1. Gus Khouri will be attending the June 22nd TAM Board meeting to provide an overview of the Governor’s May Budget Revise. In advance of the meeting, Mr. Khouri provided his monthly report (Attachment A) that summarizes the Governor’s May Revision. Mr. Khouri will also provide details on planned efforts with TAM staff and Board members to brief principal staff of the California Transportation Commission (CTC) on key Marin projects that will be nominated for the proposed Regional Measure (RM) 3 Program under SB 595 as well as relevant programs under SB 1, such as the Congested Corridors and Trade Corridors Programs. After Mr. Khouri’ presentation, staff will provide a presentation under Item 11b on the various programs of SB 1, what Marin can expect from each individual program, and Marin projects that may be viable candidates. SENATE BILL (SB) 86 With the entire State focused on the passage of SB 1, there have been fewer legislative bills on transportation introduced in the past two months than typically experienced in prior years. However, SB 86 has been circulated among Self-Help County Coalition as a bill to monitor.

81

TAM Board Meeting, Item 7a Page 2 of 2 June 22, 2017

• SB 86 (Senate Committee on Budget) Taxpayer Transparency and Fairness Act of 2017 – The intent

of this bill is to reform the Board of Equalization (BOE) so that it can better align it with its core constitutional mission and improve tax administration. Attachment B is a Fact Sheet on SB 86 produced by the Governor’s office.

Staff is recommending a monitor position on SB 86.

ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – Khouri Monthly Report Attachment B – Fact Sheet: Taxpayer Transparency and Fairness Act of 2017

82

1

June 12, 2017

TO: Transportation Authority of Marin FROM: Gus Khouri, Principal

Khouri Consulting

RE: STATE LEGISLATIVE UPDATE – MAY

With the enactment of SB 1 (Beall), Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017, also known as the Road Maintenance and Accountability Act, TAM will have an opportunity to access much needed funding to address our multi-modal priorities. While the full effect of the revenues however will not be realized until FY 18-19 when the imposition of the transportation improvement fee (goes into effect January 1, 2018) and gas and diesel tax increases (November 1, 2017) are in place, the Governor’s May Revision includes full estimates within the fiscal year. Below is a breakdown of funds available in FY 17-18.

2017-18 Road Maintenance and Accountability Act Funding (Dollars in Millions)

Local Allocations

Local Streets and Roads $445.4 Transit & Intercity Rail Program $330 State Transit Assistance $305.1 Local Partnership Program $200 Active Transportation Program $100 Local planning Grants $25 Total $1,405.5

State Allocations

SHOPP/Maintenance $445.4 Bridges & Culverts $400 Congested Corridors $250 Trade Corridors $199.8 Dept. of Parks & Recreation $54.3 Freeway Service Patrol $25 Dept. of Food & Agriculture $17.3 CSU & UC Research $7 Workforce Development Board $5 Total $1,403.8

Item 7a - Attachment A

83

2

Administration

State Controller’s Office $0.1 California Transportation Commission $0.2 Dept. of Motor Vehicles $3.8 Total $4.1

Revenues

Transportation Improvement Fee $727 Gas Excise Tax $1,251.5 Diesel Excise Tax $399.7 Diesel Sales Tax $200.1 General Fund Loan Repayment $235 Total $2,813.3

Potential Funding Opportuntiies The California Transportation Commission (CTC) is in the process of establishing a schedule for workshops prior to adopting guidelines for various programs in SB 1. Below is snapshot of programs that may be of interest to TAM: Active Transportation Program SB 1 provides an increase of $100 million annually for the Active Transportation Program (ATP). This represents an increase in the size of this on-going program by more than 80% (funding prior to SB 1 was $125 million). The ATP funding provided in SB 1 will begin in FY 2017-18. Projects have been select for the current Active Transportation Program through 2020-21. The CTC will have a call for projects that covers FY 17-18 and 18-19. This is the timeline for the 2018 ATP:

• Workshops to develop guidelines – June 2017 • Adoption of guidelines – June 28-29, 2017 • Applications due – August 2017 • Program adoption, statewide and small urban & rural components – October 18-

19, 2017 • Program adoption, large Metropolitan Planning Organization component –

December 6-7, 2017 State and Local Partnership Program (SLPP) SB 1 creates this new $200 million per year program. Guidelines for the SLPP must be adopted on or before January 1, 2018. Funding from this program is for counties that have sought and received voter approval of taxes or that have imposed fees, including uniform developer fees (toll revenues will not be factored in as they were under the 2009 SLPP established under Prop 1B, because the CTC is not provided with that flexibility per the language in SB 1, meaning possibly lower shares for the North). Funds are appropriated “for allocation to each eligible county and city in the county for road maintenance and rehabilitation purposes” but the Governor’s budget trailer bill seeks to provide flexibility for usage for other purposes. In 2008, the legislature through AB 268, defined the purpose and intent of the program, the eligibility of applicants, projects, and matching funds, and provided that 95% of program funds would be distributed by formula to match voter-approved transportation taxes and fees, with the remaining 5% available for competitive grants to match uniform developer fees.


84

3

Without any legsialtive direction this time around, the CTC is inclined to adopt a 50/50 split between competitve grants and formula-based shares. It is uncertain how much revenue TAM would receive from its formula share, given that there are five more self-help counties (Merced, Monterey, Napa, Santa Cruz, and Stanislaus), mutiple measures that have been approved by counties (such as Los Angeles), and the absence of tolls being factored into the equation for the North. The timeline for program adoption is as follows:

• Workshops to develop guidelines – June through September 2017 • Presentation of draft guidelines – August 16-17, 2017 • Adoption of guidelines – October 18-19, 2017 • Applications due – March 2018 • Adopt Program – June 2018

Local Streets and Roads SB 1 provides an increase of $1.5 billion annually, beginning in November 2017. Prior to SB 1, the CTC had no role in the Local Streets and Roads apportionment program. The CTC now has new responsibilities relative to this funding, including development of guidelines, review of project lists submitted by cities and counties, reporting to the State Controller, and receiving reports on completed projects. We have previously reported on the estimated amount that Marin County and cities would receive under the program. The timeline for program adoption is as follows:

• Workshops to develop guidelines – June and July 2017 • Presentation of draft guidelines – August 16-17, 2017 • Adoption of guidelines – October 18-19, 2017

Solutions for Congested Corridors SB 1 creates this new $250 million per year program beginning in FY 2017-18. CTC responsibilities include developing guidelines, holding public hearings, reviewing corridor plans, scoring project nominations, programming projects, allocating funds to projects, monitoring program delivery, and reporting to the Legislature. The timeline for program adoption is as follows:

• Workshops to develop guidelines – June through October 2017 • Presentation of draft guidelines – October 18-19, 2017 • Adoption of guidelines – December 6-7, 2017 • Applications due –February 2018 • Program adoption – May 2018

Highway 101 and SMART rail corridor are cited in the legsialtive declarartions and findings of SB 1 as an example fo where resources from the program should be dedicated. State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) SB 1 provides an increase of approximately $1.9 billion annually, beginning in November 2017, along with a significant expansion of the CTC’s oversight


85

4

responsibilities. SB 1 requires additional CTC oversight of the development and management of the SHOPP, including allocating support staff, project review and approval, and convening public hearings prior to adopting the SHOPP. The CTC is also responsible for monitoring Caltrans’ performance and progress toward accomplishing the specific goals set out in SB 1 and other targets or performance measures adopted by the CTC. The adoption of guidelines is expected to occur at the CTC’s next meeting on June 28-29. State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) SB 1 stabilizes funding for the STIP. The impact of the stabilization of STIP funding will be included in the 2018 STIP Fund Estimate and incorporated in the 2018 STIP. The CTC recommends the following timeline for the 2018 STIP:

• Approval of fund estimate assumptions – May 17, 2017 • Presentation of draft guidelines and draft fund estimate – June 28, 2017 • Adoption of guidelines and fund estimate – August 16-17, 2017 • Submittal of draft Interregional Transportation Improvement Program – October

15, 2017 • Interregional Transportation Improvement Program Hearings – November 2017 • Submittal of Regional Transportation Improvement Programs and the final

Interregional Transportation Improvement Programs – December 15, 2017 • STIP Hearings – January-February 2018 • Program adoption – March 2018

Trade Corridor Enhancement Account SB 1 creates this new $300 million per year account to fund corridor based freight projects nominated by local agencies and the state. Budget trailer bill language was recently released to incorporate this funding and federal freight funding into a single program. The timeline for program adoption is as follows :

• Workshops to develop guidelines – June through November 2017 • Presentation of draft guidelines – December 6-7, 2017 • Adoption of guidelines – January 2018 • Applications due – February 2018 • Program adoption – May 2018

The CTC’s first round fo workshops was held on June 8 and 9 in Sacramento. We will work with staff to help formulate a strategy to maximize TAM’s position in acquiring resources from the various programs.


86

The Taxpayer Transparency and Fairness Act of 2017

As evidenced by at least seven completed as well as ongoing independent reports in addition to best practices across the nation, the Board of Equalization (BOE) needs to be immediately reformed through the Budget Act. The “Taxpayer Transparency and Fairness Act of 2017” (Act) reforms the Board to better align it with its core constitutional mission and improve tax administration benefiting taxpayers. The findings of seven reports1 show:

Certain board members have intervened in administrative activities and created inconsistencies,breakdowns, and activities not supported by law.

Over $350 million in sales tax was misallocated to counties.

BOE rank and file staff reported a fear of retaliation if staff did not respond to the directions ofindividual board members.

Various levels of management were not aware of certain board member district activities for whichboard members had oversight responsibilities.

The Act brings much needed reform to the BOE and:

Upholds the Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights – The Act establishes the California Department of Tax andFee Administration to ensure that taxpayers receive fairness, equity, consistency, efficiency, andtransparency in tax administration and appeals. Information needed and received by taxpayers will applyconsistently and communicated clearly so that all taxpayers will understand their rights.

Preserves the State Board of Equalization’s core mission – The BOE retains all core constitutionalresponsibilities and functions, thereby better aligning with the intent of the voters, current law, and theCalifornia Constitution, namely to review, equalize, or adjust property tax assessments, assess taxes oninsurers, and assess and collect excise taxes on alcoholic beverages. BOE members shall continue to actas advocates, directly communicate with constituents and taxpayers, and provide taxpayer educationthrough outreach.

Guarantees impartiality, equity, and efficiency in tax appeals – The Act establishes an independentOffice of Tax Appeals. This new appeals forum shall consist of a panel of three independent andobjective administrative law judges and issue decisions in a transparent and timely fashion, rely on well-established precedents in tax law, provide open public access and choice of representation, and build arecord that both taxpayers and tax administration agencies can rely upon.

Protects civil service employees and ensures fair tax collection statewide – The new CaliforniaDepartment of Tax and Fee Administration will perform all the previous statutory tasks of the BOE andserve as the administrative arm for BOE.

1 Legislative Analyst’s Office, the Department of Finance, and the State Controller’s Office. Additionally, there are investigations underway by the California State Auditor, the Attorney General’s Office, and both the State Personnel Board and the Department of Human Resources.

Item 7a - Attachment B

87


88


Dan Cherrier, Principal Project Delivery Manager James O’Brien, Crossing Guard Coordinator

SUBJECT: Assessment of Crossing Guard Program (Action) – Agenda Item 8 RECOMMENDATION Support the recommendation form the TAM Programming and Project Executive Committee to accept the 2017 Crossing Guard Assessment Report. BACKGROUND The TAM Crossing Guard program provides trained crossing guards for critical intersections throughout Marin County. As committed in the Transportation Sales Tax (Measure A) Expenditure Plan, the program uses trained crossing guards under contract to a professional company that specializes in crossing guard programs. Under contract to TAM, All City Management Services currently provides guards under the close supervision of TAM staff. The current 2016/2017 school year is the eleventh year during which crossing guards have been funded by the TAM Crossing Guard Program. TAM also has an agreement with several school districts to provide guards on a reimbursed basis. DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS Measure A requires that the Crossing Guard Program be assessed periodically, and the Measure A Crossing Guard Program 2016-17 Assessment Report summarizes a survey conducted during the 2016-17 regular school year as part of recurring reviews of the Program. The 2016-17 Parent/Student Questionnaire was distributed with a focus on nine schools served by the Crossing Guard Program throughout Marin County. Some schools opted for a link to an on-line survey in lieu of a printed survey. The printed surveys were typically completed by the student during school hours (for middle school grades) or sent home with the student to be completed with the parents (for elementary school grades). The link to the on-line survey was distributed by the schools and/or school districts using their email lists. The questions in the 2016-17 Questionnaire were the same as the two previous surveys conducted during the 2008-09 and 2012-13 school years, and the survey was distributed to the same list of nine schools. More than 3,700 printed surveys were distributed and more than 1600 complete responses were collected. Incomplete responses were removed from the responses deemed complete and the Assessment Report only includes the complete responses. The total number of responses, both printed and on-line, included in the Assessment Report is 2,139. The Assessment Report reflects a strong overall support of the Marin County Crossing Guard Program. When asked if crossing guards are a good way to use transportation funding, eighty-nine percent (89%) of

89

TAM Board, Item 8 Page 2 of 2 June 22, 2017

respondents, both parents and students, indicated they feel the Crossing Guard Program is a good use of transportation funding. FISCAL CONSIDERATION The Assessment Report was included in the 2017 Strategic Plan and was completed using in-house staff and the on-call consultant contract. NEXT STEPS Some of the comments in Appendix D of the report indicate guard performance issues at a few locations. Staff will follow-up with the crossing guard vendor to address these concerns. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – 2017 Crossing Guard Evaluation Report

90

June 2017

Measure A Crossing Guard Program 2016-17 Assessment Report

Item 8 - Attachment

91

Item 8 - Attachment

92

Transportation Authority of Marin Measure A Crossing Guard Program 2016-17 Assessment Report

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................ES-1

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1

Background and Purpose .................................................................................................................1

Methodology ....................................................................................................................................2

Responses .........................................................................................................................................3

Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................11

Appendix A: Hardcopy Version of 2016-17 Parent Student Questionnaire .............................. A-1

Appendix B: List of Nine Schools for Focused Distribution ......................................................B-1

Appendix C: Summary of Responses for Questions 3 through 10 .............................................C-1

Appendix D: Summary of Additional Information and Comments Received ........................... D-1

Item 8 - Attachment

93


This page intentionally left blank

Item 8 - Attachment

94


June 2017 Executive Summary Page ES-1

Executive Summary

The Marin County Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan, approved by voters in 2004 as Measure A, committed a portion of the sales tax revenues to the Measure A Crossing Guard Program. The Crossing Guard Program is included in the overall Measure A Program under Strategy 4: School Related Congestion and Safer Access to Schools.

Measure A included a requirement that the programs included in Strategy 4 be assessed regularly through a public process involving parents, school officials and students throughout Marin County. The Transportation Authority of Marin conducted a survey as part of the required assessment for the Crossing Guard Program during the 2016-17 regular school year. This was the third such survey since the passage of Measure A. The previous assessments were performed in the 2008-09 and 2012-13 school years. The Measure A Crossing Guard Program 2016-17 Assessment Report documents the assessment and the findings based on the survey.

The assessment consisted primarily of a survey distributed to parents and students at a sampling of seven elementary and two middle schools currently served by the Crossing Guard Program. The survey was distributed in print to five of the seven elementary schools and the two middle schools, and via a link to an on-line survey to the school districts of the remaining two elementary schools.

More than 3,700 surveys were distributed in print to seven schools and 1,771 responses were collected at the end of the survey period. Some survey responses contained irregularities such as blank answers. One hundred fifty-three (153) of the 1,771 responses received were deemed incomplete due to irregularities. The remaining 1,618 responses were deemed “complete” and are included in the analysis documented in this 2016-17 Assessment Report.

A total of 570 responses were received on-line, of which 521 were deemed complete and are included in the analysis for this Report.

Surveys from a total of 21 schools were received, including six schools from which less than three responses each were received. The 2,139 responses analyzed for this Report include 875 from parents (including 8 respondents identifying themselves as “Other”) and 1,264 from students.

By comparison, the 2012-13 and 2008-09 Assessment Reports included analysis of 1,961 and 977 total responses, respectively.

2,139 Complete Responses

875 from Parents (41%) 1,264 from Students (59%)

1,618 from Hardcopy (76%) 521 from On-Line (24%)

Item 8 - Attachment

95


June 2017 Executive Summary Page ES-2

The survey had three primary objectives:

1. To determine the level of awareness of the Measure A Crossing Guard Program;

2. To determine whether or not the presence of crossing guards influences travel choices for students that walk or ride a bicycle to and from school on most school days; and

3. To determine whether or not the communities served by the Crossing Guard Program consider the expenditure of Measure A funds a good investment.

The responses to the survey indicate the following:

• Almost all of the respondents are aware of the crossing guards, but only one in six parents knows that Measure A provides funding for crossing guards.

• Approximately four-fifths (4/5) of the students that walk or ride a bicycle to school reported they use a crosswalk where a crossing guard is on duty on most school days.

• A significant majority of the students that walk or ride their bicycle on most school days regularly use a crosswalk where a crossing guard is on duty and feel more comfortable knowing the crossing guards are at certain locations.

• Based on responses from parents and students combined, approximately one in seven of the students that walk or ride their bicycle on most school days reported they changed from being driven to school in a car to walking or bicycling, in part, due to the presence of the crossing guards.

• Almost all of the parents, i.e. ninety-eight percent (98%) indicated they believe the Crossing Guard Program is a valuable investment of Measure A funds along with almost eight in ten of the students.

The Crossing Guard Program continues to achieve its primary objective of increasing the number of students that walk or ride their bicycle in lieu of being driven to school. The survey results indicate that the communities served by the Crossing Guard Program consider the crossing guards an important and valuable aspect of travel to and from school. In addition to the eleven questions contained in the survey, respondents were afforded the opportunity to provide additional information and/or comments. A large majority of the comments received reflect a strong appreciation for the Crossing Guard Program and for individual guards. The comments received are shown in Appendix D of this Report.

98% Approval !!

* From parents when asked if the Crossing Guard Program is a good way to spend transportation funding (Students were at 83%)

Item 8 - Attachment

96


June 2017 Page 1 of 11

Introduction

The Marin County Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan, approved by voters in 2004 as Measure A, committed a portion of the sales tax revenues to the Measure A Crossing Guard Program. The Crossing Guard Program is included in the overall Measure A Program under Strategy 4: School Related Congestion and Safer Access to Schools.

The Transportation Authority of Marin conducted a survey as part of the required assessment for the Crossing Guard Program during the 2016-17 regular school year. This was the third such survey since the passage of Measure A. The previous assessments were performed in the 2008-09 and 2012-13 school years. The Measure A Crossing Guard Program 2016-17 Assessment Report documents the assessment and the findings based on the survey.

The Transportation Authority of Marin coordinated the 2016-17 assessment with the Authority’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), the Marin Public Works Association (MPWA), the Marin Office of Education, School District offices, the Marin County Schools Superintendents, and the individual schools.

Background and Purpose

The Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) Crossing Guard Program is funded primarily by Measure A which authorized the collection of sales tax to implement the Measure A Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP). Additional funding is provided from a Vehicle Registration Fee authorized by Measure B, and from local sources wishing to leverage the TAM Crossing Guard Program.

The Marin County Crossing Guard Program currently provides funding for 78 crossing guards during the regular school year with a mix of Measure A and Measure B funding. The 2016-17 regular school year represents the eleventh year of the Crossing Guard Program. The number of guards funded in a given year is dependent on the total amount of sales tax revenues received by the Authority, a percentage of which is made available for the Crossing Guard Program, and the amount available from the vehicle registration fee.

The Authority uses a set of criteria based on industry standards to determine if locations “qualify” for funding based primarily on vehicular and pedestrian traffic volumes at the specific locations. The criteria are vetted by the TAC and MPWA and the list of locations for each school year is approved by the Authority Board.

The questions in the 2016-17 Questionnaire were the same as the two previous surveys conducted during the 2008-09 and 2012-13 school years, and the survey was distributed to the same list of nine schools.

Item 8 - Attachment

97



More than 3,700 printed surveys were distributed to seven schools (five elementary and two middle) and 1,771 responses were collected. One hundred fifty-three (153) of the 1,771 responses received were deemed incomplete due to irregularities such as blank answers or multiple answers to questions requiring only one answer. The remaining 1,618 responses were deemed “complete” and are included in the analysis documented in this 2016-17 Assessment Report.


The list for the sampling of schools to receive the survey was based on the list of schools involved in the previous two surveys. The original list was endorsed by the Marin County Schools Superintendents. One of the schools on the 2009 list was removed from the list because the crossing guard provided for the school had been discontinued.

Some schools do not distribute hardcopy materials for students to take home, except on rare occasions, and prefer to distribute materials such as the survey via electronic means, i.e. email. An on-line version of the survey was developed and a link was distributed to schools, or school districts, which prefer not to send hardcopies home with students. A list of the nine schools included in the sampling for the focused distribution of the survey is included in Appendix B.

The survey had three primary objectives:

1. To determine the level of awareness of the Measure A Crossing Guard Program;

2. To determine whether or not the presence of crossing guards influences travel choices for students that walk or ride a bicycle to and from school on most school days; and

3. To determine whether or not the communities served by the Crossing Guard Program consider the expenditure of Measure A funds a good investment.

Each of the questions in the survey can be directly related to one of the three objectives.

Methodology

The Authority distributed approximately 3,700 copies of the survey to five elementary schools and two middle schools in May 2017. The Authority coordinated with the seven schools to determine how many Spanish versions were needed for each school. The Authority returned to the schools to collect the completed surveys and compiled the responses. Some of the surveys collected were incomplete or had conflicting information such as multiple choices where only one choice was requested. Responses containing irregularities were deemed “incomplete” and removed from the analysis.

The link to the on-line survey was distributed via email by the Reed School District office, and the Ross Valley School District office, and thereby made available to households with students at

Item 8 - Attachment

98



schools in addition to Reed Elementary or Manor Elementary (the two schools in those Districts included in the sampling group of nine schools). The on-line responses were downloaded at the end of the Survey period and compiled with the hardcopy responses.

In addition to the parent/student survey, informal interviews with school employees, officials, and public works employees were conducted to solicit feedback from individuals involved with providing crossing guard services. The feedback received from school employees, officials, and public works employees is incorporated into the ongoing efforts to manage the Crossing Guard Program along with feedback received on a regular basis.

Responses

A total of 1,771 hardcopy surveys (out of approximately 3,700 distributed) were returned to the Authority from the schools that received the hardcopy version of the survey. One hundred fifty-three (153) of the surveys were deemed incomplete and excluded from further analysis. The remaining 1,618 “complete” responses were combined with the on-line responses and included in the analysis documented in this 2016-17 Assessment Report.


Surveys from a total of 21 schools were received, including six schools from which less than three responses each were received. The 2,139 responses analyzed for this Report include 875 from parents (including 8 respondents identifying themselves as “Other”) and 1,264 from students.

By comparison, the 2012-13 and 2008-09 Assessment Reports included analysis of 1,961 and 977 total responses, respectively.

The feedback received from the informal interviews with school employees, officials, and public works employees was mostly positive and reflected support for the Crossing Guard Program. Some law enforcement agencies have provided crossing guard services while others do not actually serve as crossing guards but provide support through enforcement activities in school crossing areas, much of the time simply by their presence in the area.

2,139 Complete Responses

875 from Parents (41%) 1,264 from Students (59%)

1,618 from Hardcopy (76%) 521 from On-Line (24%)

Item 8 - Attachment

99



The responses to individual questions from the survey are detailed below and are segregated according to which of the three objectives of the Assessment they are related. The responses detailed below are also separated into responses from parents and from students. The combined totals are included with a note comparing the responses from the previous Assessments in 2013 and 2009. (Note: The responses from the 2009 Assessment were not segregated between responses from parents and from students, but it was assumed that a majority of the responses received for the 2009 Assessment were provided by parents.)

Objective 1: To determine the level of awareness of the Measure A Crossing Guard Program

Question: Have you seen crossing guards at intersections in Marin County on school days?

Parents Students Combined

96.5%

98.5% 97.7%

3.5%

1.5%

2.3%

Yes No Yes No Yes No

Note: Combined Results from 2012-13 Assessment: 99.0% Yes; 1.0% No; Combined Results from 2008-09 Assessment: 99.6% Yes; 0.4% No.

Item 8 - Attachment

100



Question: Do you know that funding for crossing guards in Marin County comes from the Transportation Authority of Marin Measure A countywide sales tax?


88.2%

86.1%

83.0%

17.0%

11.8%

13.9%



Item 8 - Attachment

101



Objective 2: To determine whether or not the presence of crossing guards influences travel choices for students that walk or ride a bicycle to and from school on most school days

Question: During the last month, I have used a crosswalk where a crossing guard is on duty…

43.3%

Parents

26.4%

16.0%

12.9%

1.4%

Never Once A Few Times

On Most

School Days

Every School

Day

44.7%

Students

29.9%

17.5%

5.0%

2.9%


On Most

School Days

Every School

Day

Table continued on next page

Item 8 - Attachment

102



Table continued from previous page 44.3%

Combined

28.8%

17.0%

7.4%

2.5%


On Most

School Days

Every School

Day

Note: Combined Results from 2012-13 Assessment: 5.1%, 2.2%, 17.6%, 30.4%, & 44.7%; Combined Results from 2008-09 Assessment: 10.4%, 4.3%, 23.1%, 27.4%, & 34.7%.

Question: Do you regularly cross a street where a crossing guard is on duty on your way to or from school? Parents Students Combined

78.1%

80.5%

19.5%

79.7%

21.9%

20.3%



Item 8 - Attachment

103



Question: Is it more comfortable for you to walk or ride your bike to school knowing that there are crossing guards at some intersections? Parents Students Combined

93.9%

67.1%

32.9%

75.3%

24.7%

6.1%



Question: Have you changed the route you take to school so that you can cross a street at a location where a crossing guard is on duty? Parents Students Combined 90.9%

81.9%

61.7%

38.3%

9.1%

18.1%



Item 8 - Attachment

104



Question: Did you change from being driven in a car to school to walking or biking because you know there are crossing guards at some intersections?

Parents Students Combined 93.4%

85.0%

66.2%

33.8%

6.6% 15.0%


Note: Combined Results from 2012-13 Assessment: 14.9% Yes; 85.1% No. Combined Results from 2008-09 Assessment: 33.4% Yes; 66.6% No.

Item 8 - Attachment

105



Objective 3: To determine whether or not the communities served by the Crossing Guard Program consider the expenditure of Measure A funds a good investment

Question: Do you think the Crossing Guard Program is a good way to spend transportation funds?


97.9%

83.4%

16.6%

89.3%

10.7%

2.1%



The numbers of responses to each of the questions, i.e. the basis of the percentages shown above, are included in Appendix C.

Item 8 - Attachment

106



Conclusions

The Crossing Guard Program continues to achieve its primary objective of increasing the number of students that walk or ride their bicycle in lieu of being driven to school. The survey results indicate that the communities served by the Crossing Guard Program see the crossing guards as an important and valuable aspect of travel to and from school. In addition to the responses to the questions detailed above, respondents were afforded the opportunity to provide additional information and/or comments. The additional information/comments are included in Appendix D. A large majority of the comments received reflect a strong appreciation for the Crossing Guard Program and for individual guards.

98% Approval !!

* From parents when asked if the Crossing Guard Program is a good way to spend transportation funding (Students were at 83%)

Item 8 - Attachment

107


June 2017

Appendices

Item 8 - Attachment

108

Transportation Authority of Marin Measure A Crossing Guard Program 2016-17 Assessment Report Appendix A

June 2017 A-1

Appendix A Transportation Authority of Marin – Measure A

Marin County Crossing Guard Program 2016-17 Parent/Student Questionnaire

English Version (also available in Spanish)

The Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) is conducting a survey to solicit feedback from students, parents, school officials, law enforcement and other parties involved with the Measure A Marin County Crossing Guard Program funded by TAM. The feedback will be used to assess the effectiveness of the Program, to identify areas for potential improvement, and to inform future funding decisions.

Please complete and submit one Questionnaire per student and return the completed form to the student’s classroom by May 26, 2017.

1. Please check the box that best applies to the individual completing this questionnaire.

Parent

Student (for which

Questionnaire is being completed)

Other

Other (Please describe):

2. Please provide the following information about the student for which this questionnaire is being completed (name is not required).

School:

Grade:

3. Please answer “Yes” or “No” to the following question.

Have you seen crossing guards at intersections in Marin County on school days?

Yes

No

4. Please answer “Yes” or “No” to the following question.

Do you know that funding for crossing guards in Marin County comes from the Transportation Authority of Marin Measure A countywide sales tax?

Yes

No

Item 8 - Attachment

109

Transportation Authority of Marin Measure A Crossing Guard Program 2016-17 Assessment Report Appendix A

June 2017 A-2

5. If this student (the one for which this questionnaire is being completed) walks or rides a bicycle to school on most school days, please answer all questions on behalf of the student. (If this student does not walk or ride a bicycle on most days, , please skip to No. 11 below.)

6. During the last month, I have used a crosswalk where a crossing guard is on duty…

Never

Once

A Few Times

On Most School Days

Every School

Day

7. Do you regularly cross a street where a crossing guard is on duty on

your way to or from school?

Yes

No

8. Is it more comfortable for you to walk or ride your bike to school

knowing that there are crossing guards at some intersections?

Yes

No

9. Have you changed the route you take to school so that you can cross

a street at a location where a crossing guard is on duty?

Yes

No

10. Did you change from being driven in a car to school to walking or biking because you know there are crossing guards at some intersections?

Yes

No

11. Do you think the Crossing Guard Program is a good way to spend transportation funds?

Yes

No

If No, please explain 12. Please provide any additional information or comments (attach additional sheets as necessary).

Thank you for completing this questionnaire. Your input is very important to us. Please return the completed questionnaire to your classroom no later than May 26, 2017.

Item 8 - Attachment

110

Transportation Authority of Marin Measure A Crossing Guard Program 2016-17 Assessment Report Appendix B

June 2017 B-1

Appendix B

List of Nine Schools for Focused Distribution

Index School District School Hardcopy

Or On-Line

1 Mill Valley Old Mill Elementary Hardcopy

2 Mill Valley Mill Valley Middle Hardcopy

3 Reed Reed Elementary On-Line *

4 San Rafael Elementary Vallecito Elementary Hardcopy

5 San Rafael Elementary Sun Valley Elementary Hardcopy

6 Kentfield Kent Middle Hardcopy

7 Ross Valley Manor On-Line *

8 Novato Rancho Elementary Hardcopy

9 Novato Lu Sutton Elementary Hardcopy

* Link to On-Line survey was distributed to the Reed School District, which includes Reed Elementary; and the Ross Valley School District, which includes Manor School.

Item 8 - Attachment

111

Transportation Authority of Marin Measure A Crossing Guard Program 2016-17 Assessment Report Appendix C

June 2017 C-1

Appendix C

Summary of Responses for Questions 3 through 10 (See Note)

Q3 Have you seen crossing guards at intersections in Marin County on school days? Response Parents/Other Students Total Yes 844 1,245 2,089 No 31 19 50 Q4 Do you know that most of the crossing guards in Marin County are funded by the

countywide half-cent sales tax authorized by Measure A? Response Parents/Other Students Total Yes 149 149 298 No 726 1,115 1,841 Q6 During the last month, I have used a crosswalk where a crossing guard is on duty… Response Parents/Other Students Total Never 63 54 117 Once 7 32 39 A Few Times 78 191 269 On Most School Days 129 326 455 Every School Day 211 487 698 Q7 Do you regularly cross a street where a crossing guard is on duty on your way to or from

school? Parents/Other Students Total Yes 381 877 1,258 No 107 213 320 Q8 Is it more comfortable for you to walk or ride your bike to school knowing that there are

crossing guards at some intersections? Parents/Other Students Total Yes 458 731 1,189 No 30 359 389 Q9 Have you changed the route you take to school so that you can cross a street at a location

where a crossing guard is on duty? Parents/Other Students Total Yes 187 99 286 No 301 991 1,292 Q10 Did you change from being driven in a car to school to walking or biking because you

know there are crossing guards at some intersections? Parents/Other Students Total Yes 165 72 237 No 323 1,018 1,341 Q11 Do you think the Crossing Guard Program is a good way to spend transportation funds? Parents/Other Students Total Yes 857 1,054 1,911 No 18 210 228

Note: Question 5 was an instruction which did not require a response.

Item 8 - Attachment

112

Transportation Authority of Marin Measure A Crossing Guard Program 2016-17 Assessment Report Appendix D

June 2017 D-1

Appendix D

Summary of Additional Information and Comments Received

The tables below include all of the additional information and/or comments received from both the hardcopy and the on-line surveys, including comments received with responses that were deemed “incomplete” and excluded from the analysis documented in the Measure A Crossing Guard Program 2016-17 Assessment Report. The comments are included in this report in order to provide a sense of the respondents’ impression of the Crossing Guard Program. The respondents include both parents and students, and the tables below separate the comments received from parents (Table 1) from the comments received from students (Table 2).

The comments are presented herein as they were received. No editing (except for some minor spelling, capitalization, and punctuation corrections) has been performed on the comments, but some text has been overwritten as described below. Comments that did not pertain to the crossing guard program or to the survey are not included in this report.

Some of the text from the original comments has been replaced with italics in brackets, e.g. {text}. The text in italics within the brackets gives an idea about the nature of the original text which has been overwritten. Any text that could be used to identify an individual guard or respondent has been overwritten since the objectives of the assessment do not include reviewing individual guard performance. Profanity and text describing what is considered inappropriate behavior have also been overwritten.

The comments shown in Table 1 were received from parents.

Table 1: Comments Received from Parents It would be nice if the crossing guard directly in front of the school remained there for the “late bird” kindergarteners. My son starts school @ 9:15 AM on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday & Friday so we don’t see a crossing guard on those days, but see him regularly on Wednesdays. He enjoys biking to school so we will continue as long as the route is safe It would be great if there was a crossing guard during late bird kindergarten start time @ 9:15 Crossing guards is a great way to keep our kids safe. I love it! {Individual Guard Reference} is amazing! She always has a smile on her face and she knows the names of my children. They look forward to seeing her every day. Safety is her #1 concern. We “heart” our crossing guard! Thank you for keeping us safe! I see our crossing guard every day protecting our kids. They are a vital & necessary expense! The crossing guards are a life saving solution for our children. Traffic rarely reacts to the blinking lights on {Location Reference}, but the crossing guards do a fantastic job of making sure everyone is safe. As a parent, I 100% feel that these crossing guards are very important. Thank you for providing them! Our lady outside {School Name} is amazing! She is there rain or shine! Ningun comentario. Todo esta perfecto con las vigilantes del cruce peatonal. Gracias. We take a car to school, but I do see the crossing guards everyday doing the job right.

Item 8 - Attachment

113


June 2017 D-2

Table 1: Comments Received from Parents The intersection of {Location Reference} is so crowded. I wouldn’t feel safe having kids cross without an adult or crossing guard. It’s also important to have one by {School Name}. As my child gets older, she will be walking or riding her bike to school, but only if there is a safe route with crossing guards. If not, we will drive. Kindergarten gets off at 1:30 at that time also crossing guard should be there. Please get more crossing guards! There is a very busy street where cars often don’t stop for kids. The crossing guard makes a huge difference. And lights for evening. If funds are available, we could use an additional crossing guard at the corner of {Location Reference}. Especially after school, since that is when so many kids head to the library. My children (4 in {District Reference} schools) feel immensely safer with the crossguards in place. Getting rid of crossguards would definitely increase traffic and potentially put children’s lives at risk. Thank you to {Individual Guard Reference}, the crossing guard at {Location Reference}! The crossing guards are so important for safety for our kids! The Crossing Guard Program ensures the safety of the children, which is priceless. {Individual Guard Reference} and {Individual Guard Reference} are wonderful! As a parent who to drive to both schools – I very much appreciate the guards! I feel I can drive through those intersections safely without kids unexpectedly crossing. Thank you! We do not walk or ride a bike but we park across the street from school, and cross at the crosswalk where there is a crossing guard. The crossing guards help us at least 2 days a week when we walk to town after school. Crossing guards also help drivers! We don’t have adequate sidewalks all the way to school from our house on {Location Reference}. We need better sidewalks for kids to walk safely to school! There should be crossing guards on every intersection, on every street (24/7) as the majority of drivers around {Location Reference}are completely blind to pedestrians. We have been very close to being hit on numerous occasions. It’s hazardous to walk in this town. There should be flags available at every busy intersection that a pedestrian can carry with them while crossing the street – speed bumps in front of crosswalks would be a good idea! Our crossing guard is {Individual Guard Reference}. And he is wonderful! He knows all the names of all the children (+ their parents!) and he has become a lovely part of our daily ritual to/from school. Both of the crossing guards at {School Name}are necessary, awesome and fun. Safety is important and worth funding. Many of the guards are not trained. This questionnaire was poorly worded. Guards should be trained and have a experienced guard at new school. Crossing guards are necessary and appreciated by any parent who cares about the safety of their children. Even well-trained kids often forget about the rules when crossing the street, being distracted and encouraged to cross at unsafe times by friends and parents! Don’t take this away, please!! I do think some crossing guards need better training + to be more conscious of huge backups of cars sometimes down {Location Reference} headed downtown.

Item 8 - Attachment

114


June 2017 D-3

Table 1: Comments Received from Parents Crossing guards are essential to the safety of school kids. With drivers going to work when kids are getting to school, the roads are congested and an adult needs to be present to make sure that cars stop to let kids cross. The crossing guards should be evaluated from time to time to make sure they are doing their jobs safely – the one at {Location Reference}seems to routinely let kids go into intersection well before he gets out there. And we LOVE {Individual Guard Reference} @ {School Name}!! It would be nice to have crossing guards downtown during busy hours for safety and to ease traffic getting out of the small downtown intersections. I think that there should a crossing guard at the round-about because people drive really fast and don’t look where they’re going. {Individual Guard Reference}, the {School Name} crossing guard, is excellent and always super friendly and helpful. My child’s walk to school encompasses two elementary school campuses – he is able to utilize crossing guards en route to and at his own school. The service encourages him to walk as it greatly enhances his safety. Distracted drivers endanger cyclists, pedestrians, and each other – crossing guards = necessity. The {School Name} Guard is always on time and very helpful. She is great! I don’t think it’s necessary to have crossing guards where there are traffic lights. They are definitely necessary where there are no lights. I need to drive my girls to school and they are often late b/c the crossing gaurd is so slow. She great with the people walking but the cars pile up b/c she stays in the street after the light changes to green. The crossing guards are a necessity in my opinion. Most cars drive too fast down {Location Reference} and in a hurry to get to school. I don’t trust the drivers but I do trust the crossing guards to get the attention of the drivers that there are pedestrians. Thank you for keeping our kids safe! For {School Name}, it is very necessary to provide Crossing Guards + there is relevance for sales tox. Crossing guards provide reassurance to me that my child can cross safely as it alerts other drivers to pay attention. Crossing guards make walking safer for kids. Our family wishes there could be more crossing guards! Particularly at the cross walk at {Location Reference} and then the crosswalk from across the street to the school staff lot it is imperative that there are crossing guards to ensure pedestrian safety. The cars would not slow/stop for pedestrians. Everyone is in such a hurry for those 10-15 minutes between bells. I would ride bikes or walk more if there was a crossing guard at {Location Reference}. The school is on a busy street that is also the way to the {Location Reference}. The teenagers often speed when driving on the street that elementary school kids walk on/cross. Crossing guards often also just make traffic stop or slow down, which greatly helps keeping the traffic AND pedestrians safe! {Location Reference} is such a busy street. I can’t imagine anybody safely crossing the street without the crossing guard’s assistance! It is crucial to have crossing guards at busy intersections. Pick up + drop off is such a huge chaotic jumble that I think crossing guards are helpful + necessary.

Item 8 - Attachment

115


June 2017 D-4

Table 1: Comments Received from Parents Crossing guards makes kids cross the busy traffic areas. They are definitely helpful and necessary for safe routes to school. Crossing guard at {Location Reference} is excellent. It’s a good service, helps the pedestrian to have safe crossing during school days, which also coincide with rush hour. When people are in a rush to get to work and there is a lot of traffic. It is very necessary. Despite the crossing guard there are motorists who rashly cross/drive on those rush hours. Without cross guards, our kids will be more exposed to motor accidents. I’d like to see a crossing guard at {Location Reference}. Having crossing guards gives me peace of mind that while walking to school my child will have an adult to safely get her across the busy street to her school. Safe for the many kids who cross where there is a crossing guard. Only if they are good! We have a very inadequate crossing guard on {Location Reference} by {School Name}. The guard causes unnecessary traffic and tents to make things more dangerous at times. Please keep the crossing guard program going. Love it. Thank you! We carpool and park on the street. We cross at an intersection with a crossing guard virtually every day. With the proximity of the high school (and high school aged drivers), the crossing guards seem vitally important. I will be more likely to let my son ride his bicycle to school alone when he is older because of the crossing guards. Many cars turn right without looking to their right. A crossing guard helps. Please put one @ {Location Reference}. {Location Reference}is a mess in the morning. Thank you! Thank you for the support! Can’t imagine crossing the roads without crossing guard’s. Some parent drivers too are rash drivers and they follow the rules (stop) only due to the crossing guards. My child walks to school with a group of organized parents/children. We could use a crossing guard at one busy intersection close to school at {Location Reference}. I would consider biking more if there were more crossing guards. I see crossing guards are aware not just crossing people but also if a kid is lost or in a danger situation they can help. My child walks to school with an organized group of parents + children. A few crossing guards along the route would definitely improve our safety. We could really use a crossing guard at the corner of {Location Reference}. People tear down {Location Reference} at high speeds. This, coupled with {Location Reference} around the corner, makes that intersection unsafe (in my opinion) for grade school kids in the mornings + afternoons unless accompanied by an adult. I would have my daughter ride her bike if there was a cross guard again at {Location Reference}. It is too busy of an intersection otherwise. I actually saw a kid on a bike get into an accident there this year.

Item 8 - Attachment

116


June 2017 D-5

Table 1: Comments Received from Parents The crossing guard at {Location Reference} is incompetent. She does not recognize the importance of moving pedestrians and cars safely through the intersection. She dawdles in the middle of the intersection long after the pedestrians have safely cleared the street. This backs up traffic on {Location Reference} and makes drivers anxious about having a safe opportunity to pass through the intersection. She has been trained multiple times, I’m told. It’s time for a more competent guard. The guards at {Location Reference} and {Location Reference} understand this role and move traffic and pedestrians much more quickly through their intersections. A very valuable and necessary service to keep our children safe crossing {Location Reference}. THANK YOU Add a Crossing guard to {Location Reference} crossing in {Location Reference}. My kids would walk/roll to school much more often if I knew there was a guard stationed there to ensure safe crossing of {Location Reference}. There are lots of kids going to {School Name}from this neighborhood. As a parent I appreciate seeing the crossing guards there making sure all of our children are kept safe. One thing I have witnessed is some of the 7th-8th graders being disrespectful towards the crossing guard. This is a shame because we need them especially when they are helping kids from {Location Reference} and {Location Reference} to cross...these are much smaller children and not always easy to see. As a parent I feel safer knowing there are crossing guards and I feel the drivers pay WAY more attention when there is a crossing guard present and they SLOW down and respect the rules of the road when a crossing guard is present. It’s good for the entire community as it holds students and parent more accountable Better training for guards not to be overly assertive in their role. I walk, ride, and drive during school crossing guard hours and some of the guards will assert themselves as soon as kids are anywhere in sight. I greatly appreciate their protection, but it should also be their goal to keep traffic and children flowing safely. Both my children are able to bike to school because there is a crossing guard present on {Location Reference}. Thank you for this service. They could not do this safely without the crossing guard. {Individual Guard Reference} at {School Name} makes us all feel safe and loved! {Individual Guard Reference} who works most of the time at {School Name} is a wonderful crossing guard. He is always friendly, polite and mindful of the safety of the pedestrians and cyclists/skaters he is assisting. We can't say enough nice things about him. {Individual Guard Reference}, the crossing guard at {School Name} is awesome! {Individual Guard Reference}, the crossing guard for {School Name} in {Location Reference} is FABULOUS! Sweet, sweet man who cares about each child. We are so fortunate to have him as our crossing guard. Thank you {Individual Guard Reference}!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! {Respondent Identity} {Location Reference} is a very busy road in the mornings- having a crossing guard slows down the traffic so I feel comfortable having my boys bike to school. Cars still drive through school zones way too fast even when there are tons of small children around. Our crossing guard, {Individual Guard Reference}, is super friendly. He makes sure the cars stop before he lets the kids cross the street. Child allowed to walk on basis of crossing Gaurd ({Individual Guard Reference}) who is an outstanding role model for the children and keeps us all safe.

Item 8 - Attachment

117


June 2017 D-6

Table 1: Comments Received from Parents {Location Reference} in front of {School Name} needs to better protected. {Individual Guard Reference} cross guard does a great job but while he is doing his job on the other street, cars zoom by that corner and kids are hanging off the corner. Cars do not stop and surprised there has not been an accident yet. All the parents talk about how they need to extend the metal railing to the end of the corner to better protect the kids. They easily get pushed into the street at times and those cars don't stop. Cross guard helps my daughters cross the street safely to get to the bus. They are very important to our kids' safety. Crossing guard at {School Name} is aggressive. He needs to consider traffic in addition to kid safety. Crossing guard on {Location Reference} try's to intimidate me- called the cops on him last year. Crossing guard quality varies wildly depending on the intersection. Some of the crossing guards are amazing in every way, while others may as well not be there at all (some do not pay attention and regularly arrive late at their crossing). More needs to be done to monitor individual crossing guards and whether they are doing a satisfactory job. Crossing guards are a vital resource. While my children at {School Name} and {School Name} take the bus regularly, this program is vital when they ride or walk to school. I would not allow this were there no crossing guards. Crossing guards are an important element of overall transportation safety, but another key is having an affordable school bus program - for those kids that can't walk/bike to work due to distance/terrain, which is a high % where we live, a school bus is the safest way to go to/from school. However, it is incredibly difficult in Marin (and California) to institute a school bus program - we are trying in southern Marin, but it is an uphill battle - it would be much better if it was elevated to a county, and ideally someday, a state level as the impact of the program would be amplified and would enable more momentum and efficient infrastructure. safety for children and preventing traffic accidents, etc. is a priority Crossing guards are extremely important! My daughter walks to school and crosses the road by herself with the help of a crossing guard on {Location Reference}. If there was no crossing guard available she would not be allowed to walk to school alone yet. crossing guards are good Crossing guards are great! They make it safe for kids, even though they don't make the kids wait to group up and can cause traffic delays. Crossing guards are hugely important to the safety of our kids. My son is in TK now but in a few years he'll be riding his bike to school. I hope they keep this program going. Crossing Guards could be more courteous to drivers - I understand and respect their job but have had several rather rude encounters with the crossing guard in front of {School Name} (in {Location Reference}) stopping cars mid way through intersection when pedestrians were not even close to entering the cross walk, demanding that said cards stop mid-way instead of asking the pedestrian to wait 5 seconds while car completed its way through the intersection. This is unsafe for the cars on the road and unnecessary for the crossing guard to be impatient and rude with cars that are driving safely on our streets. I'm a parent and a safe driver - but I shouldn't be chastised for entering an intersection when there are no pedestrians present. Crossing Guards for kids are worth the money for safety. Crossing guards like {Individual Guard Reference} are excellent. We have another crossing guard on {Location Reference} that puts little effort in to his job.

Item 8 - Attachment

118


June 2017 D-7

Table 1: Comments Received from Parents Crossing guards need to be taught how to use the stop sign that they wave around properly. Also, please give them whistles that can actually be heard. The crossing guard on {Location Reference} blows a whistle that is a joke. The other day a car completely ran the red light. Thankfully there was no incident and more importantly no kids crossing. However, if the guard had a real whistle, she could warm pedestrians/bikers. Crossing guards need training on how to use their hand held stop signs. The guard that used to be on {Location Reference}, until the other week, should be taught to limit the amount of kids crossing the street. Sometimes there would be a very long cue of cars causing even more traffic because the guard kept allowing kids to cross. Obviously, the safety of the kids crossing the street is top priority. However, causing a trafffic jam is unnecessary. The crossing guard on {Location Reference} is awesome. The crossing guard on {Location Reference} is also awesome. They should train the other crossing guards! Despite my child going to {School Name}, I drive up and down {Location Reference} throughout the day. The crossing guard at {School Name} has got to go. I'm sure I'm not the only one saying this. He is notorious for his rude behavior and his rants against people. {Individual Guard Reference}, at {School Name}, is great. Courteous and good at what he does. {Location Reference} is a dangerous intersection and crossing guards make me feel safer about my kids crossing there. Drivers travel WAY too fast on SFD and having these guards is CRUCIAL! Even while we do not use an intersection with a crossing guard, having crossing guards in the area makes drivers more cautious. Guards and great to have. Much needed on Sir Francis Drake - without them cars would not stop half the time. Thanks. Having the crossing guards is very important for everyone's safety. Cars are constantly speeding on {Location Reference} near {School Name} and if we did not have the wonderful crossing guard (lady) there would be way more injuries and accidents. Please keep her, she is so friendly and kind to the students and families. I am thankful to have a crossing guard in front of {School Name}. It would be unsafe with out this individual. He does a great job. Children and parents need the crossing guard that is in front of {School Name} on school mornings. There is car and pedestrian traffic coming from several directions, and school buses for other schools are also using {Location Reference} at drop off time. The crossing guard manages a lot of traffic and keeps it safe and calm. I believe one of the crossing guards leaves his post before school starts. {Location Reference}. I believe parents would volunteer as well, this does not need to be a paid position, however, it probably requires commitment and training. I cross {Location Reference} which is above {School Name}. There is not a crossing guard there even though it is busier and more dangerous than the {Location Reference} crossing.

Item 8 - Attachment

119


June 2017 D-8

Table 1: Comments Received from Parents I drive every day from {Location Reference} at around 2:45 p.m. to pick up my son at school in {Location Reference}. There is a crossing guard stationed on the {Location Reference}, around the bus station directly opposite the {Location Reference}. His mannerisms and demeanor are alarmingly inappropriate, to the point that I have considered calling the district office and filing a complaint. He constantly paces from {Location Reference} talking to himself, furiously swinging his crossing guard sign back and forth, sometimes to the point where it narrowly missing the cars in the right hand lane. On one occasion, there was an accident in front of the {Location Reference} entrance and he appeared to be very excited by it, jumping up and down, laughing and yelling inappropriately. I've noticed that lately, he's taken to wearing a military-style beret and camoflauge gear. To me, it appears that he might be {descriptive language} that causes him to behave very strangely. In either case, it doesn't seem like he's a great fit for this particular job, where he's been given the responsibility of maintaining the safety of school kids and pedestrians. I have never seen him stop traffic or escort anyone across the street. I have 2 children that attend 2 different schools in {Location Reference}. Your survey ONLY allows me to complete the survey for one school. Additionally, both of my children ride their bike a couple times a week to school. They would NOT ride bikes or walk without a Crossing Guard. I have 2 kids at {School Name} and our crossing guard is GREAT! He knows my kids by name, he is friendly and engaging and I am very happy he is there. He recognizes me and my husband and is professional and alert. Thank you for having him there! I have 3 children in elementary school, the grades option only allows you to select one. In the 3 years I have been taking my kids to school there have been NO crossing guards in any of the routes. I have never seen a crossing guard in the vicinity of {School Name}. I wish there were some! I have never seen crossing guards near {School Name}, but I strongly feel they should be there I have witnessed the crossing Gaurd at {Location Reference} talking to himself waiving his hands in the air every time I drive by him. Seems strange> I hope that there is some sort of interview process and background check. There are 2 crossing guards in particular in {Location Reference} that seem questionable. I love our crossing guard and feel it makes our busy intersection so much safer! I love our crossing guard {Individual Guard Reference} who is on {Location Reference}. She makes our trips to and from school feel so much safer. When we cross at the same crosswalk during times that she is not there the cars only stop for us HALF of the time and it is quite scary. Sometimes the only way to get the cars to stop is for me (the parent) to start pushing my bike into the intersection as if I were going to start crossing and sometimes even that doesn't get the cars to stop. Having {Individual Guard Reference} there with her bright vest and stop sign is SO valuable and makes the crossing SO much safer for my kids and I. Thank you for funding the crossing guard program!! I love the crossing guards! I see so many more kids riding and/or busing to school and feel the crossing guards are a very effective way to promote this and to increase safety. Thank you! I see crossing guards around other schools, but none near/around {School Name}. I see many children crossing busy streets like Sir Francis Drake and it makes me feel like my children and others are safer with these crossing guards, particularly the ones who are walking or riding a bike without an adult. I see the Crossing Guards often and think they are doing a great job and it's a very valuable service.

Item 8 - Attachment

120


June 2017 D-9

Table 1: Comments Received from Parents I think it brings awareness to the fact that there are kids out of school and to slow down. Also it keeps the kids from running out into the street. I think that you've missed one very important spot that desperately needs a crossing guard in fairfax. At the intersection of Broadway blvd and Sir Francis Drake blvd by the fairfax library there is a heavily trafficked crosswalk. It is also part of a safe routes to school bike path. The crosswalk is set back from sir Francis Drake about 30-40 feet making it impossible for cars tuning off of SFD to see people, skateboarders, bikes that are crossing (in the crosswalk) but between cars. This is due to the placement of the crosswalk. It seems that the placement was to avoid a tree? Anyhow I've seen several close calls and one bicyclist actually get hit. Luckily there were no injuries and the rider was fine. Please feel free to contact me if you'd like me to show you the situation. It has me very concerned. This is where kids unload from the bus and it's just a matter of time before something terrible happens. {Contact Information for Respondent} I think the {School Name} Crossing Gaurd on {Location Reference} could be MUCH more pleasant in executing hi duties. He's unnecessarily brusque and it's upset parents and students alike. Otherwise, this is a critically important job and it should absolutely continue to be funded I think the crossing guard by {School Name} does a good job. I think the crossing guard by {School Name} does a poor job. The guard by {School Name} should be replaced I think the crossing guard is full of character and brightens my day watching his interaction with the kids. Critical to keeping our students safe ! I think the crossing guards are very necessary at those intersections on busy streets, as cars are often speeding and not allowing pedestrians the right of way. I think they are essential for busy roads, such as Sir Francis Drake! I see little kids walking or riding their bikes with no adults, as well the distracted drivers on SFD, paying attention to only their need to get anywhere else, quickly. It's essential for the protection of our kids on these overused roads! ! I think this is a vital program that must continue. I would be happy to elaborate, but I just had a knee replacement and I'm a little out of it. {Respondent Identity} I want to make it clear that I do support the crossing guards who are respectful and helpful to students and families. When that is the case, they very welcome because their presence makes it safer to cross an intersection, especially where the streets are busy. I have experienced this first hand in other locations and hope that it will one day be the case at {School Name}. I wish we had crossing guards at {School Name}. parents park in cross walks, red zones when dropping off children. I would like a crossing guard provided for students crossing Red Hill by the United market in San Anselmo. I would like this provided before and after school for walkers, bikers, and bus riders. I would like there to be similar survey's about road safety. People drive so fast on these roads traveled by families and students. I am not sure why there isn't more police presence on these roads as a way to promote people driving the speed limit. By Manor the speed limit is 25 mph, but I am certain that people are driving faster than that. So much so that people can't stop when there is someone in the crosswalk people they are driving so fast. I would like to request a crossing guard for the crosswalk on SFD Blvd at Broadmoor in San Anselmo. A lot of kids cross the street there and it is dangerous as cars come "barreling down the road" especially in the eastbound direction. Also cars run the red light frequently. Thank you for your consideration.

Item 8 - Attachment

121


June 2017 D-10

Table 1: Comments Received from Parents I would suggest that crossing guards wait on the side of the street that students are coming from (i.e. If the school is on the west side of the street that the crossing guard wait on the east side of the street) the reason is that they can then wait or have the walkers/bikers wait for a large group of pedestrians to cross the street. It seems that the traffic is stopped several times and the flow of traffic is impeded. It would be at least an interesting experiment to run over a couple months with some comparative baseline data. I would support more crossing guards. We need one to support kids and parents crossing Paradise Drive at Prince Royal (or we need a light or a flashing crosswalk at that intersection). I’d love to see more crossing guards and enforcement of safe driving practices around schools If there were no crossing guards we would bike much less often and wouldn't let our 4th grader bike alone, which he does EVERY day. Crossing guards are as necessary as teachers. I'm so grateful for the guards, they make it so much safer for the kids...... please keep the funding and consider a raise if possible... thank you!!!! In my opinion we need more crossing guards! One at the intersection of Saunders and Center, another at the intersection of Ross Ave & San Anselmo Ave (this one we REALLY need). Thank you! It is absolutely horrific that there is no crossing guard at butterfield and air francis Drake Blvd!!!! Kids cross there ALL morning going to the bus stop and to the THREE schools up butterfield. Cars blow through the stop sign every day!!! It is a disaster waiting to happen!!! Shame on you for not spending the money to protect the children!!!! It is critical that a crossing guard be present at Sir Francis Drake and Butterfield. There used to be a guard but the position was eliminated due to lack of funding. Its crazy that I have to walk my 11 year old to school because I'm fearful that he will get hit by drivers speeding on Sir Francis Drake and red light runners. I have fought long and hard to get a crossing guard back to this location but found myself shut down numerous times and basically told that I should give up because TAM did not have the funding. What will it take? A child being hit by a car? And with my child going to White Hill next year he will still have to cross Drake to catch the bus. This is not an elementary school problem. It’s a District issue that needs to be addressed. There is also a need to a guard at Pastori and Drake. Again, drivers are in a hurry and the cross walk is green for walkers when the light is green for drivers turning right. Its insane. We promote walking/biking to our schools but we don't provide the need to get our kids their safely. Its a double standard. It is imperative to keep our children safe on Tiburon Blvd. It is nice to see them there to assist the kids in crossing the street before and after school especially with all the traffic on Butterfield Rd. in San Anselmo. It will be very helpful to have one cross guard on 100 Ned's Way tiburon to help the kids from hilaría Aptm cross towars tiburon police station , it is very challenging even for me to stop the cars so I could.cross Ned's way . We need a cross guard On Ned's way, many families almost got run over, The CG on tiburon Blvd is not allow to help the children from the bottom of the hill according to {Individual’s Name} the director of this transition. Outrageous..! Keep our streets safe for kids walking and riding to school!! Knowing there are crossing guards at key intersections allows the kids to have more autonomy to go to and return from school independently. As a parent, I know my young cyclist will safely cross a busy street because of our awesome crossing guard. La persona que cuida el cruce de la calle es muy atento y cuidadoso. Hace bien su trabajo.

Item 8 - Attachment

122


June 2017 D-11

Table 1: Comments Received from Parents Love and value the people and the program! Love love love the crossing guard at {School Name}! Love our crossing guards! Our kids cross a very busy and dangerous street (Tiburon Blvd..actually a highway). Drivers are distracted and in a hurry, trying to get into and out of traffic. These guys protect our kids very day. Love our guards on {Location Reference} near {School Name}! They are so dependable and kind, friendly and caring. Love the crossing guards! More children would walk or ride bikes to school if there were additional crossing guards. This would encourage healthy transportation alternatives and help ease traffic congestion in the neighborhoods. Most crossing guards are at their spots too much later after school starts or ends. My child crosses Sir Francis Drake Boulevard at Butterfiel Road - a very busy and dangerous intersection. My children have been crossed by a crossing guard since 2006 at the corner of {Location Reference}. It is a dangerous intersection for children. I really appreciate their dedication to always be there even during rain storms and very icy cold weather. Having a crossing guard is crucial. My daughter rides the school bus, but without the guards, the kids on bikes and foot would have difficulty crossing {Location Reference} going to/from school because the traffic is so heavy! The guards make it more efficient for the traffic flow too because you don't have kids constantly running across the road, they are grouped together. My kids are my life. Their safety is extremely important to me and any money spent to keep them safer is money well spent. Need a crossing guard at corner of Drake and Ross for Wade Thomas kids One thing we've noticed is that the traffic builds up due to the {Location Reference} light changing too frequently to accommodate pedestrians vs. the traffic. We've also noticed in the past that the crossing guard will hit the button for pedestrians even if they haven't even gotten to the crosswalk yet. It might make sense to instruct the crossing guard to only hit the button after 2 or 3 pedestrians have arrived so that the flow of traffic is impeded as little as possible. Pedestrians will still have the ability to cross at a normal interval which better accommodates the heavy traffic at that time of day. Our cross walker provides safety, without him, I would not let my son walk to school. Our crossing guard at {Location Reference} is {Individual Guard Reference}. He is the best! Having {Individual Guard Reference} around makes my family feel safe and we love seeing him every morning and afternoon. Our crossing guard {Individual Guard Reference} is stupendous, cautious and very helpful to students and parents and efficient so he also is consciencious of drivers and their needs. Our crossing guard {Individual Guard Reference} is wonderful - he is the first person we all see in the morning and the last at the end of the day. He is kind and always smiling - the kids love him! And most importantly he keeps all the kids safe crossing a very busy and congested intersection. Our crossing guard does an excellent job.

Item 8 - Attachment

123


June 2017 D-12

Table 1: Comments Received from Parents Our crossing guard is fantastic. First and foremost, he is conscientious of the safety of both parent and student and goes above and beyond to manage what can be a hectic situation at times. His friendly demeanor has made him a favorite of the kids so they listen to him. It helps them learn good habits when walking along a busy road and crossing the street. Our crossing guard is so friendly and helpful! We look forward to seeing him each day. Our crossing guard, {Individual Guard Reference}, is wonderful and friendly and kind and takes his job very seriously. Our crossing guard, {Individual Guard Reference}, is AWESOME. Our crossing guard, {Individual Guard Reference}, is awesome!! Our entire town loves his positive personality! He gives high fives to all the kids. He's the best!! Our crossing guards are amazing. They keep the streets so safe and offer the children so many freedoms and opportunities for independence because we, as parents, know that they are safe crossing the streets before and after school. Our crossing guards are fantastic! Especially {Individual Guard Reference}. Every morning he greets the entire community with a huge smile and a warm welcome. He also does a wonderful job keeping all of our students, staff and families safe. There are an additional 3 crossing guards I witness on my daily commute who offer the same loving care in {Location Reference}. They're a wonderful part of our community. Our crossing guards are WONDERFUL!!! They are an essential part of our bike commute to school, and an excellent use of tax dollars. Thank you. Our crossing guards are wonderful. So kind and reliable. AS a parent, it gives me great comfort to know that my children are being cared for. Sir Francis Drake is very busy and drivers are so singularly focused they often drive way too fast and don't obey ped. right of way, the crossing guards make it possible to be safe. Our family appreciates the crossing guards at the very busy intersections where daily commuter traffic is heavy. Our guard has made some inappropriate comments to our kids. Pienso que es muy importante de que haya un crossing guard porque aveces muchos de los conductores no respetan las señales de transito y no quieren dar el paso alos peatones. Please keep our crossing guards! They keep our kids safe from all the texting, speeding, distracted, careless drivers in San Anselmo. Please bring back a crossing guard at Sir Francis Drake Blvd & Butterfield. Please provide a crossing guard for children that attend Wade Thomas and St Anselm's. There are many children that live in Winship Park that cannot Ross SFD safely in the morning. Please consider placing someone at Sir Francis Drake at the stoplight for Barber/ Ross Ave. In front of Insalata restaurant. Please put one at Broadmoor and SFD again.. Please add crossing guard at Broadmoor Ave and SFD again. Please support this service. it i s very important to the safe our our children. Many drivers don't respect signs or speed limits during school hours. provide crossing guards or police presence at wade thomas to get drivers to obey stop signs!

Item 8 - Attachment

124


June 2017 D-13

Table 1: Comments Received from Parents Recent Guards where I work in {Location Reference}. Critical in front of {School Name}. Guards at {School Name} and {School Name} also critical. Ross valley School system would REALLY benefit from having guards. Drivers are constantly racing through school zones and rolling through stop signs. Safety should be a priority over all else, including traffic. Traffic should NEVER have priority over safety. Period. Oh, and the SMART train is going to fail miserably. Just sayin. Solicito trasporte escolar por q la escuela queda lejos de mi casa y para más seguridad de mi hija prefiero un trasporte escolar Some cars are not considerate of Students that ride or walk to school. The crossing guard program is an investment for our children's safety. . Some cross walks are too eager to let the riders walk to ride at their designated crosswalk to the point that they sometimes don’t considered the drivers’ needs proper time to make a complete stop. Sometimes the car is too close to the cross sign when the cross guard stars walking into the street causing the car to stop abruptly. Even thou I keep driving under the speed limit I have been behind other cars that stop almost in front of the guard making the guard mad and the riders scare. Is okay to ask the riders or the pedestrian to stop for a second or two to let the car stop properly. {Individual Guard Reference} by {School Name} is AWESOME! Super important. Esp at SFD TAM should look more closely at Sir Francis Drake between Broadmoor and Butterfield as many young children walk with their parents and high school kids walk this extremely dangerous street. And in order to allow better "flow" of traffic, the light on Broadmoor was timed for almost two minutes! That's far too long to keep vulnerable pedestrians standing next to speeding traffic-if you don't believe it, try it sometime Thank you our GREAT crossing guard in front of {School Name}! thank you to the crossing guards! Some are fantastic guards who build strong connections with the kids and families who cross the street, especially the woman who works at {Location Reference}. Thank You! Thank You! Thank you! We love our crossing guards! Thanks for keeping our kids safe! The crossing guard at {School Name}, stationed at {Location Reference}, is exemplary. It is a very dangerous, highly trafficked road. He takes great care of his charges. I see him every day. He is always alert and always watching out for the kids and motorists in general. The Cross Gaurds on {Location Reference} are amazing! Very efficient and I feel safe walking with my child to {School Name}. The crossing gaurd that works on {Location Reference} near {School Name} is extremely aggressive and hostile. He has yelled at me (and other drivers) on more than one occasion. I don't think that sends the right message to the children. The crossing gaurds are professional, courteous, the cars driving by respond to them in a positive way, they cross students safely in groups, rather than one by one to disrupt traffic with the least impact, they are cheerful and set a community presence, that school and student safety is a priority.

Item 8 - Attachment

125


June 2017 D-14

Table 1: Comments Received from Parents The crossing guard and the crossing lights in the cross walk across {Location Reference} to {School Name} are extremely important for helping pedestrians navigate the very busy intersection. With three schools on {Location Reference}, deer crossing, and speedy drivers who don't stop for school buses or students, morning and afternoon traffic is a mess and arrival to school by car, bike, or on foot can be a harrowing experience. The crossing guard at {School Name} is VERY cranky. The crossing guard at {School Name} is AMAZING. He is courteous, safe, and does his job beautifully. He keeps the traffic moving efficiently, ensuring kids can get to school on time, safely. He is loved by the {School Name} community. The crossing guard at {School Name} is aggressive in his body language and uses facial expressions that make me feel scared. The crossing guard at {School Name} is phenomenal at both looking out for kids crossing as well as managing the cars and buses too. The crossing guard at {School Name} is excellent! Very patient, safe, kind. The Crossing Guard at {School Name} site is fine. On the other hand the Crossing Guard at {School Name} is not friendly either with kids or other driver. I've seen couple times that he yelled at a driver that passing by the {School Name}. The crossing guard at {School Name}, {Individual Guard Reference}, is particularly good at keeping the kids safe, modeling proper road safety for them and helping to make them excited to be coming to school. He is an integral part of the school community. The crossing guard at {School Name} is excellent. We are lucky to have him! The crossing guard at the intersection in front of {School Name} is amazing. He is sweet and funny and considerate and is a pleasure to see everyday. The crossing guard in front of {School Name} should be FIRED!. He is {Descriptive Language}. He has horrible timing when stopping cars to let kids cross (like throwing his sign up right as you are about to drive through the crosswalk instead of waiting until you pass) and then he shakes his head at you and says nasty comments. He mean mugs every. single. car. that drives through the intersection. One by one he stares them down. He once yelled horrible profanity to a car that drove by along the lines of {Profanity Reference} while there were children next to him!! The car was driven by a principal from out of state who later went back to confront him but he had left. I do not know of a single person in the neighborhood who has not had a bad run-in with him. He is awful!! The crossing guard I see on {Location Reference}, {Individual Guard Reference}, is a lovely man who is incredibly friendly with both parents and kids. I look forward to our short interactions, as does my son. Just wanted to put in a good word for {Individual Guard Reference}! The crossing guard is badly needed on Tiburon Blvd because drivers are in a rush to get to work in the city and would otherwise make right turns on red while the kids are crossing, which could result in serious injury, death or bodily harm. The crossing guards are essential to keeping our kids safe and maintaining order. the crossing guard is nice the kids like him. the new blinking lights installed help keep him and the children safe. The crossing guard who works {Location Reference} is very odd, distracting and does not seem safe. Lots of gesturing, pacing, and flailing of his stop sign. Distracting to drivers, pedestrians and bicyclist. The crossing guards add an extra layer of safety for students/children particularly on busy streets like Sir Francis Drake.

Item 8 - Attachment

126


June 2017 D-15

Table 1: Comments Received from Parents The crossing guards all through our town of Fairfax provide a much needed service to our students traveling to and from school each day. The traffic on our streets during these two busy times of day necessitates having a crossing guard at every station to keep our kids and pedestrians of all kinds safe as they navigate the streets. the crossing guards are always polite and engaged. The crossing guards are an integral part of Safe Routes To School. We bike BECAUSE they are there! The crossing guards are great. They are very friendly and reliable and help many kids cross Sir Francis Drake safely. The crossing guards are so important for our children' safety! Thank you, and please keep it up or even expand. For example, we no longer have a crossing guard at a dangerous intersection at Sir Francis Drake and Butterfield in San Anselmo, and this corner is confusing and highly traveled by school children as young as T-K. Please consider bringing that crossing guard back. Thank you! The Crossing guards are usually friendly and helpful. The crossing guards are very much needed in the {Location Reference}. I appreciate how serious they take their job and have seen some pretty horrific drivers that could've caused some bad things to occur had a crossing guard not been present. The crossing guards around {Location Reference} are critical for safety. I am so thankful they are there. I drive to work every day so I see them and am so glad they're there. Please make sure to keep funding them for the children’s safety. One comment: once in a while I see them on their cell phones while working. A reminder that they shouldn't be using their cell phones during this time would be helpful (again - I've seen it a few times). Thanks for helping our children. The crossing guards at busy intersections in {Location Reference} provide a valuable service in safely escorting children across streets where they otherwise might be in danger crossing alone. The crossing guards do a great job along {Location Reference} and also on {Location Reference} near {School Name}. The crossing guards do a great job and keep our kids safe Thanks! the crossing guards do an excellent job keeping our kids safe. thank you. The crossing guards for {School Name} are great and incredibly important. The crossing guards make it much safer to cross the streets. Drivers regularly disregard walkers and make crossing the street a dangerous activity. Please do continue to fund the crossing guards! The crossing guards near {School Name} are both so friendly and always positive. We enjoy seeing her twice a day! The crossing guards on {Location Reference} near the {Location Reference}, at {School Name}, near {Location Reference} close to {School Name} are ESSENTIAL to the safety of our students. There used to be fewer crossing guards and there were significant incidents and near-messes compromising the safety and feeling of security of our young people and other community members. The Crossing Guards provided for all the schools in {Location Reference} do a fantastic job. They do a valuable job for our community - providing safety at major intersections for our kids as they get to school.

Item 8 - Attachment

127


June 2017 D-16

Table 1: Comments Received from Parents The crossing guards that we know personally at the intersection for {School Name}, {School Name} and {School Name} as well as the one near the {Location Reference} are HIGHLY valuable. People in our neighborhoods often drive too fast and are distracted....every single crossing becomes infinitely safer if a guard is adequately doing their job. The crossing light on SFD at Oak Tree Lane is unrealiable and does not always flash when you activate the button. The solar is malfunctioning and is dangerous when the crossing gaurd is not present! Needs to be addresses asap since this is the main and only cross walk to get to the elementary school and its basically a freeway of cars. Also an updated crosswalk ground/asphalt flashing beacon lights would be ideal and more neon signage of crossing. The current cross guard is hated by everyone. He is a bully and screams at many parents. I complained in earlier years but no action taken. The cross guard is necessary but the current one needs to be replaced. The current crossing guard at my child's school is super friendly and is very attentive when on duty. I see others, guards for high schools, on the way to school but not as in tuned. The particular guard at my child's school seems to be more qualified to guard at an elementary school. The guards are great. Definitely contribute meaningfully to the safety of the intersections. The intersection at Sir Francis Drake and Butterfield in San Anselmo is VERY dangerous. We need a crossing guard there every day. Not as important for a guard on Butterfield @ Brookside school - Please PLEASE have one at SFD/Butterfield! The intersections at the two schools my children attend ({School Name} and {School Name}) are very busy with cars speeding through. Without the crossing guards at these busy intersections I'm sure we will have an accident. The male crossing guard at {School Name} on {Location References} most mornings is very aggressive and crazy. he needs to reign it in a little bit. The route to school without a crosswalk or crossing guard for children in upper Avenida Miraflores/Tburon has been brought to the Town of Tiburon, the Superintendent and Del Mar's Principal attention, however, nothing has been done to develop a plan for a safe route to school. Tiburon will have two of the largest grades in the district going to Del Mar in the fall and nothing has been done to solve this safety issue. The Town's solution was to provide bike lanes... it is not deterred traffic from flying through the intersection. The children coming from this area need to ensure four way traffic stops so they can cross the street to the school - It is not safe!!!I have suggested one solution - move the crossing guard from one area that has nearly zero kids crossing to this area with no crosswalk. Please do something about this! There are a lot of cars going past the school and they may not see students so crossing guards are important to safety There are NO crossing guards at Wade Thomas. People drive like they are crazy especially as it gets closer to school start. I'm not sure I wish for more crossing guards, I think I wish for more police. There are no sidewalks on the streets leading to our school - children must walk in the street and the crossing guards are imperative to the safety of the children - both in helping the kids stay safe from cars and also reminding the drivers to be safe and not drive down those streets during school start/end times.

Item 8 - Attachment

128


June 2017 D-17

Table 1: Comments Received from Parents There are several street crossings where it is critical that there is a crossing guard, especially those along {Location Reference} and even the crosswalk at the bottom of the {Location Reference}. Without the guards assisting kids on foot and bike and keeping the cars at bay, the parents would not stop or exercise caution. Sad but true. I think the guards are critical to keep and without them there would be accidents and injuries. There are two busy intersections near schools in my neighborhood and my kids and I often have to cross with the crossing guards. I feel much safer with their help! There is a busy intersection at our school and the crossing guard is vital to assisting students get safely to school in the morning. LOTS of inattentive, impatient drivers along {Location Reference}! There is a great need for a crossing guard at the intersection of Sir Francisco Drake and Butterfield in San Anselmo. There used to be a guard there, but not for the past two years. My kids would walk/ride to school more often if a guard was posted at that location. There is a guard in my personal opinion that you should do a background check on... I know he's {Descriptive Language} but every single day he creeps me out. The others are wonderful! There is definitely a need for s crossing guard at {Location Reference} ({School Name}). W/out {Individual Guard Reference} we wouldn't feel safe ! There needs to be another crossing guard at Sir Francis Drake Blvd and Butterfield Ave. It's very busy and I don't feel confident about letting my kid walk across that street by herself, so I need to cross with her or drive across the street and then let her off. There should be a crossing guard at the back entrance to {School Name}. There is a hill, and cars coming down the hill don't see the kids. There should be two crossing guards at the {Location Reference}. This is a way too busy and wide intersection for only one crossing guard. It has four lanes across in both directions!!!!! A second crossing guard is needed for all the children crossing on bikes. The crossing guard cannot get from one end to the other, there needs to be two. The intersection is too big for one person to cover the span of {Location Reference} at this specific intersection. There used to be a crossing guard at Butterfield and Sir Francis Drake to help Brookside students cross safely. Funding for this guard was taken away so now I feel uncomfortable sending my son to school on his own. This is a terribly busy and dangerous light. I encourage you to bring this crossing guard back. They are so valuable and really give me peace of mind as a parent. Crossing Sir Francis Drake is impossible without them! they are wonderful! super concerned for the well being of my kids. thank you to the {School Name} crossing guards on {Location Reference}! They do a great service They ensure the safety of our children! This is a great program and I highly support it. I have seen so many cars that disobey the guard, but he stands out in front of the car and shields the kids with his own body. This is a poorly designed survey, many of the answer options were N/A. For example, I have multiple kids in school, only one grade option. And how they get to school varies from summer/winter This is a vital program to keep our children safe and to encourage more children to walk/bike to school. Thankyou!

Item 8 - Attachment

129


June 2017 D-18

Table 1: Comments Received from Parents This seems like a very good use of funds due to the number of distracted drivers during commute hours. {Location Reference} can very dangerous in the morning with a large number of work trucks coming into town. The crossing guards are essential in maintaining a safe way for our children to get to school. To my knowledge without the crossing guards we have been fine. So I see no need to add them at this time {Individual Guard Reference} (at {School Name}) is the best crossing guard in Marin. {Individual Guard Reference} at {School Name} is especially polite and really looks after the kids. Great, great guy {Individual Guard Reference} is awesome. {Individual Guard Reference} is the crossing guard at {School Name}. He does a great job! {Individual Guard Reference}, the crossing guard at {School Name} is outstanding! Very important on Sir Francis Drake Blvd in San Anselmo and Fairfax!. I appreciate the crossing guards on Sir Francis Drake Blvd! My daughter uses the one {Location Reference}on a regular basis on her way to {School Name}. She rides her bike. She also occasionally uses the one near {School Name}. {School Name} has had a Walk-n-Roll program in place for the last several years. This is run by parents and these parents have expressed a lot of concern over the safety of the students coming to school on foot/wheels because we do not have crossing guards anywhere near the campus. We are extremely grateful for the crossing guards in our community. I can let my kids ride bikes to school with peace of mind. Thank you We could really use a crossing guard at the intersection of sir francis drake and broadmoor. There was one some years ago. Very busy and very dangerous intersection, filled with bikers, pedestrians, and school buses. Please place a guard at that intersection. Thank you. We could use even MORE crossing guards, especially at the Blackfield/ Cecelia intersection in the afternoon. We don't have cross guards at Wade Thomas. It is just awful. A child got hit today. This needs to stop. Sunnyside is a blind curve and people speed on that street. A child is going to get very injured. We need crossing guard. It is unbelievable that a rich county such as Marin doesn’t have them. The only children that have crossing guards nearby San Anselmo is Ross. Plus your survey is poorly written. You have to answer “no” to questions that you want to be “Yes” in the first place. We drive our daughter to school but park her and walk her across the street. {Individual Guard Reference} is our crossing guard and he is wonderful. The school is near a busy intersection and he keeps the kids safe. We really appreciate him being in front of {School Name}! We had a crossing guard at Sir Francis Drake and Butterfield for years. For the last few we haven't and it is a horrible place not to. People run the light every day. We need one back! Preferably {Individual Guard Reference}!!! We have a great group of crossing guards in {Location Reference}! We like our Crossing Guard very much. We live near {Location Reference}, a VERY dangerous intersection given slope and turns...cars can NOT see people crossing as they barrel down {Location Reference}. There are many accidents monthly.

Item 8 - Attachment

130


June 2017 D-19

Table 1: Comments Received from Parents We live next to {School Name} so we don't use the crossing guard, but I understand the importance of them and the kids safety. They are definitely needed on Sir Francis Drake, as people do not pay attention to the crosswalks, even with the blinking lights. We love crossing guards We love our crossing guard at {School Name}! {Individual Guard Reference} is so welcoming to everyone - he really has fun with the kids and is an important part of the community, setting a friendly tone with a genuine smile and a wave to each and every bike, car, or person on foot passing into {School Name}. We love our Crossing Guard at {School Name} - {Individual Guard Reference}. He is friendly and does a great job keeping the kids and parents safe. We LOVE our crossing guard {Individual Guard Reference}! We LOVE our crossing guard {Individual Guard Reference}!!! She is peace of mind, eyes on the street for the kids and a great asset to our community! She is absolutely a member of our {School Name} Family, always there and helping the kids stay safe. We love our crossing guard! We LOVE our crossing guard, {Individual Guard Reference}! He's wonderful and responsible. Keeps rowdy kids and distracted drivers in line and all with a smile. We love our crossing guards! We love the crossing guards and it really helps put us at ease when our kids are walking to and from school with their friends. Keep up the great work!!! We love the crossing guards. They become a part of the school experience for the kids and for parents they associate w feeling comfortable sending kids off. Safety net between home and School. We've come to LOVE our crossing guards!!! We meet the crossing guard at {School Name} daily. He cares very much about the kids safety and everyone will be safe at this intersection. Wish we had more. We need a crossing guard back at the corner of Sir Frances Drake and Butterfield. There used to be one there until last year - this is a VERY dangerous intersection and people run the lights all the time. Many people have stopped walking their kids to school because this intersection no longer has a crossing guard and this just adds to the traffic congestion in this corridor. Please reconsider a crossing guard here. We love our crossing guards! We need supervision at Wade Thomas Elementary. Also, Drake students need help crossing during lunch hour. Many J walk or cross in front of cars in San Francisco Blvd/SF Drake. More crossing guards, please! We only allow 'D' to walk when crossing guards are present, otherwise he would not be permitted to walk home. We really miss our crossing guard that got cut. {Individual Guard Reference} used to be at the very busy, unsafe crossing at SFD and Butterfield. We really need a crossing guard at rock hill drive and tiburon Blvd. We ride the bus to school, but our daughter crosses the street with a crossing guard to catch her bus on {Location Reference}.

Item 8 - Attachment

131


June 2017 D-20

Table 1: Comments Received from Parents We take the bus most days. Let be the crossing guards. Helpful and friendly. Makes the kids feel welcome and safe. We use the bus system to get to and from school We want speed bumps on Sir Francis Drake on the stretch from St. Rita's to Manor. People regularly go 40 mph there despite the 25mph speed limit, and that makes it dangerous to pull out from our cross street, and downright scary to walk the kids to school sometimes. We would love to see a crossing guard at the intersection of sir francis drake and broadmoor, I believe there was one some years ago. It is a VERY dangerous intersection and our children in the neighborhood could benefit from extra help crossing, on any of those corners. Especially since the White Hill school bus stops there, adding to the activity in the area, and the risk. Thank you. When the kids ride their bikes to {School Name}, I get nervous about the intersection on {Location Reference}. Without the crossing guard, I wouldn't let them ride their bikes. Where there is only a stop sign it is good, if there is a light/pedestrian crosswalk i don't think it is necessary. Why are there no crossing guards for Wade Thomas? Would be great if the time slots for when crossing guards are on duty could be revisited. The crossing guard I use ({Location Reference}) is only "on shift" until 8:15. It is a quarter mile from {School Name}, which starts at 8:30, so a lot of kids are heading to school (and crossing the street) after he leaves. Would like to see more blinking crosswalks on Butterfield if no crossing guard is warranted. Would love to see a Crossing Guard at the intersection of Brookside drive into the street where Brookside Elementary school is located. I see a lot of cars going through the crossing walk without letting kids or adults finish crossing the street. It seems like it would be illegal for a car to be in the crosswalk when pedestrians are still in it? You should alphabetize your list of schools on the first page of this survey to make it easier to find the one that pertains to the participant The crossing guard program seems to be working, so why change it? Our {Location Reference} crossing guards are a great, friendly part of our community. Kindergarten class get off at 1:30 pm at that time we should have crossing guard too. With so many people on their phones and rushing in the morning, crossing guards are integral to the safety of kids on bikes or walking. As a working parent, I feel more at ease sending my daughter to school on her bike knowing a guard is on duty. Solo agradeserles a las personas que estan en el cruse para las escuelas de mis hijas les ayudan bastante, por que ellas crusan mas Seguro los stops. Pues para mi familia es major que tengan un vigilante de cruce peatonal estamos mas seguros asi. Gracias por todo por que diario crusamos la calle. {School Name} has an awesome crossing guard! She is an integral part of our school community. Please ensure crossguards are present on minimum days. A big thank you!!! To our lovely crossguard!!! Why don't you let parents volunteer instead of continually raising taxes to fund your bureaucracy. I know that Tam is going around hat in hand to various councils in Marin to get money

Item 8 - Attachment

132


June 2017 D-21

Table 1: Comments Received from Parents There doesn't need to be a large expense on crossing guards. Limit the number of adult crossing guards and have older students volunteer as crossing guards. They can receive school credit or perhaps monetary incentives through gift certificates to movies or restaurants or various other stores. The crossing guard at {School Name} is rude and sometimes chases parents down the street yelling at them because he says they haven't followed his rules accurately enough. He is completely out of line and will not listen when parents try to calm him down or speak to him in a respectful manner. This has happened to me on several occasions and to several others families that I know personally. I have been taking an alternate route to avoid him because he scares my daughter and I got tired of explaining why "the mean man is yelling at Daddy." I support the idea of a crossing guard, but this one is so unpleasant I feel that employing him is a poor use of funds. Many folks would volunteer and some are at what I see as safe intersections Usually kids are walking with parents I would prefer to see the money put toward public transportation The crossing guard on {Location Reference} should is a disgrace, he has a {Descriptive Language}, swears and harasses parents/care givers who drive. I think we'd be way better with a school bus than an {Descriptive Language} crossing guard. No it would be better if the schools paid for the Guard program. The eldest classes could do be the Crossing Guards. Look up how it's done in Scandinavia.

The comments shown in Table 2 were received from students.

Table 2: Comments Received from Students I cross one intersection on my way to school each day. There is never a crossing guard there. I normally come across 3 guards on the way and 2 or 1 coming back. I think it is a good place to spend money because I have been nearly hit by a car a few times at crossroads with no guards. Crossing guards near the {Location Reference} are really nice and help me cross the intersect. The crossing guards are very nice. They are always kind and friendly! They are always friendly and kind. I don’t think the Crossing Guard Program is the best way to use the funds but if other options for the funds are worse, then I’m for the program We got a new crossing guard on the street {Location Reference} but I like the old one better This one doesn’t say good morning. I Think the old ones name was {Individual Guard Reference} or something. I don’t cross a crosswalk with a crossing guard, but the street has one I the crossing guard will continue then pay them more I really like {Individual Guard Reference} at one of the crossing walks in the morning/ after school. What’s the crossing guard program?

Item 8 - Attachment

133


June 2017 D-22

Table 2: Comments Received from Students {Individual Guard Reference}, the morning crossing guard at the {Location Reference} is really good. The crossing guard on {Location Reference} isn’t needed. The crossing guard on {Location Reference}is nice They are our friends sometimes! Crossing guards are cool, I guess I like the crossing guard on {Location Reference} and {Individual Guard Reference} on {Location Reference} Our crossing garude {Descriptive Language} As an 8th grader I don’t need a crossing guard but younger kids do. I like crossing guards if they are nice, but if they are often upset or angry I feel like they don’t deserve to be a crossing guard. Often times our crossing guard is not consistint with the amount of seconds for crossing the street. Crossing gaurds help the little dudes and duders There is enough responsible kids to keep the unresponsible kids in check. (Also, there is only 1 guard & 4 crosswalks) I think the crossing guards are great they make me feel way safer walking to school. The crossing guards are very kind and hard working people. crossing Guards are very important for our community I think crossing Guard are good and important. I am a student and I don’t walk all the way to school, but I am dropped off near the school and use the crosswalks. There is always a crossing Guard Before school, and after school. The crossing guard by the {Location Reference} is nice and keeps kids safe. Give {Individual Guard Reference} more money because he’s very nice and makes me feel safe every morning. Also he makes my day by singing me songs. He sings me happy birthday on my birthday. The crossing guards are very nice. Give {Individual Guard Reference} Money Some cross guards don’t go far enough out. I Am waking (PS. Give {Individual Guard Reference} 1,000,000 Please give {Individual Guard Reference} more money he makes me feel safe and he makes me happy. I think that there should be crossing guards at the big intersection near {Locaiton Reference}, because it’s really dangerous with bad drivers these days, and I have to cross that to go to school or go back home. {Individual Guard Reference} is awesome Give {Individual Guard Reference} more money he sings songs and greets me every day and {Individual Guard Reference} {Individual Guard Reference} is a savage. Sometimes the crossing Guard listens to Very inappropriate music that has bad words in it. Well one crossing gaurd lissens to VERY bab music

Item 8 - Attachment

134


June 2017 D-23

Table 2: Comments Received from Students I think that since I am responsible enough to cross a street on my own I think that is dosent make me feel confertable or unconfertable I bet it helps the younger kids though Crossing guard does her job I never cross the street because my mom drives me. But if I ever cross the street the crossing gaurd is preety casual If I rode a bike more often then I wouldn’t know about crossing guards. Since there is a bike path. There is only one way to school from where I live so it is impossible not to go by a crossing guard. At my father’s house I bike to school at my mother’s house I get driven to school. Don’t mind the dots. If we don’t have any crossing guards it would be dangerous because we would get runover. Many cross-guards are not very friendly, and are a waste of funding. Please make it stop. It’s a waste of money Crossing guards, maintain safety, I believe it is a good use of funds I think crossing guards are a great way to keep our community safe. They are helpful. I like it There should be more crossing guards at intersections and smaller roads that many kids go on. There is one Question if there is a Crossing Guard on Duty, than why Do they need to be there, because if a Kid/Teen is over 13 or 12 Than by now they should know how to crosswalk and know how to use the signal crosswalk buttons I think that the crossing Guard program is a good thing to spend part of the transportation funds on but there are other things that you need money for to change like the quality of some roads. I think it is helpful to have a crossing guard near our intersection because most people drive very fast there and it is often crowded I don’t walk or ride my bike to school I often am droped off at {Location Reference}and am happy to know there’s a crossing guard. The way I go to school there are no roads where a crossing guard is needed but I still think they are importint Yay crossing guards! I like having crossing guards. They Dont really Do anything except hold a sign. We know when to walk I think this program should also fund speeches to educate parents about bike safety and not to yell at kids who are doing it right. For kids in middle school and above it does not affect us as much. I really like the crossguard and she Makes me feel very safe. She is very nice. We have great crossing guards in Marin, but we do have one that seems un-necessary. It is the crossing guard at the {Location Reference} intersection I really like the crossing guards that we have. They are both really respectful and always seem happy to be greeted by all these kids. Funds could be used for something else like a daily bus. I don’t walk or bike to school, but I always see crossguards before and after school everyday.

Item 8 - Attachment

135


June 2017 D-24

Table 2: Comments Received from Students The crossing guards near my school are very friendly and helpful. I think it is a good way to spend transportation funds, however I think there is an excessive amount of crossing guards and they should be at major intersections. I bike to school and go in the street and there is just no need for crossing guards. If cars will hit kids they will hit adults so it’s the same chances either way. I have friends who cross to get home and they don’t need a crossing guard when they try to cross the person just slows you down wanting your time as if you are going to get hit. All in all, they are just a waste of time. She is a great crossing guard and is very kind. Before crossing guards were in place I did not like riding my bike to school. The crossing guard is a good idea, but we usually don’t really need them. The crossing guards are very friendly, except {Individual Guard Reference} yells at people and cars. He makes me uncomfortable After all, we are already in middle school. The crossing guards just help enforce our safety, which is very important. The crossing guard is really nice and I think it is helpful to have. I think that a crossing guard is important to have near school. I think that the crossing guards are realy nice. And I feel safer crossing the street with them. The crossing guard at {School Name} is very nice and always says “good afternoon!” when kids cross when they’re not supposed to she always makes sure that they leave knowing that that’s not aloud! The crossing guard does her job and makes me feel very safe. I walk to and from school every day of the week and I walk to starbucks with my friends sometimes and I think the crossing guards are very nice. Also it makes me feel more safe because they are there. I feel there should be more crossing guards, because when I cross the street to go to school there is no crossing guards. I think the crossing are nice I just wish that there were more crossing guards in the big intersection near the {Location Reference}, because I usually cross that street when I walk to school or walk home, and many people go without seeing you, and it makes me nervous. I would like to thank the man at {Location Reference} because he is really nice and conveinient. (and always says hello) I really like the crossing guards and I think it makes me feel more safe but if there weren’t any I would still bike. I think the crossing guards are extremely friendly and they help me feel safe when crossing the street You need to put a stop sign right were the Mill Valley Tennis Club and boyle Park are because people just speed there to their hearts content I think it is important to have the crossing guards to keep people safe. I don’t walk to school, but sometimes I walk places afterschool, and the crossing guards are nice and helpful! {Individual Guard Reference} is great and makes me feel safe.

Item 8 - Attachment

136


June 2017 D-25

Table 2: Comments Received from Students I like the crossing guards, but I don’t rely on them to cross the street. Love to walk Crossing guards are very important asset to student safety. On many crosswalks (even though many have stoplights), cars are very careless. It’s essential to keep children on sometimes reckless streets. I think that some guards are more kid-friendly than others It a perfect program because it protect us and our life. They need to leave the crossing area during miller construction since they dug up all the crossings I do think that crosswalk guards are a good idea for people who need money. Crossing guards help stop cars and allow kids to cross the street safer. I still see people biking recklessly, not listening to the crossing guard! The crossing guards are always very nice. They deserve a pay raise. The crossing guards help a lot and are in most big streets The crossing guards are always very nice In a few intersections like the one in {Location Reference}it is necessary but almost every where else isn’t worth it {Individual Guard Reference} is no longer a crossing guard by the crosswalk by {Location Reference} I would like him back I don’t think that crossing guards are necessary at every cross walk, but they are around school. I feel safe with them there. -some crossing guards are creepy We live by {Location Reference} and they drive to school and don’t know the rules. We need the cross guards. {Individual Guard Reference} is the BEST! There should be a crosswalk and crossing guard at the chicken path I think crossing guards are necessary because it is a safe way to go green to school. If kids walk to school without crossing guards, there is a better chance of getting hurt. Also, I think the crossing guards here are really kind and friendly. They say good morning to you, and they make you smile. I love the crossing guards here. Whenever a walk to school there a small intersections with no crossing guards. But it is okay. Older kids can take care of themselves but younger kids probably need a crossing guard. I like having a crossing guard before and after school because it makes feel safe. I think there should be crossing gaurds and they almost always a really nice to everyone. I like how every cross guard I know, are very nice. I think the cross guards were a great idea and how they are there every day to help us. Some days I walk my sister to her classroom and I cross the cross walk and there is a cross walk leading to her school. The crossing Gards are usualy kinda cranky in the morings, but their really friendly otherwise. (I think its lack of coffee.)

Item 8 - Attachment

137


June 2017 D-26

Table 2: Comments Received from Students I think that the crossing Guards are often rude and not friendly and are often just rushing to get their shift over (not {Individual Guard Reference} or {Individual Guard Reference} the other 2) So near my school, there are some crossing guards that need to be a little nicer we need to improve that. I think older kids know how to cross the street, so it’s a little bit unnecessary. I Don’t Like Crossing Guards!!! I think the tax is good, as long if it isn’t too much to pay for. It makes me smile when I see the crossing guards because I feel safe when I see one knowing he or she is protecting us from harms way. (sorry if my handwriting is messy) Bye! Some of the crossing guard rush and are rude I like having a crossing guard because I feel more safe! I think it is more helpful! {Individual Guard Reference} is great and that {Individual Guard Reference}! Use someone who is cababel of walking across the cross walk. I appriciate when crosswalkers say hi, I like when they are kind. I appreciate {Individual Guard Reference}. I like {Individual Guard Reference} and {Individual Guard Reference} I don’t like {Individual Guard Reference}. There should be younger crossing guards besides {Individual Guard Reference}! Also {Individual Guard Reference} is nice. {Individual Guard Reference} is kind and lets you know the rules of crossing the street in a gentle manner. I appreciate it when cross guards are nice. I like {Individual Guard Reference}, {Individual Guard Reference}, {Individual Guard Reference}, and {Individual Guard Reference}. Make sure that the cross graud can walk. {Individual Guard Reference} & {Individual Guard Reference} are awesome I think you should get more crossing gards like {Individual Guard Reference} and {Individual Guard Reference}. {Individual Guard Reference} is the bomb, {Individual Guard Reference} is awesome {Individual Guard Reference} is the best and {Individual Guard Reference} is as well {Individual Guard Reference} is very nice I really like {Individual Guard Reference} and {Individual Guard Reference} they are very nice and kind I love talking to them I only use a crosswalk when I got to my friend’s house. I walk to and from school on {Location Reference} and walk to the right. The 2 crossen {Individual Guard Reference} and {Individual Guard Reference} are very and Frienly. I love {Individual Guard Reference} & {Individual Guard Reference}, they keep us safe & they are very kind. Crossing gaurds like {Individual Guard Reference} should get paid more because they help children’s safety. I like {Individual Guard Reference} the crossing guard, he’s really nice. {Individual Guard Reference} is an amazing crossing guard!!! {Individual Guard Reference} is Amazing! {Individual Guard Reference} is super nice! I see crossing guards everyday and I think there good

Item 8 - Attachment

138


June 2017 D-27

Table 2: Comments Received from Students Is it always the same crossing guard? Do they have a schedule? All the crossing guards are very nice and funny I love the crossing guard at the intersection at {Location Reference}, {Individual Guard Reference} {Individual Guard Reference} and {Individual Guard Reference} are very kind I really apprecaite {Individual Guard Reference} and {Individual Guard Reference}. You should be using these funds on rods and bike puts. Certain crossing guards are very friendly. I think that you should not put a crossing guard on a stop light because when we cross the lights are red so no one can go. I think the crossing guards are nice. I like how the crossing guard next to {Location Reference}, always high fives me, and does “peace sign” to everyone. Lets use this money to repair the streets, also, some at them don’t even walk. I like {Individual Guard Reference}. He is kind. Also {Individual Guard Reference} it. I think they are nice. I appreciate it when they wave to me, even if I’m in the car. Thank you for getting a crossing guard near {Location Reference}, there are so many speeding cars. I like it when their nice and talk to us. I think that crossing guards could be used in better areas. The crossing guards are all very kind too. I think you should give {Individual Guard Reference} (the {Location Reference}) a rase. He is a always nice and friendly to everyone. Kids feel safer with crossing gaurds The crossing gards are nice. A lot of the crossing gaurds are super nice like {Individual Guard Reference} and {Individual Guard Reference} I don’t walk on the crosswalk, but I do walk to school I think crossing guards are good because once I almost got run over by a car (when it was going over a red light.) but the crossing guard saved me. The crossing guards are so nice and always in a good mood. The crossing guards are sometimes lazy and not paying attention when we want to cross and get mad us when cross without them because they weren’t paying attention Many crossing guard are very kind and bright you’re day. {Individual Guard Reference} is very nice! =) Very nice to children He does a great job on everyone loves him I really think that crossing guards keeps kids safe for everyone I say hi every time I see a crossing guard! They are all so nice!

Item 8 - Attachment

139


June 2017 D-28

Table 2: Comments Received from Students I would especially like to mention {Individual Guard Reference} because when your walking or riding in a car he goes out of his way to be kind to everyone he meets. (Location: {Location Reference} {Individual Guard Reference} is the nicest cross guard ever. {Individual Guard Reference} near my school is the best and is super nice. {Individual Guard Reference} is a really nice guy. He always has good eye contact and always waves and smiles to you. Our crossing is always nice and cheers up others. I enjoy him. I like {Individual Guard Reference} I really like {Individual Guard Reference} the crossing guard right by {School Name}! {Individual Guard Reference} is so nice. When me and my siblings go to {Location Reference}, he always waves. I really like and appreciate how nice all of our crossing guards. Especially the one on {Location Reference}, who always says hello to me no matter what. I think that crossing Guards to keep us safe. All of them are so nice. {Individual Guard Reference} is the best. The crossing guards are so wonderful and friendly I think that crossing guards keep us safe. They are all really kind. I really think that {Individual Guard Reference} is a really good crossing guard because he always does peace signs and gives high fives. The crossing guards are so nice. In particular the one at {Location Reference}is so nice and I can always talk sports with him. Also {Individual Guard Reference} always acknowledge me & is so kind. The crossing guards are nice. One of them is really nice and always smiles when I drive by but I don’t know his name *cry* I think his name is {Individual Guard Reference}. I like the crossing guard that cover {Location Reference} and {Individual Guard Reference}. {Individual Guard Reference} is the nicest person in the world. All of the crossing guards by my school are always really nice, smiling, and say “Have a good day!” {Individual Guard Reference} is extremely nice as well. I like {Individual Guard Reference} and the crossing guard at {Location Reference} because both of them are really kind and always energetic. I really like {Individual Guard Reference}. He is always really friendly and kind. He always smiles. He will holds the sign up for you. When I ride my bike to school I use the crossing guard. I think that the crossing guards on duty not only make people feel safe, But the crossing guards are friendly as well. It might be hard for some people to find a job here and I think that it’s a good job provider. I don’t think you need a crossing guard on {Location Reference}. If they could move up to where there are cars coming from both ways that would be better. I am talking about the crosswalk right where {Location Reference} is going and {Location Reference} is coming of of it.

Item 8 - Attachment

140


June 2017 D-29

Table 2: Comments Received from Students Crossing gard make most people feel safe I drive to school, but I still have to walk across one crosswalk to enter the school campus. I think that having a crossing guard makes me feel safer as I cross the street. When I walk to school, there is Never a crossgaurd at our crosswalk. There is always a crosswalk with one, but not ours. Once I was walking across the street and the crossing guard {Description of Guard Behavior} with her stop sign. I think that people need to be more respectful to crossing guards. There should be a law because some people are very rude. How do you think that makes them feel? It gives some kids a safety also knowing there is one adult there. I think the money for the Crossing Guard Program can go to other things. Kids in Middle School know how to cross on their own Love really nice crossing guards and please keep them. It is cool to have a crossing gaurd because they provide a conversation when the light red. Otherwise, we are big kids and have no need for a crossing guard. I think that there should be a regular crossing guard so people get to know them. The crossing guards are super fun to talk to and I love talking with them The {Location Reference} and both {Location Reference} crossing guards are the BEST. Everyone loves them. The crossing gards are always so friedly and chatty. They always watch for kids so they can cross as soon as they get to the crosswalk I think crossing guards are a good thing but sometimes it makes it hard for a car to turn and get out of the intersection. It could be dangerous for the cars The crossing guard that goes from the {Location Reference} to the other side of the road {Location Reference}, he’s the most kind and friendly guy {Individual Guard Reference} & {Individual Guard Reference} are very nice and always put a smile on my face. They are really cool. {Individual Guard Reference} is my favorite. {Individual Guard Reference} always gives me a peace sign everyday, He is very kind. He puts a smile on my face & tells me to have a good day. {Individual Guard Reference} is really nice. {Individual Guard Reference} is my favorite he is very kind and awsome. {Individual Guard Reference} & {Individual Guard Reference} they are very nice and smile all the time. {Individual Guard Reference} is a very nice crossing guard I really think that our crossing guard {Location Reference} from here is a nice person. The crossing gaurd at {Location Reference} is super nice and helpful, he always has a smile on his face. The crossing guard at {Location Reference} after school is really nice and likes to talk to the students. There is a guy when I tern onto {Location Reference} who always gives me a “peace” sign and smiles at me.

Item 8 - Attachment

141


June 2017 D-30

Table 2: Comments Received from Students The crossing guards across {Location Reference} are always kind to everyone. The crossing guard at {Location Reference} is super nice and he always says have a nice day Because sometimes people wont stop because I’m just a kid. And there is a SUPER Nice crossing gaurd on {Location Reference} and he makes me smile every morning The crossing gaurd {Location Reference} is very nice. {Individual Guard Reference} is AWESOME! {Individual Guard Reference} our crossing guard is very nice and always says have a good day. {Individual Guard Reference} is a very nice person and is a great crossing guard! {Individual Guard Reference} & {Individual Guard Reference} who are crossing guards on {Location Reference}, are very kind and care about everyone’s well-being. I believe the crossing guard at the corner of {Location Reference} is very unneccesary as the road is very small, and extremely few kids walking through there actually the street there, and most cars sit idly waiting to pick people up. I do not live in the same county, so my house is not within walking distance to my school. Afterschool, I walk somewhere, and It involves a crossing guard. I like having the crossing guards because it gives you a sense of you being safe but most crossing guards are really nice and you get to know on a personal level I didn’t change my route to school because of crossing guards. For #10 I have always being walking to school. The crossing guards are really kind people who keep us safe and smiles on our faces. There are very sweet & friendly crossing guards. I think the crossing guards are really friendly and nice. I really like them because they’re nice Dear the person who’s reading this, Personally I think crossing guards help keep kids and adults safe, especially younger kids. Also, I think we should spend money on crossing guards. Have a nice day! Sincerely, A young student I like. PS: No like survey. The crossing guards are very good and if they were taken away people could DIE. P.S. This survey is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Please stop. There is a crossing guard where I walk but I don’t use it on {Location Reference}. But they are nice. I think they should only use on or busy streets. The crossing guard is nice The crossing guard is very nice I think it makes it safer for people to cross the street with a crossing guard. I think the program is good, since it provides jobs. I don’t truly care if there is a crossing guard. I don’t walk a way where cross guards are because I live really close to school. The crossing guards are very nice and help a lot.

Item 8 - Attachment

142


June 2017 D-31

Table 2: Comments Received from Students I think this makes it safer. Many crossing guards are very kind, funny, and caring. They are helpful and they care about kids. One crossing gaurd {Description of Guard Behavior} and that kind of scares me. I think most of the crossing guards are very nice and to their job very well. All of the crossing guards are very kind and friendly to Me, and care about keeping kids safe My Man {Individual Guard Reference} at {Location Reference} is a legend. And my Man {Individual Guard Reference} at {Location Reference} is the best. All of the crossing guards are really nice and make sure you cross the street safely. I don’t walk, nor ride, to school because I am to far away and have 0! I used the crosswalk once when going to a friend’s house. It was nice to know I wouldn’t need to worry for my safety while crossing the street When I answered no it meant that I always walk and theres also only 1 route to school for me and it requires 2 crossing guards. I want to say how much I love walking to school every morning because how kind the crossing guards are. Some cross guards on {Location Reference} or very bad sometimes I will cross the street with no help even when the cross walker is there. It shows lazzyness I don’t walk to school and I have never walked to school, I drive. I always drive to school w/ a parent. Please put more crossing guards that work in the mornings. Crossing guards happen to be on my route home from school I like all of the crossguards but I don’t think it is a good way to spend transportation funds. I ride my bike to school every day and the crossing guards are always there to keep me safe, they are also very nice!!! I think that it’s a good idea to have crossing guards because it makes the road feel safer especially because you’re crossing a crosswalk where there are lot of cars driving passed. I have no changed my route because a crossing gaurd was there, it is just the way I walk to school everyday. I think the crossing guard next to {Location Reference} is the best in Marin County I have always taken the same route to school. Sometimes I walk with my friends and we may go to different intersection crossing guards don’t go. But, we don’t change our rout. I think there should be more crossing guards for kids who live in Greenbrae who bike to school there should be a crossing guard so no kid in Greenbrae and Kentfield can bike or walk to school The crossing guards are always very nice and they make me feel safe. The crossing guards are very nice and they are helpful. I love crossing the street when {Individual Guard Reference} is there because he’s really nice and is always the happiest person in the world. I really hope you feel nice for wasting 1,237 pieces of paper. I think the crossing guard is helpful and nice.

Item 8 - Attachment

143


June 2017 D-32

Table 2: Comments Received from Students I don’t have to change my route, there is a crossing guard already their. My second no! I’ve never driven to school unless I had to {Individual Guard Reference}, and {Individual Guard Reference} are super nice guys, {Individual Guard Reference} is always in a good mood, and always super friendly, and {Individual Guard Reference} is super sweet and always so jolly, he always greets you and ask you how your day was. Choosing to bike just because o crossguards is insane. Most kids boke or walk anways The usual crossing guard at the intersection is extremely friendly and wary towards the safety of students. He always puts an effort into socializing with students and adults to make them feel more comfortable, and he is fairly open about his life as well. Even when we drive past him, he waves to us (as in my parents and I) With crossing guards the world is a better place =) I live on a street right next to my school so I don’t have to walk across any cross walks. I think the crossing guards here are very nice and they are a help to our community. I feel like they are always so nice to kids. I enjoy so I can see and talk to our friendly crossing guard such as {Individual Guard Reference} who works on {Location Reference}. The crossing guards are always so nice and helpful. On number 10, I have always been drivin so it wasn’t because of crossing guards. Some of the crossing guards are on crosswalks that don’t have that much traffic and the crossing guard isn’t that necessary. They are all very nice. Thank you! While all of the crossing guards are nice, {Individual Guard Reference}, the crossing guard on {Location Reference}. Is especially friendly, always remembering names and faces. He’s the best in the biz! All the crossing guards are very kind and caring. They provide safety for us, the students, and it’s very appretiated. I really like the crossing guards {Individual Guard Reference} and {Individual Guard Reference}. They are very nice to me. {Individual Guard Reference}, my local crossing gaurd on {Location Reference}, is a great guy and keeps all the students safe from cars and unforeseen dangers. I like crossing guards. I always see 3 crossing guards 2 out of 3 are nice. Our crossing guard {Individual Guard Reference} is the bomb. Crossing guards are good. The crossing guards that I’ve met are not only a great addition to the community but are nice/kind people who care & keep us safe. One time the crossing guard came into my art class to paint. Hes really nice It’s a good program Has offered me food before… {Individual Guard Reference} should get a raise. (worker at the {Location Reference} crosswalk)

Item 8 - Attachment

144


June 2017 D-33

Table 2: Comments Received from Students Although I get driven to school most days I always see crossing guards on duty on the days I do walk to school There is a crossing guard who I pass every day. He is kind, and does his job well. I think crossing guards are a good idea to keep people save, but if there are other things that the money should be spent on, focus on that. The crossing guards are too strict and overstep boundaries. They aren’t law inforcers so they can’t force anyone to dismount from a skateboard or bike. I have seen a crossing guard push a student off a skateboard and obstruct others from crossing. Crossing guards are especially helpful soon after school is released, many students flood together to a local store or bus stop for 10-15 minutes after school is let out-post school crossing guards 10/10 All the crossing guards are super kind & ask how your day was & give you high-fives. They are very polite as well. Crossing guards also help with busy sections where it is dangerous to cross I think you should only put crossing guards where there is no light. {Individual Guard Reference} is awesome! (He guards at {Location Reference}) The cross guard always just holds the sign on the side walk and never goes into the street I would chose a middle if I had for “Do you think the crossing guard program is good way to spend transportation funds. At my crosswalk, there is a crossing guard 2 or 3 out of five days. Crossing guards are nice. I don’t need the crossing guard, but for the younger kids it would be helpful. I like crossing guards but I think they don’t get paid enough. The crossing guard does not do much to keep us safe. I don’t think that the crossing guard program is very important, and if it is receiving a large amount of funds, those need to be lessend I think all of this is fine Many young kids do not know rules of the road, especially regarding intersections For drivers and walkers that are younger it belive it keeps everyone much safer Love the crossingguards At the {Location Reference} there was a really nice crossing guard. I hope he comes back, his name was {Individual Guard Reference}. Cars go super fast in mill valley. If there wasn’t crossing guard cars would never stop for bikes or walkers. I think its important that there are crossing guards at busy intersections near schools, because then parents feel more comfortable letting their kids was or bike to school, and walking and biking is better for the environment than taking a car. You press the button you do not need help its easy I have literally nothing to say and I don’t care if there are crossing guards or not. I don’t think we need crossing guards in mill valley The crossing guards are really nice. They do their job very well.

Item 8 - Attachment

145


June 2017 D-34

Table 2: Comments Received from Students The crossing guards at {School Name} are very good at their job. I like the crossing guards because they are friendly. I feel more comfortable with a crossing guard because they keep me safe. I like having crossing guards. I like crossing guards. I don’t have any streets on way to school. I like the survey. All the crossing guards do is tell us to walk when the light tells us to. I like crossing guards, and I like meeting them. The crossing guards are kind and polite and they do their job very well. I like crossing guards especially {Individual Guard Reference}. I cant answer #11 because I don’t know what % funtage is being put into it and the other things being funded are. The crossing guards are very friendly people. I also think that they work hard and long hours for our safety. I am so grateful for the crossing guards here in {Location Reference}! They are so nice and helpful!! It gives people jobs. I want {Individual Guard Reference} back. I like to walk. and don't want to sit on o bus. Until I moved house, 3 months ago I did bike or walk most days. The crossing guard on {Location Reference} is really nice Sometimes the crossing guard is absent. Nobody is there to help the kids cross the busy Sir Francis Drake Blvd. I think that the cross guard program is helping more people choosing to go green. Crossing guards are helpful

Item 8 - Attachment

146


David Chan, Programming Manager SUBJECT: Marin Transit’s Annual Presentation (Discussion), Agenda Item No. 9a RECOMMENDATION No recommendation. This is a discussion item only. BACKGROUND Marin Transit’s General Manager, Nancy Whelan, will be present at the June 22nd TAM Board meeting to discuss Marin Transit’s activities that were funded with Measures A and B funds from FY 16/17. Ms. Whelan will also discuss planned activities for FY 17/18 that are the subjects of Items 13b and 13c, involving the allocations of Measures A and B funds, respectively, for FY 17/18.

147


148


David Chan, Programming Manager SUBJECT: Allocate FY 17/18 Measure A Transportation Sales Tax Funds to Marin Transit (Action),

Agenda Item No. 9b RECOMMENDATION Allocate $17,674,005 in Measure A Transportation Sales Tax (Measure A, hereinafter) funds to the Marin County Transit District (Marin Transit) from Strategy 1 of the Strategic Plan for FY 17/18. BACKGROUND Strategy 1 of the Measure A Expenditure Plan is to develop a seamless local bus transit system that improves mobility and serves community needs, including special transit for seniors and the disabled (paratransit services), as well as rural transit service. The Measure A Expenditure Plan provides a dedicated source of local funds for public transit which Marin Transit uses to plan and implement services for the County’s residents. Strategy 1 includes four sub-strategies, which are:

• 1.1 - Maintain and expand local bus transit service • 1.2 - Maintain and expand the rural bus transit system • 1.3 - Maintain and expand transit services and programs for those with special needs – seniors,

persons with disabilities, youth, and low-income residents • 1.4 - Invest in bus transit facilities for a clean and efficient transit system

TAM has annually allocated Measure A funds to Marin Transit according the available amounts shown in the Measure A Strategic Plan. Funds not requested or funds unused after each fiscal year are carried over as available the following fiscal year. FUNDS AVAILABLE The Measure A 2017 Strategic Plan Update shows nearly $22 million available for allocation to Marin Transit under Strategy 1 in FY 17/18. The breakdown is shown in the following table:

149


Strategy 1 – Local Bus Transit

Prior Year Carryover 1

FY17/18 Funds

Total Available

Requested Amount

Estimated Carryover

1.1 Maintain and Expand Local Bus Transit Service $5,362,168 $8,857,527 $14,219,695 $10,200,000 $4,019,695 1.2 Maintain & Expand Rural Bus Transit System $660,270 $718,178 $1,378,448 $1,200,000 $178,448 1.3 Maintain & Expand Transit Services for Those with Special Needs -$20,529 $2,154,534 $2,134,005 $2,134,005 $0 1.4 Invest in Bus Transit Facilities for a Clean and Efficient Transit System $2,474,300 $1,665,700 $4,140,000 $4,140,000 $0

Total for Marin Transit $8,452,318 $13,395,939 $21,872,148 $17,674,005 $4.198,143 Marin Transit is requesting $17,674,005 in Measure A funds to supplement its operations in FY 17/18. The remaining unrequested amount of $4,198,143 will be carried over as available next fiscal year. This remaining unrequested amount is subject to change, depending on the unused funds from FY 16/17 and the final revenue collection from FY 16/17. Both figures will be finalized by September 2017. Historically, both figures had generally increased because: 1) Marin Transit tended to leave some funds, even if nominal, unexpended and 2) annual revenue collections had been normally higher than our conservative estimates. Therefore, the current remaining unrequested amount of $4,198,143 could increase when Marin Transit requests for FY 18/19 funds in June 2018. SCOPE OF SERVICE Marin Transit is responsible for local transit service within Marin County, providing over 3.3 million unlinked passenger trips per year and just over 260,000 revenue hours of service. Marin Transit provides services through contract operators including the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District (GGBHTD), Marin Airporter, MV Transportation, and the Marin Senior Coordinating Council (Whistlestop Wheels). Measure A funds continue to be essential to Marin Transit and are 39% of Marin Transit’s operating budget and 21% of Marin Transit’s capital budget. Marin Transit added 19% more service in F2016/17. Marin Transit’s focus for FY 17/18 is maintaining existing local service and initiating new projects and service enhancements, as described below.

• Maintain expanded regular local and trunk line services (49% Measure A) • Maintain expanded shuttle service (49% Measure A) • Continuation of yellow bus program (21% Measure A) • Continuation of rural service expansion implemented in 2014 (77 % Measure A) • Purchase of two electric buses (20% Measure A) • Completion of Downtown Novato Transit Facility (11% Measure A) • Purchase a site for an operations and maintenance facility (20%)

In addition to federal, state, and other local funds, Marin Transit plans to use Measure A funds in FY 17/18 for the following tasks:

150


Strategy 1.1 – Major programs funded under this sub strategy include local fixed route (GGBHTD contract), Community Shuttle service, Supplemental School, Muir Woods seasonal shuttle, and Novato Dial-A-Ride. All services are operated under contract, and the direct contract service costs are 80% of budgeted expenses. Other major expenses are consultant services (ride checks, service contract audits, grant funded studies), directly purchased fuel costs, communication, marketing, and staff time for contract oversight. The requested $10,200,000 of Measure A funds will provide almost half of the needed revenues to operate the local fixed route service and is Marin Transit’s largest single source of funding. The local service budget for FY 17/18 is $21.2 million. Marin Transit will continue the operation a pilot yellow bus program in Ross Valley and begin to provide operations support for school district yellow bus services in Mill Valley and on the Tiburon peninsula in FY 2017/18. This non-traditional role for a transit agency is made possible by Measure A and other local funds and will allow Marin Transit to try a new approach to address school transportation and school related traffic congestion. Strategy 1.2 – Rural Bus Transit Service – Rural Service is operated as the West Marin Stagecoach and includes northern route 68, southern route 61, and Tomales-Dillon Beach Dial-A-Ride. The Stagecoach did not have a dedicated local source of funding until the passage of Measure A. The West Marin Stagecoach Routes 68 and 61 will be operated under contract with MV Transportation. The Tomales-Dillion Beach Dial-A-Ride will be operated under contract with Whistlestop Wheels. In addition to Measure A funding, rural service is supported by a combination of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5311 funding, and farebox revenue. The allocation request of $1.2 million will provide approximately 80% of rural operation costs. Strategy 1.3 – Transit Services and Programs for Those with Special Needs – Marin Transit has developed the Mobility Management program called Marin Access with funding from the Measures A and B Programs. Marin Access goes beyond the required operation of local paratransit to expand services for seniors and the disabled. Mobility management initiatives in the FY 17/18 budget include:

• Continued expansion of travel training, • Increased Travel Navigator presence in the community through satellite “office hours” at various

sites, • Establishing a Volunteer Driver Program resource center for community-based programs, procuring

two wheelchair-accessible vehicles to operate in service as same-day paratransit, • Implementing a centralized database for all Marin Access programs, • Piloting two innovative partnerships through the re-focused Gap Grants initiative (now known as

the Marin Access Innovation Incubator), • Formalizing a means tested low-income fare policy across all Marin Access programs, and • Revising the eligibility process, including requirements, for all programs.

Marin Transit also provides free tickets to Marin County’s Homeward Bound program for homeless residents traveling to work that are valued at $100,000 per year. Marin Transit is requesting all of the available funds in this sub strategy, $2,154,534. This will provide to provide 28% of the needed revenues to operate Marin Transit's Marin Access programs. Strategy 1.4 – Bus Transit Facilities for a Clean and Efficient Transit System – Marin Transit has developed a capital improvement program for FY 17/18 that supports the projects and services described in

151


the previous sub strategies. As required in the Measure A Expenditure Plan, Marin Transit has given high priority to opportunities to match or leverage Measure A funds to ensure the maximum benefit from transportation sales tax dollars. In the early years of the Measure, state bond funds were available to match federal funding for transit vehicles. This bond funding is no longer available and Marin Transit will be increasingly reliant on Measure A capital funds for the local share (20%) of transit vehicle procurements. The requested $4,140,000 in Sub Strategy 1.4 Measure A funds will provide 27% of Marin Transit’s capital budget for FY 17/18 plus a contingency. FISCAL IMPACTS The requested amounts were anticipated in the development of the FY 17/18 TAM Budget and have been incorporated in its adoption in May 2017. No further action is needed at this time. NEXT STEP If approved by the TAM Board, a funding agreement for the total approved amount will be issued to Marin Transit. ATTACHMENT Attachment A: FY 17/18 Marin Transit Allocation Request

152

ATTACHMENT A

Page 1 of 7


Transportation Authority of Marin Measure A – Transportation Sales Tax


Expenditure Plan: Strategy 1 – Local Bus Transit

Project Name: Support and Maintain Local Bus Service

Implementing Agency: Marin County Transit District (Marin Transit)

SCOPE OF WORK

The Marin County Transit District (Marin Transit) is responsible for local transit service within Marin County, and provides over 3.3 million unlinked passenger trips per year and over 260,000 revenue hours of service. Marin Transit delivers services through contract operators. These include: Golden Gate Bridge Highway & Transportation District (GGBHTD), Marin Airporter, MV Transportation, Marin Senior Coordinating Council (Whistlestop), and Michael’s Transportation. Marin Transit’s Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) is the primary service and financial planning document for the District, and includes ten years of financial projections for operations and capital programs. The District’s Board adopted the most recent SRTP on July 27, 2015 and the next SRTP is currently under development and is expected to be completed in late 2018.

Marin Transit added 19% more service in F2016/17. The focus of the next fiscal year, FY2017/18 is to sustain and monitor the expanded level of fixed route services. Additional information about current programs and services is included in the following sub strategy descriptions.

Marin Transit strives to leverage Measure A funds through grant funding and partnerships. Numbers in parenthesis show the proportion of funding provided by Measure A for each of the services or projects:

Maintain expanded regular local and trunk line services (49% Measure A)

Maintain expanded shuttle service (49% Measure A)

Continuation of yellow bus program (21% Measure A)

Continuation of rural service expansion implemented in 2014 (77 % Measure A)

Purchase of two electric buses (20% Measure A)

Completion of Downtown Novato Transit Facility (11% Measure A)

Purchase a site for an operations and maintenance facility (20%)

Item 9b - Attachment A

153

of 7

Sub Strategy 1.1 – Maintain and Expand Local Bus Transit Service

Major programs funded under this sub strategy include local fixed route (GGBHTD contract), community shuttle service, supplemental school service, Muir Woods seasonal shuttle, and Novato Dial‐A‐Ride. All services are operated under contract, and the direct contract service costs are 80% of budgeted expenses. Other major expenses are: consultant services (ride checks, service contract audits, grant funded studies), directly purchased fuel, communication, marketing, and staff time for contract oversight. The requested $10,200,000 of Measure A funds will provide almost half of the needed revenues to operate the local fixed route service and is Marin Transit’s largest single source of funding.

The local service budget (including yellow school bus service) for FY 2017/18 is $21.2 million. This is a one and one half percent (1.5%) increase from the prior year budget, and provides for the same level of fixed route service. The District expanded local fixed route service by 19% (Figure 6) on June 12, 2016, with a budgeted cost increase of 13%.

Marin Transit will continue to manage operations, service contracts, and pass sales for six yellow buses serving Ross Valley schools. Marin Transit will also continue to provide operations oversight for the Reed Union and Mill Valley School Districts, which pay Marin Transit directly for services and staff time to help manage their yellow bus services. This non‐traditional role for a transit agency is made possible by Measure A and other local funds, and allows Marin Transit to try a new approach to address school transportation and school related traffic congestion.

Local Revenue Service Hours by Program

Highlights for this sub strategy in the coming year:

Continued funding for 22% expansion of regular local and trunk line services

Continued funding for 8% increase in shuttle service

Monitoring and adjusting new service

Deployment of two new electric vehicles

Continuation of yellow bus program


154

of 7

Sub Strategy 1.2 – Maintain and Improve the Rural Bus Transit System Rural service is operated as the West Marin Stagecoach and includes northern route 68, southern route 61, and

Tomales‐Dillon Beach Dial‐A‐Ride. The Stagecoach did not have a dedicated local source of funding until the

passage of Measure A. The allocation request of $1.4 million will provide 81.3% of rural operation costs.

Ridership and productivity (passengers per revenue hour) have continued to grow on the rural service since the

passage of Measure A. Consequently, in June 2014 the Marin Transit Board of Directors adopted a significant rural

service expansion specifically designed to respond to service demand on the north route (Route 68), and test a

new rural connection in Tomales. The West Marin Stagecoach Routes 68 and 61 will continue to be operated

under contract with MV Transportation. The Dial‐A‐Ride program to Tomales will be operated under contract

with Whistlestop Transportation.

In addition to Measure A funding, rural service is supported by a combination of Federal Transit Administration

(FTA) Section 5311 funding, and farebox revenue. The District is drawing down prior year sub strategy 1.2 Measure

A funds held by the Transportation Authority of Marin to maintain the expanded service level. This will be the

fourth year of expanded service and corresponding increases in expenditures. At the existing expenditure rate the

District will be able to provide a minimum of two additional two years of service at the current level. Future

service level adjustments will be based on route performance and available funding.


Continue expanded rural service

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

FY 2011/12FY 2012/13FY 2013/14FY 2014/15FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17Estimated

Fy2017/18Budget

Rev

enue

Hou

rs

Pass

enge

rs

Passengers


155

of 7

Sub Strategy 1.3 – Maintain and Expand Transit Services and Programs for those with Special

Needs

Marin Transit has been very successful in meeting the goal of sub strategy 1.3, and has pioneered new programs to increase mobility for those with special needs under the Marin Access banner. Marin Access goes beyond the required operation of local paratransit to expand services for seniors and the disabled. In addition to providing traditional paratransit services, with the help of Measure A and Measure B, Marin Transit provides travel training, subsidizes taxi services, and volunteer drivers programs. Mobility management initiatives in the FY 2017/18 budget include:

Continued expansion of travel training,

Increased Travel Navigator presence in the community through satellite “office hours” at various sites,

Establishing a Volunteer Driver Program resource center for community‐based programs, procuring two wheelchair‐accessible vehicles to operate in service as same‐day paratransit,

Implementing a centralized database for all Marin Access programs,

Piloting two innovative partnerships through the re‐focused Gap Grants initiative (now known as the Marin Access Innovation Incubator),

Formalizing a means tested low‐income fare policy across all Marin Access programs, and

Revising the eligibility process, including requirements, for all programs. Marin Transit also provides free tickets to Marin County’s Homeward Bound program for homeless residents traveling to work that are valued at $100,000 per year. Marin Transit is requesting all of the available funds in this sub strategy, $2,154,534. This will provide to provide 28% of the needed revenues to operate Marin Transit's Marin Access programs:

Local Paratransit Service 62,455 revenue hours Regional Paratransit Service 10,560 revenue hours* Same Day Paratransit/Catch A Ride 28,000 trips Volunteer Driver 1 4,000 trips

Services for seniors and persons with disabilities are planned with the support of the existing consumer‐based Paratransit Coordinating Council, which advises the Transit District on the needs of these communities, and public input from all areas of the county. To advise Marin Access and to promote multi‐agency coordination of transportation resources, Marin Transit developed the Marin Mobility Consortium, a working partnership consisting of agency representatives and advocates. In FY15/16 Marin Transit undertook a comprehensive evaluation of all of its mobility management programs. Findings and recommendations from this study informed a subsequent action plan that guides current planning work and future program investments.

* Contract managed on behalf of GGBHTD, and all direct costs are funded by GGBHTD


156

of 7


Increase in funding for same day paratransit trips

Expected deployment of two accessible vans

Sub Strategy 1.4 – Invest in Bus Transit Facilities for a Clean and Efficient Transit System Marin Transit has developed a capital improvement program for FY2017/18 that supports the projects and services described in the previous sub strategies. As required in the Measure A Expenditure Plan, Marin Transit has given high priority to opportunities to match or leverage Measure A funds to ensure the maximum benefit from transportation sales tax dollars. In the early years of the Measure, state bond funds were available to match federal funding for transit vehicles. This bond funding is no longer available and Marin Transit will be increasingly reliant on Measure A capital funds for the local share (20%) of transit vehicle procurements.

Marin Transit continues to be successful in leveraging Measure A funds for discretionary grants and has received $4.4 million in federal funding towards the purchase of an operations and maintenance facility and is procuring two electric transit buses for a pilot program. Marin Transit is requesting $4,140,000 in Sub Strategy 1.4 Measure A funds. Including the expenditure of $1,120,000 of previously allocated Measure A funds, Measure A will fund 27% of Marin Transit’s capital budget for FY 2017/18 plus a contingency. Marin Transit’s overall FY2017/18 capital program totals $19.8 million dollars. The major programs for the year the purchase of 10 40ft hybrid vehicles, completion of the Downtown Novato Transit Facility, purchase of two‐electric transit buses and the purchase of an operations and maintenance facility.

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

FY 2010/11 FY 2012/13 FY 2014/15 FY 2016/17Estimated Actual

Pass

enge

rs p

er Y

ear

Catch A Ride

Volunteer Driver

Regional Paratransit

Local Paratransit


157

of 7

Project FY2017/18 Budget Total Project Cost Percent of Project

funded with Measure A

Purchase Two Electric Vehicles 1,622,022 1,662,022 20%

Purchase Ten 40ft Vehicles 7,695,047 7,710,000 18%

Purchase Three Paratransit Vehicles 267,000 267,000 18%

Purchase Two Accessible Vans 102,780 102,780 18%

Non Revenue Van 40,750 40,750 20%

Subtotal Vehicles 9,727,599 9,782,552 18%

Bus Stop Improvements SGR (BI) 600,000 2,025,045 1%

Bus Stop Assessment Update 80,000 100,000 100%

Downtown Novato Hub (NH) 1,637,663 4,700,000 11%1

Muir Woods Infrastructure 512,729 638,000 0%

San Rafael Transit Center 100,000 100,000 100%

Subtotal Bus Stop Improvements 2,930,392 7,563,045 10%

Facility Preliminary Design & Env 102,881 174,418 30%

Facility ROW Purchase & Capital 5,500,000 5,500,000 20%

Subtotal Facility 5,602,881 5,674,418 20%

On Board Equipment ‐ 2016 164,956 210,000 18%

On Board Equipment ‐ 2015 105,861 434,898 26%

Mobility Management Technology 356,500 375,000 20%

MERA 29,000 29,000 100%

Radio Communication Upgrade 75,000 348,000 18%

Subtotal Technology Projects 731,317 1,396,898 22%

Golden Gate Capital Costs (GG) 20,000

100%

Bus Stop Maintenance (BM) 100,000 100%

Major Vehicle Repairs (VR) 300,000 100%

Infrastructure Support (IF) 385,000 100%

Subtotal Ongoing Capital Expenses 805,000 ‐ 100%

Total Expenditures 19,797,189 24,416,913 21%

Notes: 1) Includes expenditure of previously allocated Measure A funds.


158

of 7

STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE

Programmed and Requested Amounts

Strategy 1 – Local Bus Transit

Prior Year Carry Forward1

Available FY17/18 Funds

Total Available for FY 17/18 Programming

FY 17/18 Requested Amount

1.1 Maintain and Expand Local Bus Transit Service

$5,362,168 $8,857,527 $14,219,695 $10,200,000

1.2 Maintain & Expand Rural Bus Transit System

$660,270 $718,178 $1,378,448 $1,200,000

1.3 Maintain & Expand Transit Services for Those with Special Needs

($20,529) $2,154,534 $2,134,005 $2,154,5343

1.4 Invest in Bus Transit Facilities for a Clean and Efficient Transit System

$2,474,300 $1,436,356 $4,140,000 $4,140,000

Release of Unspent 1.4 FY17 funds

$229,344

Total $8,452,318 $13,395,939 $21,872,148 $17,674,005

Notes:

1)Does not include carry forwards from FY2017 actual expenditures

2) Amount may need to be adjusted to deduct revenues that were below prior year allocation

3) Or maximum amount available

Cash flow Availability 100% of Measure A funds available in FY 2017/18

Other Funds Marin Transit will leverage Measure A funds with other funds, including:

Transportation Development Act Funds (TDA)

State Transit Assistance (STA)

Fares

Property Taxes (used primarily for paratransit)

Federal Transit Administration Section 5311 Rural Transit Funds(used for West Marin Stagecoach Service)

Federal Transit Administration 5307 Bus and Bus Facilities Funds

Project Delivery Schedule July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018

Environmental Clearance Not Applicable


159


160


David Chan, Programming Manager SUBJECT: Allocate FY 17/18 Vehicle Registration Fee (Measure B) Funds to Marin Transit (Action),

Agenda Item No. 9c RECOMMENDATION Allocate $1,045,000 in Vehicle Registration Fee (Measure B) funds to Marin Transit for Element 2 of the Measure B Strategic Plan for FY 17/18. BACKGROUND In November 2010, Marin residents voted to pass the Measure B Vehicle Registration Fee to increase their annual vehicle registration fee by $10 to help fund transportation improvements. The Measure B Strategic Plan, adopted in July 2011, was developed to explain how the funds will be distributed to each of the three elements, as well as the oversight process. The Revenue and Programming Element of the Measure B Strategic Plan is updated annually and reflected in TAM’s annual budget. MEASURE B STRATEGIC PLAN According to the Measure B Strategic Plan, third-five percent (35%) of the funds will be distributed to Marin Transit, under Element 2, for use on Mobility Management programs and enhancements to the specialized transportation system for people with disabilities including older adults regardless of disability status. Funds from Element 2 could be used to implement a Mobility Management Program that implements mobility options for seniors and persons with disabilities, support and enhance paratransit (e.g. Whistlestop Wheels), create a “Paratransit Plus” program to serve older seniors who may not qualify for service under the Americans With Disabilities Act, and implement other innovative programs to provide mobility to seniors as an alternative to driving. Projects and programs may include: 1. “Paratransit Plus” Subsidized Program for Older Seniors – provides mobility options for seniors 80

years and older who may no longer drive safely and be safe drivers, have difficulty accessing transit, and may not qualify for ADA paratransit.

2. Volunteer Driver Programs Support – provides ongoing funding of volunteer driver programs for frail

home-bound seniors.

161


3. Low Income Rider Scholarships – funds rides for low-income seniors and persons with disabilities through the Marin Access Mobility Management Center’s Ride Credit Bank and to help attract donated funds for this purpose.

4. “Gap-Grant” Program – provides a small source of competitive funding for local agencies to expand or

implement new transportation services that meet the requirements of Measure B. 5. Mobility Management Staffing – limited to $100,000 annually, provides sufficient program staff to

design, implement, and manage Marin Transit’s mobility management efforts including:

• Oversight of the Marin Access Mobility Management Center; • Leadership and support of the Marin Mobility Consortium and its various subcommittees; • Operation of the agency’s travel training programs; • Implementing and monitoring Mobility initiatives including:

o Technical assistance in the areas of transportation operations, and coordination of transportation of resources to Marin’s community transportation providers;

o On-going outreach on transportation resources and issues to Marin residents and stakeholder agencies; and

o Represent Marin Transit and Marin Access at various meetings. FUNDS AVAILABLE In FY 17/18, the Revenue and Programming document shows $1,690,578 available to Element 2, which is comprised of $790,185 in new revenue and $900,393 in carryover funds from previous years. The entire amount is available for allocation upon request. Any funds not requested are available for a supplemental allocation during the fiscal year or allowed to roll over and request a greater allocation next year. ALLOCATION REQUEST Marin Transit submitted a FY 17/18 allocation request (Attachment A) for $1,045,000 in Measure B funds to implement projects and programs under Element 2 of the Measure B Strategic Plan. Marin Transit is proposing the following scope of work:

• Manage the Mobility Management Program that identifies and implements mobility options for Senior and Persons with Disabilities - Marin Transit will provide sufficient program staff to design, implement, and manage Marin Transit’s mobility management efforts.

• Support and Enhance paratransit (e.g. Marin Access Paratransit, operated by Whistlestop) and other

local services focused on this population – Marin Transit will continue funding for the Low Income Rider Scholarships that fund paratransit rides for low-income seniors and persons with disabilities through the Marin Access Mobility Management Center.

• Manage a “Paratransit Plus” program to serve older seniors who may not qualify for service under

that Americans with Disabilities Act - Marin Transit will continue the Marin Catch-A-Ride program for individuals 80 years and older to provide a new mobility option for those who may no longer be safe drivers, have difficulty accessing transit, and may not qualify for ADA paratransit. This program is also made available to younger seniors who no longer drive. This program will

162


utilize taxi companies and other licensed providers to give partially subsidized rides that are coordinated through a taxi broker.

• Implement other innovative programs to provide mobility to seniors as an alternative to driving -

Marin Transit will use funding to continue the volunteer driver programs (STAR in East Marin and TRIP in West Marin) for frail home-bound seniors by providing mileage reimbursement to riders to give back to their drivers. Marin Transit has reworked the “Gap-Grant” Program as the “Marin Access Innovation Incubator” to achieve an emphasis on program sustainability and avoid duplicating service already offered.

The below table includes a summary of the FY 17/18 program activities and amounts of requested, available, and carryover funds.

Element 2 Requested

Mobility Management Program $140,000

Paratransit Support and Enhancement $185,000

Paratransit Plus $500,000

Alternative to Driving Program $220,000

Total Requested $1,045,000

Total Available $1,690,578

Carryover $645,578 FISCAL IMPACTS The requested amount was anticipated in the development of the FY 17/18 TAM Budget and has been incorporated in its adoption in May 2017. No further action is needed at this time. NEXT STEP If approved by the TAM Board, a funding agreement for the approved amount will be issued to Marin Transit. ATTACHMENT Attachment A: FY17/18 Marin Transit Allocation Request

163


164

Attachment A

Page 1 of 3

Transportation Authority of Marin Measure B – Vehicle Registration Fee



Expenditure Plan: Element 2

Project Name: Improve Transit for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities

Implementing Agency: Marin Transit

Scope of Work: Marin Transit will use FY 2017/18 Element 2, Measure B funds to continue successful Mobility Management Programs (Marin Access) for seniors and persons with disabilities (Figure 1). Building on Marin Transit’s prior mobility management efforts, the Measure B funding will be utilized to plan, market and operate specialized transportation services for Marin’s senior and disabled residents.

Figure 1: Mobility Provided through Marin Access Programs (trips per year)

After years of 6-8% growth, in FY 2015/16 Marin Transit’s Measure B funded programs saw declines in usage. Marin Transit completed a Senior Mobility Study to review programs and develop a new action plan. Some ridership declines were found to be due to some reoccurring subscription trips being shifted to other providers outside of Marin Transit that are better suited to the service rather than a loss of mobility in the County.

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16Estimated

Actual

Pass

enge

rs p

er Y

ear

Catch A Ride

Volunteer Driver

Regional Paratransit

Local Paratransit


165

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

of 3

Program Components: Implementing a Mobility Management Program that identifies and implements mobility options for Senior and Persons with Disabilities Estimated Measure B Expenditure: $140,000

Marin Transit will provide sufficient program staff to design, implement, and manage Marin Transit’s mobility management efforts including:

Oversight of the Marin Access Mobility Management Center; Leadership and support of the Marin Mobility Consortium and its various subcommittees; Operation of the agency’s travel training programs; Implementing and monitoring Mobility initiatives including those listed below; Technical assistance in the areas of specialized transportation operations, and

coordination of transportation of resources to Marin’s community transportation providers; Travel training to introduce riders to fixed-route transit and provide them with the

confidence and knowledge to ride on their own; On-going outreach on transportation resources and issues to Marin residents and

stakeholder agencies; and Represent Marin Transit and Marin Access at various meetings.

Support and Enhance paratransit (e.g. Marin Access Paratransit, operated by Whistlestop) and other local services focused on this population Estimated Measure B Expenditure: $185,000

With this funding, Marin Transit will continue to provide “Low-Income Rider Scholarships” that provide free paratransit fares for low-income seniors and persons with disabilities through the Marin Access Mobility Management Center. This program will potentially fund up to 30,000 paratransit rides annually. Measure B will partially fund Marin Access Travel Navigators who provide a one-call, one-stop service for information and eligibility for all of the Marin Access programs. Measure B funds will continue to support the operations of mandated and non-mandated local paratransit service.

Create a “Paratransit Plus” program to serve older seniors who may not qualify for service under that Americans with Disabilities Act Estimated Measure B Expenditure: $500,000

Measure B funds will continue to support and expand access to accessible transportation that can take same day reservations. Marin Transit has been using the Catch-A-Ride program to provide these services to individuals 80 years and older, individuals 60-79 who no longer drive, and individuals that are eligible for ADA paratransit. This program utilizes taxi companies and other licensed providers to give partially subsidized rides that are coordinated through a taxi broker. In response to difficulties maintaining a pool of taxi providers and accessible vehicles, Marin Transit is purchasing two accessible vans for same day service and will leverage Measure B funding as a local match for a Federal operations grant. The program is expected to provide 28,000 rides in FY2017/18.


166

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

david

Typewritten Text

of 3

Implement other innovative programs to provide mobility to seniors as an alternative to driving Estimated Measure B Expenditure: $220,000

Marin Transit continues to use Measure B funding for volunteer driver programs (STAR in East Marin and TRIP in West Marin) that provide mileage reimbursement to riders to give back to their driver. These programs are expected to provide 14,000 trips in FY2017/18. In FY2017/18, Marin Transit will dedicate a portion of Measure B funds to a Volunteer Driver Program Resource Center that will support and develop traditional community-based volunteer driver programs.

Marin Transit has reworked the “Gap-Grant” Program as the “Marin Access Innovation Incubator” to achieve an emphasis on program sustainability and avoid duplicating services already offered by the District. These funds will continue to provide a small source of competitive funding for local agencies to expand or implement new transportation services that meet the requirements of Measure B.

Expenditures are estimated by program components, but actual expense may shift based on the implementation schedule of each program. Total expenditures will not exceed the allocation amount. Strategic Plan Update Programmed for FY 17/18: $1,690,578 Requested Amounts: $1,045,000 Cash flow Availability: 100% of Measure B funds available for reimbursement in FY 2017/18. Other Funds: $0 Project Delivery Schedule: July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018 Environmental Clearance: Not Applicable


167


168

DATE: June 22, 2017 TO: Transportation Authority of Marin Board of Commissioners FROM: Dianne Steinhauser, Executive Director Derek McGill, Planning Manager Scott McDonald, Senior Transportation Planner SUBJECT: Commute Alternatives Program Update (Action), Agenda Item No. 10 RECOMMENDATION: Recommend the TAM Board receive update of the current fiscal year Commute Alternatives Program and adopt next year’s program of activities. The TAM Finance & Policy Executive Committee received this report on June 12th and unanimously approved the staff recommendation. BACKGROUND: TAM’s Commute Alternatives Program is a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for Marin County. TDM refers to a variety of strategies to manage travel demand on our roadways; either through the promotion of higher occupancy modes like transit and carpooling, or by shifting travel behaviors through promotion of telework and flexible commute times. TDM is an essential component of TAM’s strategy to manage traffic congestion, increase safety and mobility, promote high quality transportation options and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: In the mid-2000’s TAM formed a partnership with MTC’s regional 511 services to cost-effectively encourage transit, vanpooling, carpooling, bicycling and walking as alternatives to driving alone. The partnership was mainly carried out through MTC’s 511 team, with TAM providing funding (and seeking grants) to develop incentives for commuters to use alternative modes. MTC 511 staff provided:

• Outreach services, marketing TAM and 511.org programs and incentives • Vanpool Formation services, matched with TAM’s financial Incentive • Ridesharing Promotion and rideshare databases

In 2016, MTC staff announced that these services would no longer be provided, due to budget cuts and private sector innovation and apps entering the market. Up until this point, TAM’s Commute Alternatives program has been structured around this 511 program, offering additional incentives and programs to supplement the regional 511 program for Marin’s local needs. As of 2016, MTC is no longer actively promoting TAM’s incentives or other programs.

169

TAM Board Meeting, Item 10 Page 2 of 4 June 22, 2017

With the passage of the Measure B $10 Vehicle Registration Fee (VRF), TAM’s Commute Alternative Program received local funds to carry out a local program, following the previous strategy of supporting Regional 511 services. This local fund has been used to leverage grants, including ridesharing pilot programs like the Avego/Carma Pilot and supporting carshare expansion in Marin, like the recent support for 2 additional carshare locations in San Rafael. The Commute Alternative Program has developed a core program of:

• Marin Emergency Ride Home Program • Vanpool Incentive Program • Employer/Employee Outreach Services

In addition to these core program elements, TAM has worked on strategic opportunities supporting the Commute Alternatives program including:

• Go Time Marin Commuter Tool Kit • TAM/511 Marin Telework Initiative • Carma/Avego Pilot Program to test dynamic carpooling • Carshare Expansion in Marin • Bikeshare Feasibility Study and Grant Application • Carpool promotion and other strategic partnerships

FY2016/17 Recap and Major Activities With regional support eliminated in a number of key areas to support the Commute Alternatives Program, and SMART offering a new mobility option, TAM took a number of steps in 2016 and 2017, including:

• a comprehensive review of TDM programs providing by public agencies, • the development of a TDM ad-hoc committee, • expanded the ERH program to serve SMART riders, • implementation of a carshare pod in Downtown San Rafael to support SMART, • formed a staff working group for TDM consisting of San Rafael and County of Marin staff, • Met with a number of technology providers including Scoop, Maven and other app-based

technologies, • Develop a bikeshare Grant application with SCTA, • and development of a Lyft Pilot Program to test demand at SMART stations.

In addition to these major activities, TAM has been reviewing the effectiveness and efficiency of our TDM programs with the staff working group for TDM, including the emergency ride home and vanpool incentive programs, to explore ways to consolidate portions of these contracts and create an effective outreach program for the general public and for employers/employees. TAM’s TDM Program Highlights for Fiscal Year 2017-2018 With MTC’s 511 program no longer providing direct outreach support, TAM is proposing to re-organize the Commute Alternatives Program to address changing program needs, while maintaining the core elements including the Emergency Ride Home Program, Vanpool Incentives, and outreach support services. Consolidated Program Development & Outreach Services TAM proposes to modify outreach support service to take an active role in promotion of the Commute Alternatives program elements. TAM staff will work with contractors to develop a “branded” program for consistent messaging, e.g. “MarinCommute” or “Green Commute” Program, to promote commute

170


alternatives to the public and to employers and employees in Marin. This program will market existing programs like the vanpool incentive and emergency ride home program, along with alternative fuel promotions and local transit options. TAM will develop marketing tools, including a website or website pages to support this program, and will develop public facing campaigns on social media and through electronic channels to support this new program. These campaigns may take the format of newsletters or encouragement programs. TAM will also develop regular scheduled outreach efforts on a periodic and or seasonal basis, including efforts similar to ride to work week, or commuter of the month programs. The use of incentive programs will be considered to encourage and excite commuters, and previously developed tools like our telework initiative and TDM toolkit will be updated to assist in promotional activities. For employers, TAM will work with contractors to determine the best outreach strategy with local employers, including the development of quarterly employer meetings, or using existing groups to facilitate discussions. This consolidated campaign will focus on marketing the range of programs that exist within the county, including the multiple options to access SMART, and emerging technologies to promote carpooling, carsharing and ride share services that operate in the county. Emergency Ride Home (ERH) Program The Marin Emergency Ride Home Program, branded online as “MarinERH.org” currently, is a program TAM launched in 2012 to offer guaranteed taxi rides home to commuters who use alternatives to driving alone to get to work but might need to get home quickly in the event of an emergency. The main goal of the program is to relieve anxiety over perceived (or real) needs to have a car available at work if unforeseen circumstances require employees to leave work immediately or occasionally work later than expected. TAM staff plans to determine the best method of contracting for this program, and is considering consolidating website components of this program into TAM’s website update, and merging outreach components into the larger outreach effort update to increase public awareness of the program. TAM staff is also considering streamlining the approval process for employers, including removing pre-approval requirements. Vanpool Incentive Program TAM currently offers a $3600 Vanpool Incentive, and currently has 30 registered vanpools operating to or from Marin with an additional 13 vans which pickup at least 3 passengers in Marin but without a Marin origin or destination in Marin. TAM staff is not recommending any structural changes to this incentive program starting in fiscal year 2017-2018, however as referred to above, ongoing promotion of the incentive is no longer provided by 511 (which previously included multiple successful events at San Quentin and other with employers to form vanpools) so staff plans to include outreach and marketing of this effort in the larger outreach update effort. Strategic Programs

171


TAM is currently in process of a number of strategic efforts for the Commute Alternatives Program, including carshare expansion in Marin, and more sites are anticipated to be launched within the next fiscal year. TAM is also currently developing a bikeshare program application in which funding will be determined by MTC later this year. TAM staff is also working on the Lyft Pilot Program and will continue to report on that effort during this fiscal year. Depending on contractor discussions, a number of new smaller incentive and marketing efforts will be developed and promoted for this year. FISCAL CONSIDERATION: No fiscal impact at this time. This implementation is consistent with the budget adopted by the TAM Board on June 1, 2017. Staff will come back to the TAM Board if successfully awarded grants to expand program elements such as TAM’s Bike Share Grant Application to discuss potential matching funds at that time. Attachments: N/A

172

transportation authority of marin board of …€¦ · marin transit’s annual presentation...

Documents