TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY OF MARIN THURSDAY, …marin.granicus.com › DocumentViewer.php?file=marin_1cc8c... · 2011-12-01 · TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY OF MARIN THURSDAY, DECEMBER

TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY OF MARIN THURSDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2011

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. TAM is located at 750 Lindaro Street, Suite 200, 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 e-mail at: [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.

750 Lindaro Street Suite 200 San Rafael California 94901 Phone: 415/226-0815 Fax: 415/226-0816 www.tam.ca.gov Belvedere Sandra Donnell Corte Madera Diane Furst Fairfax Larry Bragman Larkspur Joan Lundstrom Mill Valley Stephanie Moulton-Peters Novato Carole Dillon-Knutson Ross R. Scot Hunter San Anselmo Ford Greene San Rafael Al Boro Sausalito Mike Kelly Tiburon Alice Fredericks County of Marin Susan L. Adams Katie Rice Kathrin Sears Steve Kinsey Judy Arnold

”REVISED” AGENDA 1. Chair’s Report (Discussion) a. Appointments to the Executive Committee

b. Appointments of New TAM Chair and Vice Chair (Action)

2. Commissioner Matters not on the Agenda (Discussion)

3. Executive Director’s Report (Discussion)

4. Commissioner Reports (Discussion) a. Executive Committee – Commissioner Fredericks b. SMART – Commissioner Boro

5. CONSENT CALENDAR (Action) – Attachments a. Approve TAM Minutes of October 27, 2011 b. Review and Acceptance of the Measure A Compliance Audit Results and Recommendations c. Contract Approval for Federal Legislative Support Services d. Highway 101 Greenbrae/Twin Cities Corridor Improvements: Approve Contract Time Extension e. Advance Allocate Sales Tax and Vehicle Registration Fee Funds to the City of Larkspur f. Appointment to the Citizens’ Oversight Committee g. Central Marin Ferry Connection Project: Approve Cooperative Funding Agreement between TAM and the County of Marin h. Exercise First One-Year Option on Contract with Shaw/Yoder/Antwih to Provide State Legislative Services

PLEASE JOIN TAM OUTSIDE THE BOARD CHAMBERS FOR

A RECEPTION CELEBRATING THE SERVICE OF OUTGOING COMMISSIONERS

CAROLE DILLON-KNUTSON AND JOAN LUNDSTROM

TIME: 6:15 PM

TAM Board Agenda December 1, 2011 Page 2

i. Exercise Option on Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Software Contract j. Proposed By-Law Changes for the Technical Advisory Committee 6. Caltrans Report (Discussion) - Attachment 7. Compensation Study Results a. Adopt the revised salary ranges for TAM classifications (Action) - Attachment b. Adopt New Salary Range for Administrative Services Associate (Action) - Attachment c. Adopt Revised Classification and Compensation for Associate Transportation Planner (Action) – Attachment 8. Award of Contract for the Program/Project Management & Oversight Services (Action) – Attachment

9. TAM Crossing Guard Program - New Location/Changed Conditions Policy (Action) – Attachment 10. Regional Transportation Plan: Staff Recommendation for Candidates to be Included (Action) – Attachment 11. Safe Routes to School Update (Discussion) – Parisi Associates - Attachment 12. Open time for items not on the agenda

TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY OF MARIN THURSDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2011

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. TAM is located at 750 Lindaro Street, Suite 200, 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 e-mail at: [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.

750 Lindaro Street Suite 200 San Rafael California 94901 Phone: 415/226-0815 Fax: 415/226-0816 www.tam.ca.gov Belvedere Sandra Donnell Corte Madera Diane Furst Fairfax Larry Bragman Larkspur Joan Lundstrom Mill Valley Stephanie Moulton-Peters Novato Carole Dillon-Knutson Ross R. Scot Hunter San Anselmo Ford Greene San Rafael Al Boro Sausalito Mike Kelly Tiburon Alice Fredericks County of Marin Susan L. Adams Katie Rice Kathrin Sears Steve Kinsey Judy Arnold

AGENDA 1. Chair’s Report (Discussion) a. Appointments to the Executive Committee

2. Commissioner Matters not on the Agenda (Discussion)

3. Executive Director’s Report (Discussion)

4. Commissioner Reports (Discussion) a. Executive Committee – Commissioner Fredericks b. SMART – Commissioner Boro

5. CONSENT CALENDAR (Action) – Attachments a. Approve TAM Minutes of October 27, 2011 b. Review and Acceptance of the Measure A Compliance Audit Results and Recommendations c. Contract Approval for Federal Legislative Support Services d. Highway 101 Greenbrae/Twin Cities Corridor Improvements: Approve Contract Time Extension e. Advance Allocate Sales Tax and Vehicle Registration Fee Funds to the City of Larkspur f. Appointment to the Citizens’ Oversight Committee g. Central Marin Ferry Connection Project: Approve Cooperative Funding Agreement between TAM and the County of Marin h. Exercise First One-Year Option on Contract with Shaw/Yoder/Antwih to Provide State Legislative Services i. Exercise Option on Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Software Contract j. Proposed By-Law Changes for the Technical Advisory Committee

PLEASE JOIN TAM OUTSIDE THE BOARD CHAMBERS FOR

A RECEPTION CELEBRATING THE SERVICE OF OUTGOING COMMISSIONERS

CAROLE DILLON-KNUTSON AND JOAN LUNDSTROM

TIME: 6:15 PM

TAM Board Agenda December 1, 2011 Page 2

6. Caltrans Report (Discussion) - Attachment 7. Compensation Study Results a. Adopt the revised salary ranges for TAM classifications (Action) - Attachment b. Adopt New Salary Range for Administrative Services Associate (Action) - Attachment c. Adopt Revised Classification and Compensation for Associate Transportation Planner (Action) – Attachment 8. Award of Contract for the Program/Project Management & Oversight Services (Action) – Attachment

9. TAM Crossing Guard Program - New Location/Changed Conditions Policy (Action) – Attachment 10. Regional Transportation Plan: Staff Recommendation for Candidates to be Included (Action) – Attachment 11. Safe Routes to School Update (Discussion) – Parisi Associates - Attachment 12. Open time for items not on the agenda

MEETING OF THE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY OF MARIN

TAM

OCTOBER 27, 2011 7:00 PM

ROOM 330

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

Page 1 of 12

MEETING MINUTES

Members Present: Steve Kinsey, Chair, Marin County Board of Supervisors Al Boro, Vice Chair, San Rafael City Council

Alice Fredericks, Tiburon Town Council Carole Dillon-Knutson, Novato City Council Diane Furst, Corte Madera Town Council

Ford Greene, San Anselmo Town Council Judy Arnold, Marin County Board of Supervisors Larry Bragman, Fairfax Town Council

Larry Chu, Larkspur City Council (Alternate) Mike Kelly, Sausalito City Council Sandra Donnell, Belvedere City Council

Scot Hunter, Ross Town Council Stephanie Moulton-Peters, Mill Valley City Council

Members Absent: Hal Brown, Marin County Board of Supervisors

Kathrin Sears, Marin County Board of Supervisors Susan Adams, Marin County Board of Supervisors Staff Members Present Dianne Steinhauser, Executive Director Bill Whitney, Project Delivery Manager David Chan, Manager of Programming and Legislation Dan Cherrier, Project Delivery Manager Denise Merleno, Recording Secretary

Jit Pandher, Project Delivery Manager Li Zhang, TAM Manager of Finance and Administration Suzanne Loosen, Senior Transportation Planner Scott McDonald, Transportation Planning Intern

Chair Kinsey called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. 1. Chair’s Report (Discussion) Chair Kinsey stated that this meeting was not being videotaped or webcast. The Chair began his report noting that as a committee member of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Transit Sustainability Project, results of this efficiency study are expected to be completed in March 2012. The study is a region-wide effort to better understand the forces at work related to transit budgeting for major transit agencies region-wide, and to determine what is necessary to make transit operations more efficient and cost-effective going forward.

TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY OF MARIN TAM October 27, 2011

Page 2 of 12

Regarding the One Bay Area Plan, which is part of the larger 2013 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Community Strategy effort, he provided an update to the schedule as to when decisions needed to be made and actions taken at the MTC commission level. The preliminary recommendations will more than likely come to MTC in February 2012 with final actions being taken in March or April 2012. He added that staff will be presenting this topic for discussion later in the evening. He finalized his report by noting that a number of TAM commissioners will be stepping down from their seat next month and he has asked staff to plan a reception for them prior to the December 1 meeting. 2. Commissioner Matters not on the Agenda (Discussion) Commissioner Dillon-Knutson commented on the retirement party that the City of Novato held for her and noted that Executive Director Steinhauser was in attendance to present her with flowers and to thank her for serving on the TAM board. The Chair opened the item for public comment. Regarding the Transit Sustainability Project, David Schonbrunn stated that the problem with transit is that MTC provides a lot of money on politically driven capital projects that provide little benefit to transit. He believes that MTC has a history of supporting whatever local politicians gather together to support. He cited the Bart extension as one example and he observed that San Francisco officials are unwilling to acknowledge that a problem exists with the $1.5 billion Central Subway in spite of a report from the Grand Jury that suggests there is too little benefit for the cost. He believes that the region is in crisis because of this. Chair Kinsey stated that he would move Item 12 – Open time for items not on the agenda to occur after Item 3 – Executive Director’s Report in order to accommodate a request from Commissioner Arnold. 3. Executive Director's Report (Discussion) ED Steinhauser reported that her written report was included as part of the Supplemental Packet that was distributed and available to all prior to the start of the meeting. She made some administrative announcements including 1) the TAM Board meeting scheduled for November 17 was being rescheduled to December 1 at 7:00 p.m. at the Civic Center; 2) the TAM holiday luncheon party will occur on December 2 and she encouraged the commissioners to attend; 3) the 2012 calendar of TAM board meetings was attached to the Executive Director’s Report; 4) Senior Transportation Planner Natalie Fay has left TAM’s employ and staff wish her well; and 5) a reception will be held from 6:00-7:00 pm prior to the start of the December 1 board meeting to honor TAM commissioners who are stepping down from service to the agency. Item 12 was hence taken out of order. 12. Open time for items not on the agenda Dianne Schaumleffel, a resident of Novato, thanked the Commission for ensuring that a soundwall will be built between Hwy 101 and her Orange Avenue neighborhood in 2014 and requested that it be built sooner if at all possible. She added that her neighbors are upset over the noise caused by ongoing construction and they may find it more tolerable if they knew that part of that construction included the


Page 3 of 12

building of the soundwall as is occurring in other Novato neighborhoods. She also suggested that it would be more cost efficient to build it at the same time as the freeway is being built. Chair Kinsey thanked her for the input and said that her comments would be taken into consideration. Barry Taranto expressed disappointment that TAM’s two commissioners representing San Rafael were not present. Regarding SMART, he expressed thanks to the TAM Board for their support of the train. He commented on matters related to Marin Transit because he said that he is not able to attend their meetings which are held in the morning. He finalized his comments by stating that the bus drivers can be rude and abusive and that Marin Transit does not seem to be accountable for their operators’ behavior. He requested that Marin Transit and TAM investigate the possibility of separating the intra-county service from Golden Gate Transit and to look into investing in “NextBus” since transit phone lines dedicated to scheduling information have been reduced. Chair Kinsey noted that he represents a portion of San Rafael but that he will pass Mr. Taranto’s comments on to Commissioners Adams and Boro. The Chair added that he would pass on the speaker’s concerns to Marin Transit. 4. Commissioner Reports (Discussion)

a. Executive Committee Commissioner Fredericks reviewed information presented to the Executive Committee regarding the Congestion Management Program Update (Item 5c) and compliance requirements for receiving federal and state funds, such as the gas tax revenue. She noted that the Executive Committee recommends approval of the Update. Regarding Item 5f, Marin Community Foundation Grant Backfill, she discussed the past approval, subsequent suspension of the funding and the current recommendation to supply $175,000 from previously unprogrammed Measure A Safe Routes to Schools education funds. She noted the Executive Committee’s report for this action as well. Commissioner Fredericks also discussed the Committee’s recommendation for awarding the contract for the Emergency Ride Home (ERH) program to Transmetro Inc. (Item 5h), as well as recommending approval of Item 5l, the allocation of Measure B Funds to Marin Transit for Element 2 of the Strategic Plan. There was no public comment on the Executive Committee report. b. SMART

In the absence of Vice Chair Boro, Chair Kinsey asked other members of the Board who serve on SMART to report on any information they might have, beginning with Commissioner Arnold. Commissioner Arnold reported that bids had been received for the design build portion, and they are unlike bids for normal construction projects so the review process might take a little longer. However, she noted that the bids were favorable and lower than what was anticipated. She also indicated that the SMART Board had discussed and passed an ordinance to address the vague language in the Election Code related to a special district election, and there are


Page 4 of 12

ongoing discussions with the Secretary of State and the Repeal SMART group to find an equitable solution. Commissioner Dillon-Knutson said she had nothing to add, except to mention that it was a very complex meeting; and SMART has an attorney to assist in the process, who seems to be very competent. There was no public comment on the SMART report.

5. CONSENT CALENDAR (Action)

a. Approval of TAM minutes of July 28, 2011 b. Administrative Code Amendment c. Approve 2011 Congestion Management Program Update d. Award of Financial Advisory Services Contract e. Appointments to the TAM Citizens’ Oversight Committee and the Measure A Technical

Advisory Committee f. Marin Community Foundation Grant Backfill g. Amend Contract with Parisi Associates to Include the Green Ways to School Project h. Award of Contract for Emergency Ride Home Program Outreach Services i. Adopt Project Priorities for 2012 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Funds j. PB Americas Contract Extension k. First Amendment to the Funding Agreement with the City of Larkspur l. Allocation of Measure B Funds to Marin Transit for Element 2 of the Strategic Plan m. Amend the COC Bylaws to Include the Measure B Vehicle Registration Fee Related Duties n. Central Marin Ferry Connection Multi-Use Pathway – Initial Project Report Update o. Extend Employment Terms of Planning Staff p. Letter of Support for SMART TIGER III Application q. Nolte Contract Time Extension r. Approve Commendation for Farhad Mansourian for His Service to the Marin Congestion

Management Agency

Chair Kinsey mentioned that there are obviously a large number of items on the Consent Calendar, many of which have been reviewed by the Executive Committee at its latest meeting and summarized very well by Commissioner Fredericks. He further explained that the purpose of the Consent Calendar is to take items of a routine nature and process them as expeditiously as possible. He indicated he had hoped that the Congestion Management Program (CMP) Update - Item 5c - could be handled as a Consent item, but Executive Director Steinhauser informed him there were minor modifications that needed to be made so it will be pulled from the Consent Calendar. He also expressed appreciation to staff for keeping the costs for the CMP process under budget. Chair Kinsey also encouraged any of the Board who want to discuss any of the items separately to make that known. Commissioner Moulton-Peters moved to approve Consent Calendar Items 5a-b and d-r. Commissioner Dillon-Knutson seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.


Page 5 of 12

5c. Approve 2011 Congestion Management Program Update ED Steinhauser explained that the list of Capital Improvement projects had been incomplete, and a corrected list had been presented to the Board at the dais. Chair Kinsey confirmed with ED Steinhauser that the recommended action had not been changed. Commissioner Arnold asked how many had been left off the list, and ED Steinhauser said there was only one that had been missing. Commissioner Arnold moved to approve Consent Calendar Item 5c with the corrected list. Commissioner Dillon-Knutson seconded the motion, and it was unanimously approved. 6. Caltrans Report (Discussion) ED Steinhauser indicated there was no Caltrans representative present, but there was a written report in the Board members’ packets. She offered to answer any questions from the Board. 7. Legislative Update (Discussion) Joshua Shaw of TAM’s state advocacy team of Shaw/ Yoder/Antwih began the presentation with an overview of the 2011 Legislative Session, especially bills related to transportation funding, gas tax swap and other budget issues. He noted that the ending of the fiscal year was more positive than the beginning, as anticipated cuts were compensated for or avoided altogether. He also discussed new potential funding sources for public transportation, including regional Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO’s) potentially being authorized with voter-approved levies on vehicle fuel to raise funds for transportation improvements needed to reduce vehicular traffic congestion within the region, the possibility of a new state-assessed gas tax to fund road improvements throughout the state, and further development of high speed rail system(s) throughout the state. Gus Khouri continued with a brief review of Proposition 1B funding and the anticipated revenue, noting that while the Legislature is in recess is a good time for TAM to plan ahead for the next session. ED Steinhauser commented on the potential for a statewide Safe Routes to Schools program, which should help to ensure continued funding. Chair Kinsey noted that the region had a proposal before the California Transportation Commission (CTC) today regarding HOT Lanes and what the outcome was. Mr. Khouri said it was heard by the Commission and approved. It was noted that staff will return in the early part of 2012 with the legislative program for that year. 8. Review and Acceptance of the FY2010-11 TAM Financial and Single Audit Reports

(Action) Li Zhang, TAM Manager of Finance and Administration, introduced the item which requested that the TAM Board review and accept the FY2010-11 TAM Financial and Single Audit Reports. She noted that TAM had finished its end-of-year financial audits ahead of time and under budget, and had received


Page 6 of 12

another good rating. She introduced consultant Derek Rampone, from the firm of Moss, Levy & Hartzheim LLP, to present the reports, which have already been reviewed by the Executive Committee. Mr. Rampone reviewed the reports issued by his firm: the Independent Auditor’s Report summarizing the “Unqualified” rating (the highest rating possible), Management’s Discussion & Analysis, the Management Report and Auditor’s Communication Letter (including a report on recommendations from prior years), and the Single Audit Letter. He commended TAM’s staff for their excellent record-keeping and cooperation with the audit team. Commissioner Chu asked staff about TAM’s investments – approximately $34 million - in the County’s investment fund and how much liquidity is needed vs. investing a portion of that money for a better rate of return. Ms. Zhang explained that she has been discussing with the County if there are investments that have a better return that TAM could use. Commissioner Chu added that the current rates allow for an overnight liquidity option, but there would be a better return if there were some funds that don’t need that option. Ms. Zhang indicated staff is working with the County to see if there are better investments available. Chair Kinsey asked where in the report one could find information regarding any unrestricted assets. Mr. Rampone said there are no unrestricted assets, and page 116 lists the different categories. Chair Kinsey also asked if the financial records show that over the six-year period of Measure A revenue collections, the income is within the $20 million originally projected. Ms. Zhang said yes, although this year was closer to $19.5 million dollars – other years have been a little higher but within the projected range. Chair Kinsey also confirmed with staff that since the funds are assigned on a percentage basis, overages are allotted equitably. ED Steinhauser reported yes, that is true, and indicated staff would be willing to bring back a comparison of the specific revenues by year. Chair Kinsey commented that TAM’s budget was less affected by the difficult financial times in recent years because the original revenue projections were conservative. He thought it would be helpful for the Board to see the revenue comparisons by year. Commissioner Boro moved to accept the FY 2010 – 11 TAM Financial and Single Audit Reports. Commissioner Dillon-Knutson seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. Chair Kinsey thanked staff for their excellent work. 9. FY 2011-12 First Quarter Financial Report (Discussion) Li Zhang, TAM Manager of Finance and Administration, presented this discussion item, highlighting comparisons between the first quarter of this fiscal year and the same period of the last fiscal year in both revenue and expenditure categories. She cited a 7% increase in revenue over the same period last year. She also noted that expenditures were generally running lower than anticipated. She reported that staff are also reporting quarterly on revenue received from Measure B – the vehicle registration fee. Neither the Board nor the public had any comments or questions on the report.


Page 7 of 12

10. Multi-Fund Call for Projects (Action)

a. Consideration of Process for Funding SMART Multi-use Path Facilities ED Steinhauser presented this report which requested that the Board deny funding be programmed to SMART for this cycle of TAM bicycle/pedestrian funds for SMART’s path segments until the TAM Board further discusses this issue; invites SMART to a future TAM Executive Committee and/or TAM Board meeting to present its plans for proceeding on its multi-use path, including expending its $28 million in local sales tax multi-use path funds; and adopts policy clarification once the TAM Board fully understands SMART’s plan for its multi-use path scope, cost, and schedule in Marin. She began the presentation, reviewing the purpose and process, and she gave a summary of the 13 candidate bike/ped projects TAM received for just over $1 million in available fund. She reported on SMART staff’s request that TAM fund a portion of SMART’s Multi-Use Path facilities (MUP). She reminded the Board of their decision in June and July of this year that after assigning $8 million in TAM funds to SMART, that no more locally program discretionary funds would be committed to SMART until the initial operating segment (IOS) is operational. She reviewed different ways to handle SMART’s request for funds for bike/ped facilities, including the option of considering SMART bike/ped facilities that have independent utility, and are sponsored by the local jurisdiction that the facility lies in, identified by that jurisdiction as a priority segment. She concluded by reviewing the staff recommendation to deny the funding for SMART at this time, for this cycle, and invite SMART to a future Executive Committee meeting or TAM Board meeting to present plans for their $28 million in MUP funding. Commissioner Hunter asked if there are currently any separate utility projects that would be examples of what SMART is proposing. ED Steinhauser stated that the Public Works departments of the jurisdictions where the two SMART projects lie had indicated that they were good candidates, but they also acknowledged that there are other equally important candidates. She added that part of the new policy should include a requirement for the local jurisdiction to rank the SMART project when compared with other proposed projects. Commissioner Arnold asked whether denying the SMART requests tonight would mean that it will be a year before they can come back and make new requests. ED Steinhauser said yes, that is true. Commissioner Arnold commented on a memo from the SMART staff person who is working on the TIGER grant, which stated that if TAM denies the request tonight, that SMART will not be able to apply for TIGER again until 2017. Given the two-year lead time for applications, she expressed concern that it might not qualify for funding for the Larkspur extension until 2019. ED Steinhauser said that this limited funding for bikes is a separate issue, that there would be further discussion of the RTP funds Commissioner Arnold is speaking of with the next agenda item. Chair Kinsey clarified that with the allocation of $8 million to SMART, TAM had specified that until the initial operating segment of SMART was completed, TAM would not designate any further funds to them. With that allocation, however, TAM did not distinguish between rail funding and funding for the pathways, and SMART has not specified what the $8 million will be spent on. He said he agreed with ED Steinhauser that inviting SMART to come to a TAM Board meeting would be beneficial in making decisions about future funding requests. Commissioner Furst indicated her agreement with the staff recommendation. Chair Kinsey opened the item for public comment.


Page 8 of 12

Don Wilhelm expressed appreciation for the thoroughness of staff in evaluating potential funding candidates. He suggested that the Board add a third condition calling for a financial and performance audit of SMART. He was concerned that SMART seems to lack financial controls, and he was supportive of the staff recommendation, as it will encourage complete financial disclosure from SMART when they make requests in the future. Andy Peri, Marin County Bicycle Coalition, noted that the original amount needed, for SMART’s Multi Use Path system, was $42 million, but SMART deferred one-third of the project as part of the cost-saving measures to resolve the budget gap. He also supported the staff recommendation. Jason Nutt, Public Works Director for the City of Novato, noted that the segment of the SMART bike/ped pathway that goes through Novato will benefit the city and deserves consideration as an independent project. He agreed that having further meetings with SMART to discuss policy and financial projections was a good idea. Seeing no further speakers, Chair Kinsey closed public comment on the item. With no objection to the staff recommendation expressed by the TAM Board, ED Steinhauser indicated she would contact SMART regarding a presentation by them at a future TAM meeting.

b. Adopt Project Priorities for 2011 Multi Funds Call for Projects

David Chan, TAM Manager of Programming and Legislation, presented the staff report and requested that the Board adopt project priorities as recommended in the list presented with the staff report. He discussed revenue sources, project applications received, and the ranking process used to develop the funding priorities. Chair Kinsey opened public comment on the item. Rocky Birdsey, Marin Center of Independent Living, thanked TAM staff for the proposed TDA allocation to the County’s Multi-Use Pathway Major Maintenance Project, which will allow for needed repairs to existing pathways. Andy Peri, expressed appreciation for the work of TAM staff in evaluating the different projects acknowledging that there are more worthy projects than there are funds available. He commented on the importance of transportation enhancement projects, noting that they are being threatened at the federal level but represent 1.5% of all transportation dollars. He asked if the Board could direct staff to write a letter to Senator Barbara Boxer in support of preserving this important funding source. Seeing no further speakers, Chair Kinsey closed public comment on the item. Chair Kinsey expressed his support for the staff recommendation. He briefly commented on the Fairfax Spine Project and its connection to the Safe Routes program. He deferred to Commissioner Bragman for further explanation of the proposal. Commissioner Bragman commented on the amount of public input/support and expressed his appreciation to staff for their recommended allocation. He discussed the school students that will benefit from the project, and briefly described some of the innovative features. Commissioner Dillon-Knutson moved to approve adoption of the Project Priorities for the 2011 Multi Funds Call for Projects. Commissioner Bragman seconded the motion, and it was unanimously approved.


Page 9 of 12

Chair Kinsey suggested, and the Board approved by consensus, that a letter be sent to Senator Boxer in support of funding for transportation enhancement projects. He directed staff to prepare such letter. 11. Regional Transportation Plan Update and Discussion (Discussion) ED Steinhauser presented the staff report, giving background information and a brief introduction to the spreadsheet listing all the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) candidates. She also explained the purpose of the RTP and an explanation of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) committed funds and discretionary funds. She asked for Board recommendations on the type of projects they would support for each category, and she explained the spreadsheet in more detail, as well as a brief recommendation from staff as to which projects should be supported. Commissioner Bragman asked if there was a list on the website of bicycle/pedestrian projects. ED Steinhauser said there are applications for bike/ped enhancements projects, as well as bike/ped expansion projects; which could be added to the TAM website. She noted, however, that MTC is not interested in looking at specific projects at this time unless they are a very large project. The RTP entry will be for expansion or enhancement- specific projects can be decided annually as funds are actually distributed. Commissioner Bragman asked if a list provided at an earlier meeting that ranked projects according to their impacts, etc. and staff analysis. ED Steinhauser said she remembered a similar list evaluating greenhouse gas benefits by project type; she would be glad to provide it to the Board members if they desire. Commissioner Bragman said he thought a proposal for an east/west bikeway from Fairfax to San Rafael had been submitted; he was especially interested in that analysis. ED Steinhauser said she was fairly sure that was one of the projects included under bike/ped expansion. Commissioner Donnell asked for confirmation from staff that most of the projects on the list had already been evaluated for past RTP funding. ED Steinhauser said yes, which is an indication of the slow pace of funding. Commissioner Dillon-Knutson noted that the designation of “various” in the Sponsor column on the project list doesn't give an idea of the project specifics. She asked whether there would be more information provided in the future or if this is the final list that will be submitted to MTC. ED Steinhauser said there would be one or two more opportunities to discuss the list and make revisions. She also explained that there are a number of bike/ped projects, MTC asked they be lumped together under one application- the Various refers to the various sponsor submittals for those projects. Commissioner Dillon-Knutson also asked whether the bike/ped rehabilitation and maintenance projects are ineligible for most of the funds, as the spreadsheet seems to indicate. Mr. Chan said yes, the TDA Article 3 funding is really the only source that they can qualify for. Commissioner Dillon-Knutson asked whether staff would be bringing back an explanation of the CTC criteria. ED Steinhauser explained that a comparison of the projects with the CTC criteria was done in determining eligibility. She indicated that individual projects could be discussed further to explain the “ability to compete” ratings made by staff. Commissioner Dillon-Knutson asked about MTC criteria, and ED Steinhauser said MTC would be publishing that benefit costs and target performance results next week, and staff would bring that information to the Board at a later meeting. Commissioner Dillon-Knutson asked about input from the


Page 10 of 12

public works directors, and ED Steinhauser replied that staff has spoken in general terms but has not had any discussions about priority setting. This could be pursued further. Commissioner Arnold asked about the Marin Sonoma Narrows Stage 2 project’s eligibility for STIP-TE funding since it included bike/ped components, and ED Steinhauser explained that yes, bike/ped elements of specific larger projects could be funded with STIP-TE. Chair Kinsey asked for clarification on the “high” designation in the Ability to Compete column. ED Steinhauser explained it was an estimated rating based on California Transportation Commission (CTC) policies and their current allocation practices. Chair Kinsey noted that the money would come from TAM discretionary funds, but they have to be approved by the CTC before they can be spent. ED Steinhauser briefly discussed 1998 legislation, SB-45, which allowed the locals to prioritize state gas tax funds, and the intervening years of declining revenues and new revenues such as Proposition 1B bond funds, and she noted that several CMAs (congestion management agencies) have discussed the possibility of sponsoring clarifying legislation in order to correct the inequities of the system. Vice Chair Boro observed that usually TAM staff consults with the public works directors before bringing recommendations to the Board. He questioned why this process was different. ED Steinhauser responded that public works directors were contacted to determine their preferred projects. She reiterated that staff is consulting with each public works director individually; she expressed willingness to have a workshop if the Board desires but she questioned whether the time remaining, with an MTC deadline of early December, would allow for one. Vice Chair Boro asked why there wouldn't be time for a meeting of the public works directors when ED Steinhauser had said there will be one or two more Board meetings to discuss the list further. ED Steinhauser said they hope to submit the list to MTC by mid-December, which will allow for one more meeting with the Board. She expressed willingness, however, to have a December Board meeting if so desired. Vice Chair Boro asked the date of the next meeting, and ED Steinhauser said it would be December 1, because of the Thanksgiving holiday. Vice Chair Boro said he thought that should be enough time to allow for a meeting with the public works directors before the next Board meeting. ED Steinhauser said she would work to set up such a workshop. Commissioner Moulton-Peters asked whether the ranking in the Ability to Compete column would allow Microsoft Excel software to sort in order of best rank. ED Steinhauser clarified that the list is not a database – she would recommend assigning the more restricted funds first and evaluate the remaining projects afterward, which is why she would rather assign funds by category rather than individual project. Commissioner Kelly asked whether the bike/ped projects could be listed separately in future reports. He questioned whether projects in his jurisdiction were included; ED Steinhauser confirmed that bike/ped projects submitted by the City of Sausalito were included. Chair Kinsey agreed it would be helpful to have a list of projects that are included in each category under Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements, as well as separating the Marin County Local Transit Expansion into two listings – one for capital and one for operating costs. He also asked for clarification on the Local Air Quality and Climate Protection Strategies under Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements. Chair Kinsey asked what was the target amount that MTC had specified, and ED Steinhauser said MTC hadn’t given one For that specific category- rather MTC had presented an overall summary of STP/CMAQ funding.


Page 11 of 12

Commissioner Greene said it would be helpful to know the CTC’s policies since they are really the final decision-maker as to which projects get funded. ED Steinhauser said staff would get that out as soon as possible. Chair Kinsey acknowledged there is a balance between standing up for the projects that the local jurisdictions or the Board agree are priorities and making sure that submitted projects get approval by MTC and CTC. He also noted that the RTP is a 30-year plan, and Marin is one of the 9 Bay Area counties that has overspent its STIP allocations in order to complete its highway projects and will not actually be receiving any funding this year. Commissioner Greene agreed there is a balance between knowing what the limits are and knowing how to work around the limits to meet the needs of the region. Commissioner Furst agreed it would be helpful to have an analysis of the policies of the CTC and how the priorities are set. ED Steinhauser said she would supply that. Commissioner Furst asked about the benefit cost ratios that MTC will be sending out soon; she was concerned that TAM is not doing the same thing and she asked whether TAM has the power to appeal the decisions that MTC makes. ED Steinhauser said that MTC will only evaluate the larger projects, but TAM is allowed to give input to ensure that the results are accurate. Commissioner Furst asked how bike/ped projects would be evaluated. ED Steinhauser explained that MTC will do the benefit cost analysis for the large projects, but it will analyze the target performances of the aggregate projects such as bike/ped. She indicated that she would supply that information once MTC made it available. Chair Kinsey opened public comment on the item. David Schonbrunn expressed his opinion that the CTC is broken as their policies are outdated. He commented on the role that the TAM Board is being asked to take by staff, and he expressed concern that they weren't being given all the information or even asked to give input on how each project should be rated. He was concerned that the staff presentation was calculated to maintain the status quo. He urged the Board to take a leading role in setting the policy and then tell CTC and MTC what they want. He discussed a meeting he had with ED Steinhauser regarding how to present the information in a less confusing manner. He questioned whether TAM’s continued focus on highway projects is appropriate, given the challenges from climate change. He urged the Board to consider transit alternatives instead, and indicated his willingness to assist with the transition. Andy Peri, Marin County Bicycle Coalition, expressed appreciation for the bike/ped projects represented in the list, but he indicated his concern with the decision to leave SMART off the RTP list altogether because it will make SMART ineligible even for funds that TAM has no control over. He asked the Board to reconsider the solution, noting that having SMART on the RTP list will not violate TAM’s earlier decision to not program additional funds for SMART until the IOS is operable. John Reed, a member of the Fairfax Town Council, discussed issues with a state organization making decisions about local transit priorities, noting that obviously they will choose the bigger projects because they will have bigger impacts. He was appreciative of the aggregation of bike/ped projects, and he encouraged their support because of the importance of such projects to local transit - citing the cost-effectiveness and the environmental benefits. Seeing no further speakers, Chair Kinsey closed public comment on the item.


Page 12 of 12

ED Steinhauser noted that SMART is in the RTP for the initial operating system, and they could also be in the RTP for discretionary funds. She reiterated the earlier decision by TAM to exclude SMART from future allocations of TAM discretionary funds until the IOS is complete. She added that if new funding sources become available, MTC has said that an RTP amendment is feasible. Vice Chair Boro agreed with ED Steinhauser's statement; he thought it would be helpful to include that information in the transmittal to MTC. Chair Kinsey suggested that the transmittal include a statement acknowledging there are MTC funds that SMART could qualify for, separate from discretionary funds of each individual County. ED Steinhauser said that MTC management is willing to meet with Marin, Sonoma and SMART to see if there are other funds available to SMART. Commissioner Arnold questioned whether it was necessary for TAM to include SMART in its list in order to qualify for other MTC funds. Chair Kinsey clarified that TAM does not need to include SMART in its list for TAM discretionary funds, but SMART can be included for other regional sources. He expressed support for the idea of MTC meeting with representatives from the two counties and SMART for further discussion. The discussion concluded with staff agreeing to return to the TAM board with further clarification and discussion of RTP candidates. (12. Open Time for Items not on the Agenda) Chair Kinsey noted that the open time for public comment had occurred earlier in the meeting, but there was a speaker who had arrived later. Rocky Birdsey expressed concern about the viability of future taxicab service in Marin, and he asked for local support of renewal of the JFA contract and consideration of insurance requirements, and loopholes to the requirement for successful operation. By Order of Chair Kinsey, the TAM meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Approved on:

T:\03. TAM BOARDS & COMMITTEES\03.01 TAM Board\03.01.03 Board Packets\2011\12-1-11\FINAL\PRINTED\5b- Measure A Compliance Audit Report-ds.doc

December 1, 2011 TO: Transportation Authority of Marin Board of Commissioners FROM: Dianne Steinhauser, Executive Director Through: Li Zhang, Manager of Finance and Administration RE: Review and Acceptance of the Measure A Compliance Audit Results and

Recommendation (Action), Agenda Item 5b Dear Commissioners: Executive Summary The Measure A Expenditure Plan provided TAM with the authority to audit all Measure A fund recipients for their use of the sales tax proceeds. An independent compliance audit is explicitly permitted under the terms and conditions of TAM’s funding agreements/contracts with all Measure A funding recipients. Compliance Audits are typical practice amongst sales tax agencies around the state. With the assistance of TAM’s Citizens’ Oversight Committee, the TAM Board adopted the Measure A Compliance Audit Policy at its October 28, 2010 Board meeting. The implementation of the Policy has now been started, as scheduled. The first year of the compliance audit is covering Measure A revenues and expenditures happened in and/or prior to FY2010-11. Moss, Levy, Hartzheim, LLP was selected to carry out the compliance audit task for TAM in April, 2011, with a three-year contract and an annual budget of not to exceed $20,000. The TAM Board approved the seven Measure A fund recipients that were selected for the first round of compliance audits in June, 2011. Staff conducted a successful workshop on August 15, 2011 and went over the requirements of the Measure A Expenditure Plan, the compliance audit policy adopted, the process and timeline. Twenty staff from eleven different fund recipients, including all seven fund recipients selected, attended the workshop and provided staff with good questions and feedbacks. The audit team, along with TAM staff started the initial pre-audit meetings with all the seven fund recipients selected during the week of September 12. The audit team conducted its field visits and presented draft audit results to TAM staff in the month of October. Staff arranged necessary follow-up meetings with fund recipients that received findings/observations during the process and discussed options to address those findings/observations. The audit results, along with the responses from both the fund recipients and TAM staff were presented for the Executive Committee’s review at its November 7 meeting. The Executive Committee was pleased with the process and results and recommended the report to be presented to the full TAM Board for approval.

TAM Board, Item 5b Page 2 of 7 December 1, 2011


The Measure A compliance audits were conducted within budget and ahead of schedule.

Recommendation: The TAM Board reviews and accepts the FY2010-11 Measure A Compliance Audit results and recommendations. Background: TAM has a fiduciary responsibility to the voters of Marin County to ensure that Measure A transportation sales tax funds are spent appropriately. TAM has carried out this responsibility diligently since the inception of Measure A in 2005, with the adoption of a detailed Measure A Strategic Plan, through annual financial audits, and with the careful review of expenditures by the Citizens’ Oversight Committee (COC). Under the guidance of the COC and the TAM Board, staff is increasing its role in monitoring Measure A usage through the implementation of a Compliance Audit program. The Measure A Expenditure Plan provided TAM with the authority to audit all Measure A fund recipients for their use of the sales tax proceeds. An independent compliance audit is explicitly permitted under the terms and conditions of TAM’s funding agreement/contract with all Measure A funding recipients. The COC played a critical role in the development of the Measure A Compliance Audit Policy and the final Policy was adopted by the TAM Board at its October 28, 2010 Board meeting. The first year of the compliance audit covered Measure A revenues and expenditures happening in and/or prior to FY2010-11. Moss, Levy, Hartzheim, LLP was selected to carry out the compliance audit task for TAM in April, with a three-year contract and an annual budget of not to exceed $20,000. At its June 2011 Board meeting, the TAM Board approved the seven Measure A fund recipients that were selected for the first round of compliance audit as shown in the table below.

No. Funding Recipient Funding Category

1 Marin Transitfor all Measure A funds received for its FY2010-11 transit operation and capital needs

2 City of San Rafaelfor all Measure A revenue and expenditure activities related to its Fourth Street Major Roads Project

3 Tow of San Anselmo for its usage of the Measure A Local Roads funds in FY2010-114 City of Novato for its usage of the Measure A Local Roads funds in FY2010-115 City of Mill Valley for its usage of the Measure A Local Roads funds in FY2010-11

6 American Guard Servicesfor all FY2010-11 Measure A revenue and expenditure activities related to the crossing guard services provided

7 Town of Corte Maderafor all Measure A revenue and expenditure activities related to its Neil Cummins Elementary School Safe Pathways to School Project

List of Measure A Funding Recipients Selected for FY2010-11 Compliance Audit

Please note that for Strategy 3.2 Local Roads Funds, the audits were conducted for FY2009-10 allocations due to the fact that none of the three fund recipients selected spent their FY2009-10 allocations in FY2010-11. TAM normally allows Strategy 3.2 fund recipients three years to use the local roads funds. The results along with the recommendations from the FY2010-11 Measure A Compliance Audit were presented to the Executive Committee at its November 7 meeting for review. The Executive



Committee was pleased with the process and results and recommended the report to be presented to the full TAM Board for approval. Measure A Compliance Audit Process: Staff conducted a successful workshop on August 15, 2011 and went over the requirements of the Measure A Expenditure Plan, the compliance audit policy adopted, the process and timeline. Twenty staff from eleven different fund recipients attended the workshop and provided staff with good questions and feedbacks. The audit team, along with TAM staff started the initial pre-audit meetings with all the seven fund recipients selected during the week of September 12. The audit team conducted its field visits and presented draft audit results to TAM staff in the month of October. Staff arranged necessary follow-up meetings with fund recipients that received findings/observation during the process and discussed options to address those findings/observations. The audit results are presented below. Measure A Compliance Audit Results By Fund Recipients: The audit team worked with TAM staff and came up with the procedures enumerated in the compliance audit reports presented along with the staff report. Below are the results from the seven Measure A compliance audits conducted by Strategy/Sub-strategy and fund recipients. The main purpose of the compliance audit is to verify all Measure A funds were spent according to the requirements of the Measure A Expenditure Plan as well as the funding agreement/contract. TAM staff will also continue to improve the funding programming/allocation process through the inputs/feedback received from fund recipients and the audit team through this effort. It was brought to staff’s attention that the current project/program Closeout Procedures and Annual Report language specified in most of the funding agreements has caused some confusion in term of what exactly was required by TAM. As a result of that, most of the fund recipients either did not provide a project closeout report or the report provided did not meet the requirement of TAM. TAM staff will work with fund recipients that are subject to this requirement and come up with more clearly specified requirements and format. Compliance audit results for each of the seven fund recipients selected for this round of audit effort are presented below for your review. Strategy 1: Marin Transit, FY2010-11 Transit Allocation Result: The results of the auditor’s procedures disclosed no instances of noncompliance with the Measure A Expenditure Plan and no instance of non-compliance with the funding agreement between the Agency and Authority. However, one observation was noted regarding the Agency’s accounting practices. Observation – Lack of segregation of expenditures by funding source: During the review and reconciliation of Marin Transit’s invoices for Measurement A reimbursement submitted to the Transportation Authority of Marin, it was noted that Marin Transit does not account for the Measure A funding source in a separate account group or fund. Marin Transit prepares invoices to the Authority by estimating revenue for other funding sources and subtracting these amounts from the total expenditure by objective to compute the Measure A eligible costs.



Effect: Without accounting for Measure A expenditures in a separate account group or fund, it was difficult to ascertain if the costs being claimed for are specifically attributable to the Measure A funding source. In addition, it makes it difficult to ascertain if costs being claimed for have not already been claimed through other funding sources. Recommendation: The auditor recommends that the Agency utilize cost centers or funds that are specifically designated for each strategy of the Measure A Expenditure Plan which the Agency receives funding from the Authority to ensure that it will be easy to associate specific expenditures with each strategy of the revenue source. Marin Transit Management’s Response: Management of the Agency recognizes its unique sub-recipient status as a transit agency with transit programs and administrative functions that are nearly all eligible for funding under Measure A. Marin Transit's Measure A eligible expenditures are separated in its accounting software system by sub-strategy in account groups, entitled Cost Centers. All direct revenue, including fare-box and grants are accounted for within the appropriate Cost Centers to prevent the possibility of overbilling. Marin Transit reconciles each Cost Center at year end and provided documentation in its 4th quarter invoicing to TAM, when not all available funding was claimed. Based on this recommendation, Marin Transit will now provide revenue and expense information per each sub-strategy on all future invoices. Follow-up Meeting and Action: TAM staff met with Marin Transit staff over this observation and also discussed this issue further with the audit team. TAM staff understands from the audit team that it’s common practice for government agency to separate various funding sources for easy tracking and accountability of the funds. As a matter of fact, many grantors will make the requirement of funding separation part of its funding agreement, such as the Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) fund that TAM receives from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The audit team confirmed that all other fund recipients, with the exception of Marin Transit and American Guard Service Inc (which is a corporation), account for their Measure A eligible revenues and expenditures either by using separate fund or cost center. The separation of Measure A revenues and expenditures from the fund recipients other funding activities makes it easy to account for all Measure A related activities. It requires less effort from both TAM staff and the audit team during the reimbursement and compliance audit processes to verify the reimbursement amount requested. It also greatly reduces the risk of potential double billing and/or misapplication of expenditures to various funds. For the reasons stated above, TAM staff would like to encourage Marin Transit staff to review its Measure A revenues and expenditures accounting management practice and find a way to separate the Measure A fund activities from the other funding sources it has. TAM staff will be available to provide any necessary advice/assistance during this process and work with Marin Transit staff to come up with a solution acceptable to both agencies. For clear guideline to all Measure A fund recipient, staff may recommend to the TAM Board considering making the separation of Measure A fund activities from other funding sources a requirement in its funding agreement with the fund recipient in the future.



Strategy 2 – No audit conducted for this round. Strategy 3.1 – City of San Rafael, 4th Street Major Road Project Result: The results of the auditor’s procedures disclosed no instances of noncompliance with the Measure A Expenditure Plan and one instance of non-compliance with the funding agreement between the City and Authority. Finding – Lack of proof of signage: During the review of compliance with Measure A funding agreement between City of San Rafael and the Transportation Authority of Marin, it was noted that the City did not retain/obtain proof of signage that identifies the Authority and Measure A as the funding sources for the construction project when it was in progress. Effect: The City of San Rafael was not in compliance with the funding agreement between the City and the Authority requiring proof of signage to be obtained/retained. Recommendation: The auditor recommends that the City of San Rafael obtain/retain adequate proof of signage on future Measure A funded projects. City of San Rafael Management’s Response: This finding was the result of oversight on the part of the City and signage on future Measure A funded projects will be obtained Follow-up Meeting and Action: Not needed. Strategy 3.2 – City of Mill Valley, FY2009-10 Local Streets and Roads Advance Fund Result: The results of the auditor’s procedures disclosed no instances of noncompliance with the Measure A Expenditure Plan and no instance of non-compliance with the funding agreement between the City and Authority. Follow-up Meeting and Action: Not needed. Strategy 3.2 – City of Novato, FY2009-10 Local Streets and Roads Advance Fund Result: The results of the auditor’s procedures disclosed no instances of noncompliance with the Measure A Expenditure Plan and one instance of non-compliance with the funding agreement between the City and Authority. Finding – Indirect personnel costs charged to Measure A funded projects: During the review of personnel costs, it was noted that the “cost recovery billing” wage rate that is charged to Measure A funded projects includes city-wide, departmental and divisional indirect overhead rates.



Effect: The total indirect overhead charge used to calculate the “cost recovery billing” wage rate was 87% which resulted in $36,280.25 of unallowable costs that were charged to Measure A programs. Recommendation: The auditor recommends that the City of Novato ensure that all costs charged to Measure A programs are direct costs. City of Novato Management’s Response: This finding was the result of oversight on the part of the City. Follow-up Meeting and Action: TAM staff followed up with Novato staff on this issue. City staff is aware of the requirement in the funding agreement. City staff was not very strict about removing indirect cost from the Measure A reimbursement request since the total Measure A eligible project cost was more than the Measure A reimbursement available. City staff now fully understands that indirect costs are not allowed and need to be removed from Measure A reimbursement requests. From now on, City staff will exclude all indirect costs from future Measure A reimbursement requests. Based on the follow up discussions with City staff, TAM staff recommends that TAM not require the City of Novato to refund the $36,280.25 indirect costs charged in FY2010-11. Rather, TAM will allow the City to increase its eligible expenditure against its FY2010-11 Local Streets and Roads allocation by this amount. This way, we ensure the prior Measure A funds were applied to Measure A eligible activities. Strategy 3.2 – Town of San Anselmo, FY2009-10 Local Streets and Roads Advance Fund Result: The results of the auditor’s procedures disclosed no instances of noncompliance with the Measure A Expenditure Plan and no instance of non-compliance with the funding agreement between the Town and Authority. Follow-up Meeting: Not needed. Strategy 4.1 – No audit conducted for this round. Strategy 4.2 – American Guard Services, FY2010-11 Crossing Guard Services Result: The results of the auditor’s procedures disclosed no instances of noncompliance with the Measure A Expenditure Plan and no instance of non-compliance with the contract between the contractor and Authority. Follow-up Meeting: Not needed.



Strategy 4.3 – Town of Corte Madera, Neil Cummins Elementary School Safe Pathways to School Project Result: The results of the auditor’s procedures disclosed no instances of noncompliance with the Measure A Expenditure Plan and one instance of non-compliance with the funding agreement between the Town and Authority. Finding – Lack of competitive bidding for construction contract: During the review procurement procedures for the selection of a construction vendor for the project, it was noted that a sole source was utilized for the construction contract. Effect: According to the funding agreement between the Authority and the Town, only competitively bid construction costs are eligible for reimbursement. By utilizing a sole source for the construction project, the Town is not in compliance with the funding agreement. Recommendation: We recommend that the Town utilizes completive bidding for all future Measure A construction projects. Town of Corte Madera Management’s Response: Competitive bidding procedures were utilized but no bids were received. The City was able to utilize a sole source at a much lower cost than the allocation amount. Follow-up Meeting and Action: TAM staff recognized that Town staff went through a competitive procedure first and no bids were received. The Town has all the necessary records for the bidding process that took place. The Town was then able to utilize a sole source at a much lower cost ($25,291 total project cost) than the Measure A funds allocated ($80,000 allocation). In this case, the non-compliance did not cause any Measure A fund loss and no follow-up action regarding this project is needed. Budget and Timeline: The compliance audit process was conducted within budget and ahead of schedule. Recommendation: The TAM Board reviews and accepts the FY2010-11 Measure A Compliance Audit results and recommendations. Attachments: Attachment 1: Measure A Compliance Audit Report – Marin Transit Attachment 2: Measure A Compliance Audit Report – City of San Rafael Attachment 3: Measure A Compliance Audit Report – City of Mill Valley Attachment 4: Measure A Compliance Audit Report – City of Novato Attachment 5: Measure A Compliance Audit Report – Town of San Anselmo Attachment 6: Measure A Compliance Audit Report – American Guard Services Attachment 7: Measure A Compliance Audit Report – Town of Corte Madera

PARTNERS COMMERCIAL ACCOUNTING & TAX SERVICES GOVERNMENTAL AUDIT SERVICESRONALD A LEVY, CPA 9107 WILSHIRE BLVD. SUITE 500 5800 E. HANNUM, SUITE ECRAIG A HARTZHEIM, CPA BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 CULVER CITY, CA 90230HADLEY Y HUI, CPA TEL: 310.273.2745 TEL: 310.670.2745

FAX: 310.670.1689 FAX: 310.670.1689 www.mlhcpas.com www.mlhcpas.com

1OFFICES: BEVERLY HILLS · CULVER CITY · SANTA MARIA

MEMBER AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF C.P.A.’S · CALIFORNIA SOCIETY OF MUNICIPAL FINANCE OFFICERS · CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL BUSINESS OFFICIALS

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT ON COMPLIANCE

Transportation Authority of Marin750 Lindaro Street, Suite 200San Rafael, California

ComplianceWe have audited Marin Transit’s (Agency) compliance with the types of compliance requirements described in the Measure A Expenditure Plan and the respective funding agreement with the Transportation Authority of Marin(Authority), for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to compliance audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Management of Marin Transit isresponsible for compliance with the Measure A Expenditure Plan and requirements of its funding agreement with the Transportation Authority of Marin. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Agency’s compliance based on our audit.

We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America; the standards applicable to compliance audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; the Measure A Expenditure Plan issued by the County of Marin, and the respective funding agreement between the Agency and the Authority. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Agency's compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our audit does not provide legal determination on the Agency's compliance with those requirements.

In our opinion, the Agency complied, in all material respects, with the compliance requirements referred to above for funding allocated and expenditures during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011.

Internal Control over ComplianceThe management of the Agency is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over compliance with requirements of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants applicable to Measure A funded programs. In planning and performing our audit, we considered the Agency’s internal control over compliance to determine the auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on compliance and to test and report on internal control over compliance, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the Agency's internal control over compliance.

A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. We noted no deficiencies that we considered to be material weaknesses.

Item 5b - Attachment 1

2

A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance. We noted no deficienciesthat we consider to be significant deficiencies.

We noted one observation regarding the Agency’s accounting practices, see Observation 2011-1.

This report is intended solely for the information of the Board of Commissioners, Citizens’ Oversight Committee,Management of the Transportation Authority of Marin, and Management of the Agency, and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.

MOSS, LEVY & HARTZHEIM, LLPCulver City, CANovember 2, 2011


3

MARIN TRANSITMeasure A Compliance Report

Notes to the Compliance Report

June 30, 2011

NOTE 1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

Financial Reporting Entity

Marin Transit is an agency formed by vote by the people of Marin County that provides local transit services within Marin County.

Basis of Accounting

The Agency utilizes the accrual basis of accounting, whereby revenues are recognized when earned and expenses are recognized when incurred.

NOTE 2 MEASURE A SALES TAX

The Measure A sales tax is a ½ cent set forth by voters as a step in implementing a 1.6 billion dollar “transportation vision” set forth by the County of Marin as a plan to alleviate traffic congestion, reinvent the public transportation system, provide addition pedestrian and bike pathways, provide safer routes to school and many other additional transit related goals. Citizens’ Advisory Committees in each part of the County, representing the many diverse interests in Marin, provided input that result in a draft expenditure plan. The draft plan was presented to each of Marin’s City/Town Councils and to numerous stakeholder groups. Their comments prompted refinements reflected in the Final Measure A Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan (Plan).

The Plan is administered by the Transportation Authority of Marin (Authority). Its 16 member board consists of the Board of Supervisors and a council member of each incorporated City/Town. The Authority is accountable to a 12 member Citizens’ Oversight Committee (Committee), created with the assistance of the League of Women Voters. The Committee reviews all expenditures and reports annually to the public.


4


Attachment A – Procedures Performed

June 30, 2011

1. Obtained original Funding Agreement/Contract, Allocation Request, and Funding Agreement/ContractAmendments for the audit period or for the period during which funding was utilized for an approved project.

2. Reviewed Funding Agreement/Contract, Allocation Request, and Funding Agreement/Contract Amendments to determine total funding provided by the applicable Strategy for the audit period or for the projects being audited.

3. Interviewed finance staff regarding internal controls in the following areas, specific to, but not limited to,accounting for Measure A funding, to obtain an understanding of the entity’s operations:

a. Cash Disbursements – Reviewed policies and procedures regarding approval, defacements, accounts payable check processing, and other matters related to the disbursement of funds.

b. Cash Receipts – Reviewed policies and procedures regarding cash handling of over-the-counter receipts and cash receipts received through the mail, bank deposits, bank reconciliations, and other matters related to the receipt of funds.

4. Obtained all invoices submitted to the Authority for reimbursements, if applicable.

5. Obtained supporting documentation for all invoices submitted to the Authority for reimbursements, including construction, personnel, project management, consultants, and other related costs.

6. Obtained general ledger detail for revenue and expenditures charged to the Measure A funding source or equivalent reports where income and expenses associated with Measure A funds can be clearly identified.

7. Reviewed remittances from the Authority to ensure that all revenues are correctly coded to the specific cost center or fund code designated for Measure A funding.

8. For reimbursement-based agreements, we reviewed all invoices submitted to the Authority to ensure that the costs being billed on the invoices reconcile with the ones being charged to the specific Measure A cost center in the entity’s financial accounting system.

9. For reimbursement-based agreements/contracts, expenditures charged to the specific cost center or fund code designated for Measure A funding were selected on a random basis were and tested for the following attributes:

a. Approval – Reviewed invoices and supporting documentation to ensure that the proper review and approval process occurred and is documented on the invoice.

b. Invoice – Reviewed invoices and supporting documentation to ensure that they are mathematically accurate, properly addressed to the auditee, and have sufficient detail to justify the amounts being charged and the cost center or fund code to which it is being charged to.

c. Coding – Reviewed invoices and supporting documentation to ensure that they have been correctly coded to the specific cost center or fund code designated for Measure A funding.

d. Allowable – Reviewed invoices and supporting documentation to ensure that the costs being charged to the specific cost center or fund code designated for Measure A funding are allowable costs based on the Measure A Expenditure Plan, the entity’s funding agreement with the Authority, and specific requirements of the Strategy for which the funds were restricted for. Also reviewed expenditures to ensure that all costs are direct costs and not indirect costs or allocations of any kind.


5



June 30, 2011

10. For entities receiving funding in advance for Strategy 3 under a Measure A funding agreement, we reviewed, in summary form, various invoices to verify that expenditures being charged to the specific cost center or fund code restricted for Measure A are reasonable for the project. In addition, expenditures are also tested in the same fashion as outlined in step 9 of this list.

11. For entities where capital construction projects were funded utilizing Measure A Strategy 3 and 4 funding, we obtained the necessary project files and reviewed them for the following requirements:

a. Procurement Process – Reviewed procurement process of the project to ensure that the project was properly advertised in publications, internet, trade journals and/or other acceptable means. If other means of procurement, such as selective RFP submittals were followed, we determined whether the process is adequate in regards to the project. Reviewed any other evidence of procurement when appropriate, such as fax logs or mailing lists.

b. Bids and Proposals – Reviewed bids and proposals received to ensure that sufficient bids were received inregards to the project.

c. Bid Award – Reviewed City/Town Council Agendas and Minutes along with Staff Reports in regards to the bid award to ensure that the contract for the project was properly approved by Department Heads and the City/Town Council and was properly documented in a public forum. Also, we reviewed bidding results to ensure that the lowest bid was selected, and if the lowest bid was not selected, that there is sufficient documentation for any other selection process utilized.

12. For entities where professional service contracts were paid utilizing Measure A funding, with regards to construction projects or other purposes, we reviewed the policies and procedures of the entity in question to ensure that internal policies and procedures were followed in regards to the selection of professional service firms.

13. For entities where capital construction projects were paid utilizing Measure A Strategy 3 and 4 funding, we reviewed any applicable environmental review requirements and reviewed documentation to verify that all reports and reviews were performed prior to the start of any construction.

14. For entities where personnel costs were charged to the specific cost center or fund code designated for Measure A funding, we selected a representative sample of charges for personnel costs and tested for the following:

a. Recalculation – Reviewed and reconciled wage rates from personnel costs charged to Measure A cost center or fund code to the entity’s payroll registers to ensure that wage rates being charged were accurateand properly approved; reviewed all benefits and fringe costs being allocated in addition to wage rates to ensure that they are accurate and appropriate; recalculated personnel costs utilizing wage rates and hours being charged to ensure that the amounts are mathematically accurate; review the calculation to ensure no indirect costs are included in the reimbursement request.

b. Timesheet – Reviewed timesheets for selected personnel costs to ensure that hours being charged to Measure A are properly supported with an approved timesheet. All charges to Measure A funding must be clearly documented on timesheets, detailing the number of hours and the funding source, on a daily basis. We also reviewed timesheets for selected personnel costs to ensure that signatures of both the employee and supervisor are present. Electronic time documentation methods must also have similar electronic signatures.

15. Obtained close-out reports, from completed capital construction projects, submitted to the Authority.

16. Reviewed close-out reports to ensure that they were submitted within 90 days and were properly certified in accordance with the entity’s funding agreement/contract with the Authority.


6


Attachment B - Findings and Observations

June 30, 2011

2011-1 Observation – Lack of segregation of expenditures by funding source:During the review and reconciliation of Marin Transit’s invoices for Measurement A reimbursement submitted to the Transportation Authority of Marin, it was noted that Marin Transit does not account for the Measure A funding source in a separate account group or fund. Marin Transit prepares invoices to the Authority by estimating revenue for other funding sources and subtracting these amounts from the total expenditures by objective to compute the Measure A eligible costs.

Effect:Without accounting for Measure A expenditures in a separate account group or fund, it was difficult to ascertain if the costs being claimed are specifically attributable to the Measure A funding source. In addition, it makes it difficult to ascertain if costs being claimed have not already been claimed through other funding sources.

Recommendation:We recommend that the Agency utilize cost centers or funds that are specifically designated for each strategy of the Measure A Expenditure Plan which the Agency receives funding from the Authority to ensure that it will be possible to associate specific expenditures with each strategy of the revenue source.

Management’s Responses:Management of the Agency recognizes its unique sub-recipient status as a transit agency with transit Programs and administrative functions that are nearly all eligible for funding under Measure A. Marin Transit's Measure A eligible expenditures are separated in its accounting software system by sub-strategy in account groups, entitled Cost Centers. All direct revenue, including fare-box and grants are accounted for within the appropriate Cost Centers to prevent the possibility of overbilling. Marin Transit reconciles each Cost Center at year end and provided documentation in its 4th quarter invoicing to TAM, when not all available funding was claimed. Based on this recommendation, Marin Transit will now provide revenue and expense information per each sub-strategy on all future invoices.


7


Attachment C – Schedule of Funding Allocations and Expenditures

June 30, 2011

Measure A Allocation

Agreement Measure A Agreement AvailableAllocation Period Number Strategy Date Amount

FY 10/11 2010-002 1 7/1/2010 9,956,680$

Total Project Funding 9,956,680$

Measure A ExpendituresMeasure A

Project Name Strategy Amount

Local Bus Transit 1.1 6,302,772$

Local Bus Transit Service 1.2 591,919

Rural Bus Transit System 1.3 1,567,908

Capital Improvements 1.4 702,895

Total Project Cost 9,165,494$








ComplianceWe have audited the City of San Rafael’s (City) compliance with the types of compliance requirements described in the Measure A Expenditure Plan and the respective funding agreement with the Transportation Authority of Marin(Authority), for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to compliance audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Management of the City of San Rafael is responsible for compliance with the Measure A Expenditure Plan and requirements of its funding agreement with the Transportation Authority of Marin. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the City’s compliance based on our audit.

We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America; the standards applicable to compliance audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; the Measure A Expenditure Plan issued by the County of Marin, and the respective funding agreement between the City and the Authority. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about the City's compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our audit does not provide legal determination on the City's compliance with those requirements.

In our opinion, the City complied, in all material respects, except for Finding 2011-1, with the compliance requirements referred to above for funding allocated during the fiscal years ended June 30, 2007, June 30, 2008, and June 30, 2009 and for expenditures during those fiscal years utilizing the allocated funds.

Internal Control over ComplianceThe management of the City is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over compliance with requirements of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants applicable to Measure A funded programs. In planning and performing our audit, we considered the City’s internal control over compliance to determine the auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on compliance and to test and report on internal control over compliance, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control over compliance.

A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detectedand corrected on a timely basis. We noted no deficiencies that we considered to be material weaknesses.


2

A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance. We noted one deficiencythat we consider to be a significant deficiency, see Finding 2011-1.

This report is intended solely for the information of the Board of Commissioners, City Council, Citizens’ Oversight Committee, Management of the Transportation Authority of Marin, and Management of the City, and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.



3

CITY OF SAN RAFAELMeasure A Compliance Report


June 30, 2011



The City of San Rafael is an incorporated City that receives funding under the Measure A Expenditure Plan as a member of the County of Marin.

Basis of Accounting

The City utilizes the economic resources measurement focus basis of account, whereby revenues are recognized when measurable and available. The City considers all revenues reported to be available if the revenues are collected within sixty days after the fiscal year end. Expenditures are recorded when the related fund liability is incurred. Capital assets acquisitions are reported as expenditures in the governmental funds.





4



June 30, 2011

















5



June 30, 2011














6



June 30, 2011

2011-1 Finding – Lack of proof of signage:During the review of compliance with Measure A funding agreement between City of San Rafael and the Transportation Authority of Marin, it was noted that the City did not retain/obtain proof of signage that identifies the Authority and Measure A as the funding sources for the construction project when it was in progress.

Effect:The City of San Rafael was not in compliance with the funding agreement between the City and the Authority requiring proof of signage to be obtained/retained.

Recommendation:We recommend that the City of San Rafael obtain/retain adequate proof of signage on future Measure A funded projects.

Management’s Response:This finding was the result of oversight on the part of the City.


7



June 30, 2011



FY 06/07 2007-012 3.2 8/1/2006 467,893$

2007-012 FY 07/08 Amendment 1 3.2 12/3/2007 533,660

FY 08/09 2008-001 3.1 2/19/2008 4,500,000

Total Project Funding 5,501,553$

Measure A ExpendituresMeasure A Date of

Project Name Phase Strategy Completion Amount

4th Street/West EndVillage Rehabilitation Planning 3.2 N/A 725,285$

4th Street/West EndVillage Rehabilitation Construction 3.1 5/22/2009 4,128,256

Total Project Cost 4,853,541$








ComplianceWe have audited the City of Mill Valley’s (City) compliance with the types of compliance requirements described in the Measure A Expenditure Plan and the respective funding agreement with the Transportation Authority of Marin(Authority), for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to compliance audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Management of the City of Mill Valley is responsible for compliance with the Measure A Expenditure Plan and requirements of its funding agreement with the Transportation Authority of Marin. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the City’s compliance based on our audit.


In our opinion, the City complied, in all material respects, with the compliance requirements referred to above for funding allocated during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010 and for expenditures for projects utilizing those funds for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011.




2





3

CITY OF MILL VALLEYMeasure A Compliance Report


June 30, 2011



The City of Mill Valley is an incorporated City that receives funding under the Measure A Expenditure Plan as a member of the County of Marin.

Basis of Accounting






4



June 30, 2011

















5



June 30, 2011














6


Attachment B – Schedule of Findings and Observations

June 30, 2011

None noted.


7


Attachment C - Schedule of Funding Allocations and Expenditures

June 30, 2011



FY 09/10 2007-009 3.2 7/1/2009 129,483$

Total Project Funding 129,483$



2010 Pedestrian Safety Planning 3.2 n/a 129,483$ Projects

Total Project Cost 129,483$








ComplianceWe have audited the City of Novato’s (City) compliance with the types of compliance requirements described in the Measure A Expenditure Plan and the respective funding agreement with the Transportation Authority of Marin(Authority), for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to compliance audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Management of the City of Novato is responsible for compliance with the Measure A Expenditure Plan and requirements of its funding agreement with the Transportation Authority of Marin. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the City’s compliance based on our audit.


In our opinion, the City complied, with the exception of Finding 2011-1, in all material respects, with the compliance requirements referred to above for funding allocated during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010 and for expenditures on projects utilizing those funds for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011.




2





3

CITY OF NOVATOMeasure A Compliance Report


June 30, 2011



The City is an incorporated City that receives funding under the Measure A Expenditure Plan as a member of the County of Marin.

Basis of Accounting






4



June 30, 2011

















5



June 30, 2011














6



June 30, 2011

2011-1 Finding – Indirect personnel costs charged to Measure A funded projects:During the review of personnel costs, it was noted that the “cost recovery billing” wage rate that is charged to Measure A funded projects includes city-wide, departmental and divisional indirect overhead rates.

Questioned Cost:The total indirect overhead charge used to calculate the “cost recovery billing” wage rate was 87% which resulted in $36,280.25 of unallowable costs that were charged to Measure A programs.

Effect:The City of Novato was not in compliance with the funding agreement between the City and the Authority which does not allow indirect costs to be charged to Measure A funding.

Recommendation:We recommend that the City of Novato ensure that all costs charged to Measure A programs are direct costs.

Management’s Response:This finding was the result of oversight on the part of the City.


7



June 30, 2011



FY 09/10 2007-10 3.2 7/1/2009 407,744$




Measure A Street Improvements Construction 3.2 Various 407,744$









ComplianceWe have audited the Town of San Anselmo’s (Town) compliance with the types of compliance requirements described inthe Measure A Expenditure Plan and the respective funding agreement with the Transportation Authority of Marin(Authority), for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to compliance audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Management of the Town of San Anselmo is responsible for compliance with the Measure A Expenditure Plan and requirements of its funding agreement with the Transportation Authority of Marin. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Town’s compliance based on our audit.

We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America; the standards applicable to compliance audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; the Measure A Expenditure Plan issued by the County of Marin, and the respective funding agreement between the Town and the Authority. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Town's compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our audit does not provide legal determination on the Town's compliance with those requirements.

In our opinion, the Town complied, in all material respects, with the compliance requirements referred to above for funding allocated during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010 and for expenditures on projects utilizing those funds for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2010 and June 30, 2011.

Internal Control over ComplianceThe management of the Town is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over compliance with requirements of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants applicable to Measure A funded programs. In planning andperforming our audit, we considered the Town’s internal control over compliance to determine the auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on compliance and to test and report on internal control over compliance, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the Town's internal control over compliance.



2


This report is intended solely for the information of the Board of Commissioners, Town Council, Citizens’ Oversight Committee, Management of the Transportation Authority of Marin, and Management of the Town, and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.



3

TOWN OF SAN ANSELMOMeasure A Compliance Report


June 30, 2011



The Town of San Anselmo is an incorporated Town that receives funding under the Measure A Expenditure Plan as a member of the County of Marin.

Basis of Accounting

The Town utilizes the economic resources measurement focus basis of account, whereby revenues are recognized when measurable and available. The Town considers all revenues reported to be available if the revenues are collected within sixty days after the fiscal year end. Expenditures are recorded when the related fund liability is incurred. Capital assets acquisitions are reported as expenditures in the governmental funds.





4



June 30, 2011

















5



June 30, 2011














6


Attachment B - Schedule of Funding Allocations and Expenditures

June 30, 2011

None noted.


7


Attachment C - Schedule of Funding Allocations and Expenditures

June 30, 2011



FY 09/10 2007-011 3.2 7/1/2009 103,214$




Saunders AvenueRehabilitation Construction 3.2 3/9/2010 103,214$









ComplianceWe have audited American Guard Services Inc.’s (Corporation) compliance with the types of compliance requirements described in the Measure A Expenditure Plan and the respective funding contract with the Transportation Authority of Marin (Authority), for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to compliance audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Management of the Corporationis responsible for compliance with the Measure A Expenditure Plan and requirements of its funding contract with the Transportation Authority of Marin. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Corporation’s compliance based on our audit.

We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America; the standards applicable to compliance audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; the Measure A Expenditure Plan issued by the County of Marin, and the respective funding contract between the Corporation and the Authority. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Corporation's compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our audit does not provide legal determination on the Corporation's compliance with those requirements.

In our opinion, the Corporation complied, in all material respects, with the compliance requirements referred to above for funding allocated and expenditures during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011.

Internal Control over ComplianceThe management of the Corporation is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over compliance with requirements of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants applicable to Measure A funded programs. In planning and performing our audit, we considered the Corporation’s internal control over compliance to determine the auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on compliance and to test and report on internal control over compliance, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the Corporation's internal control over compliance.



2


This report is intended solely for the information of the Board of Commissioners, Citizens’ Oversight Committee,Management of the Transportation Authority of Marin, and Management of the Corporation, and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.



3

AMERICAN GUARD SERVICES, INC.Measure A Compliance Report


June 30, 2011



American Guard Services, Inc. is a corporation based in Carson, California that provides various services including crossing guards, security guards, and armed security.

Basis of Accounting

The Corporation utilizes the accrual basis of accounting, whereby revenues are recognized when earned and expenses are recognized when incurred.





4



June 30, 2011

















5



June 30, 2011














6



June 30, 2011

None noted.


7



June 30, 2011



FY 10/11 C-FY-09/10-01 4.2 8/3/2010 700,000$


Measure A ExpendituresMeasure A

Project Name Strategy Amount

Crossing Guard Services 4.2 672,455$









ComplianceWe have audited the Town of Corte Madera’s (Town) compliance with the types of compliance requirements described inthe Measure A Expenditure Plan and the respective funding agreement with the Transportation Authority of Marin(Authority), for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2011. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to compliance audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Management of the Town of Corte Madera is responsible for compliance with the Measure A Expenditure Plan and requirements of its funding agreement with the Transportation Authority of Marin. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Town’s compliance based on our audit.

We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America; the standards applicable to compliance audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; the Measure A Expenditure Plan issued by the County of Marin, and the respective funding agreement between the Town and the Authority. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Town's compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our audit does not provide legal determination on the Town's compliance with those requirements.

In our opinion, the Town complied, in all material respects, except for Finding 2011-1, with the compliance requirements referred to above for funding allocated during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 and for expenditures on projects utilizing those funds during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010.

Internal Control over ComplianceThe management of the Town is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over compliance with requirements of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants applicable to Measure A funded programs. In planning and performing our audit, we considered the Town’s internal control over compliance to determine the auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on compliance and to test and report on internal control over compliance, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the Town's internal control over compliance.



2


This report is intended solely for the information of the Board of Commissioners, Town Council, Citizens’ Oversight Committee, Management of the Transportation Authority of Marin, and Management of the Town, and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.



3

TOWN OF CORTE MADERAMeasure A Compliance Report


June 30, 2011



The Town of Corte Madera is an incorporated Town that receives funding under the Measure A Expenditure Plan as a member of the County of Marin.

Basis of Accounting

The Town utilizes the economic resources measurement focus basis of account, whereby revenues are recognized when measurable and available. The Town considers all revenues reported to be available if the revenues are collected within sixty days after the fiscal year end. Expenditures are recorded when the related fund liability is incurred. Capital assets acquisitions are reported as expenditures in the governmental funds.





4



June 30, 2011

















5



June 30, 2011














6



June 30, 2011

2011-1 Finding – Lack of competitive bidding for construction contract:During the review procurement procedures for the selection of a construction vendor for the project, it was noted that sole sourcing was utilized for a construction contract.

Effect:According to the funding agreement between the Authority and the Town, only competitively bid construction costs are eligible for reimbursement. By utilizing a sole source for the construction project, the Town is not in compliance with the funding agreement.

.Recommendation:We recommend that the Town utilize competitive bidding for all future Measure A construction projects.

Management’s Response:Competitive bidding procedures were utilized but no bids were received. The Town was able to utilize a sole source at a lower cost than the allocation amount.


7



June 30, 2011



FY 07/08 2007-030 4.3 1/28/2008 80,000$




Safe Pathways to School Construction 4.3 7/1/2010 25,291$



T:\03. TAM BOARDS & COMMITTEES\03.01 TAM Board\03.01.03 Board Packets\2011\12-1-11\FINAL\PRINTED\5c - Memo - Alcalde and Fay Contract-ds.doc

December 1, 2011 TO: Transportation Authority of Marin Board of Commissioners FROM: Dianne Steinhauser, Executive Director RE: Contract Approval for Federal Legislative Support Services (Action), Agenda Item 5c Dear Commissioners: Executive Summary Since the formation of TAM in 2004, TAM has not had a dedicated resource at the federal level for information, urgent communications and necessary interactions with our congressional representatives. TAM was the beneficiary of the County of Marin’s federal legislative team in receiving some information, but this flow of information has not been consistent. While TAM staff gathers information from our partners, including the County of Marin, the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA), and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), we believe that having a direct communication link, especially in this time of infrastructure funding changes, is an appropriate investment. The firm of Alcade and Fay and, in particular, Paul Schlesinger offers tremendous economies of scale for the work that TAM needs. Mr. Schlesinger is already working with the County of Marin and with the SCTA. He is aware of transportation needs and interests and in an economical fashion he can provide us with information, assistance in managing urgent communications and enable contacts with our congressional representatives. Staff recommends an annual contract with a not-to-exceed amount of $10,000. This will be for one year with a one-year extension option. Note that this has been included and approved in TAM’s budget for this fiscal year. Staff will monitor the usage of the contract and return to the board with periodic reporting. Mr. Schlesinger and his team will be available to TAM Board members for transportation-related needs. Board members are encouraged to coordinate this contact through the Executive Director. Note: the contract is an hourly one, at this time, until staff can ascertain what typical usage might be. The Executive Committee heard the proposal from staff for this effort and supported it moving forward to the TAM Board for approval. Recommendation: Enter into contract with Alcalde & Fay, Inc. for one year with a one year extension option, not to exceed $10,000 annually. Attachment A: Background on Alcalde & Fay, Inc.

Item 5c - Attachment

Alcalde & Fay Alcalde & Fay is a legislative advocacy firm based in Arlington, Virginia, just outside Washington, D.C. For over a quarter of a century, Alcalde & Fay has been specializing in legislative and regulatory affairs to communications and government marketing and procurement. Its staff includes former congressmen and White House staff, corporation executives, public relations specialists, lawyers and journalists. The firm operates as a partnership with senior members assisted by experienced associates. Each client is served by a team of at least three professionals led by a senior partner. The team is selected with a view to matching client interests and needs with staff background and experience. Paul Schlesinger Paul Schlesinger, Partner, is a specialist on transportation and public infrastructure issues. He has served Congress as a Committee Staff Director, a Sub-committee staff member and Legislative Assistant and Legislative Director for a senior Member of the House of Representatives. Today, he applies the knowledge and experience he gained on the Hill to assist a variety of clients who can benefit from his understanding of the Congressional process and inner workings of a variety of Federal agencies. After four years on the legislative staff of a Member of Congress, Mr. Schlesinger was appointed to the House Surface Transportation Subcommittee staff and then became Staff Director of the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a total period of ten years. During his service in Congress, he worked on several major pieces of legislation, including landmark legislation that increased the Federal gasoline tax to support infrastructure funding. Mr. Schlesinger has also worked on legislation affecting highways, public transit, clean air and clean water, flood control, ecosystem restoration, harbor development, navigation improvements, Superfund, wetlands, coastal pollution, shoreline protection, regulation of the trucking, aviation and pipeline industries and Federal buildings and grounds. The Committee with which he served currently has jurisdiction over railroad and maritime issues as well. Since joining Alcalde & Fay, Mr. Schlesinger has become Chair of the Firm’s Public Client team. The agencies he worked with on the Hill, and/or continues to work closely with today, include: The Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Economic Development Administration, Surface Transportation Board, General Services Administration, and National Transportation Safety Board. Of course in his years lobbying on behalf of a wide range of clients, Mr. Schlesinger has gained expertise and many contacts relating to programs under the administration of HUD, HHS, Interior and other agencies. Mr. Schlesinger received a B.A. in Government and Politics from the University of Maryland and continued his studies in the University's Graduate Program in Public Policy Analysis and Public Administration.

December 1, 2011 TO: Transportation Authority of Marin Board of Commissioners FROM: Dianne Steinhauser, Executive Director THROUGH: Bill Whitney, Principal Project Delivery Manager RE: Highway 101 Greenbrae/Twin Cities Corridor Improvements. Approve Contract Time Extension (Action) - Agenda Item 5d Dear Commissioners: Executive Summary Staff is recommending the Board approve a Contract Addendum extending the time of completion required to complete the scope of work requested from the consulting firm Jacobs Engineering Group. Following the direction from the TAM Board at its November 2009 meeting staff and the consulting team have significantly modified the engineering design to accommodate stakeholder input and subsequent Board direction. Staff has previously established the scope of work, schedule and budget required to complete the Project Approval/ Environmental Documentation (PA/ED) related to developing the multi-modal improvements within the Greenbrae/ Twin Cities Corridor. The modifications to the design concept required considerable effort by TAM and our consulting team to re-establish an acceptable project by the Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Caltrans considered the revisions to the design as a major change and requested TAM re-evaluate options previously considered during the Context Sensitive Design Process. Following this extended effort of re-design Caltrans and TAM eventually agreed on an acceptable design that meets the defined purpose and need for improvements to the corridor. As previously reported to the Board a Project Study Report was approved by Caltrans in March of 2011 that signified a milestone of cooperation and agreement amongst our partners. This unanticipated effort has caused a delay in the scheduled originally developed with our consultant and now requires a contractual time extension in order to complete the environmental document. The draft environmental document is scheduled to be released early next year and we expect the PA/ED phase to conclude in approximately fifteen (15) months from now. Staff is closely tracking the financial impact this delay will have on the project budget. Presently we estimate a funding shortfall and staff is working closely with our consulting team to identify potential areas where savings can be realized. Staff will re-assess the future level of effort required after the draft environmental document has been released and will report back to the Board if additional resources are required. It is requested the Board authorize the Executive Director to execute a Contract Addendum with our consultant, Jacobs Engineering Group. Recommendation: Staff recommends the TAM Board authorize the Executive Director to execute a Contract Addendum to extend the time of completion in order to finalize the Project Approval/Environmental Documents.

T:\03. TAM BOARDS & COMMITTEES\03.01 TAM Board\03.01.03 Board Packets\2011\12-1-11\FINAL\PRINTED\5e - Memo - Measure A 2nd Advancement Larkspur-ds2.doc

December 1, 2011 TO: Transportation Authority of Marin Board of Commissioners FROM: Dianne Steinhauser, Executive Director THROUGH: David Chan, Manager of Programming and Legislation RE: Advance Allocate Sales Tax and Vehicle Registration Fee Funds to the City of

Larkspur (Action), Agenda Item 5e Dear Commissioners: Executive Summary Larkspur is implementing the Doherty Drive Corridor Improvements Project that consists of the Doherty Drive Pathway and Bike Lane, Doherty Drive Reconstruction Phase III, and Doherty Drive Signing, Striping & ADA Accessibility. In February 2010, the TAM Board approved an advanced allocation, covering FY 10/11, FY 11/12, and FY 12/13, of Measure A Transportation Sales Tax funds to Larkspur in the amount of $240,000. The prior Measure A advancement of $240,000 was expected to complete the project. Larkspur advertised the Doherty Drive Corridor Improvements Project in the summer of 2011 and bids were received by August 16, 2011. The low bid on the construction phase was approximately $1.8 million, which was $500,000 over the engineer’s estimate. Note that when the project is re-advertised in the summer of 2012, the advancements will no longer be in effect - the original funds of $240,000 will actually be made available to Larkspur under the regular funding allocation policies and procedures of TAM. Larkspur initially sought support from TAM to close the funding gap by requesting a 2nd advanced allocation that would encompass another three years of Measure A funds from Strategy 3.2, including FY 13/14, FY 14/15, and FY 15/16. Larkspur also requested an advanced allocation of Measure B funds from Element 1.1. These are funds Larkspur would be receiving anyway. Staff initially reported the three-year advance request to the Executive Committee, to provide advanced Measure A and B funds from FY 13/14, 14/15, and 15/16 to Larkspur for the Doherty Drive Corridor Improvement Project. At the November 7th meeting, Larkspur’s Public Works Director, Hamid Shamsapour, requested the Executive Committee to also include Measure A and B funds from FY 16/17, adding a fourth year to the request. Mr. Shamsapour explained that this project is a very high priority project for Larkspur that is ready for construction. He also explained that it is also highly leveraged with other State and federal funds that can be lost if Larkspur does not proceed because of the funding shortfall.

TAM Board, Item 5e Page 2 of 6 December 1, 2011


Understanding that cash was available from the sales tax and VRF accounts managed by TAM, and that certain conditions would apply, the Executive Committee unanimously approved the advancement of Measure A and B funds from FY 13/14, FY 14/15, and FY 15/16, and FY 16/17 to Larkspur for the Doherty Drive Corridor Improvement Project. Based on projected revenues, collection for Strategy 3.2 of Measure A for FY 13/14, FY 14/15, FY 15/16, and FY 16/17 will likely be around $2.39 million annually and Larkspur’s annual share of Strategy 3.2 revenue is projected to be approximately $95,000 annually or $380,162 for the four fiscal year period. The project collection of Measure B Vehicle Registration Fee funds for Element 1.1 is $1.96 million annually, scheduled to be distributed in FY 13/14 and FY 16/17. Larkspur’s share of Element 1.1 is 3.92% or $76,886 for each distribution or $153,772 for both fiscal years. The total projected available of Transportation Sales Tax and Vehicle Registration Fee funds amount to $533,935. Staff and Mr. Shamsapour discussed this project advance with the Marin Public Works Association at their regularly scheduled meeting on November 17, 2011. The MPWA offered no objections to the advancement. Staff supports this advanced allocation, as recommended by the Executive Committee, to enable Larkspur to proceed with the project on the conditions that: 1) Larkspur seeks approval from its City Council to use the second advancement of Measure A funds for this particular project; 2) Larkspur assigns savings as a first priority to Measure A and B and de-obligates unused Measure A and B funds if they are not needed, 3) Larkspur accepts that an appropriate interest will be assessed for advancing the disbursement of funds, possibly equivalent to what TAM would have earned from Marin County’s Investment Pool, where TAM’s funds are currently invested. This is an unusual circumstance, in that the project is a priority in Measure A, was thought to be fully funded, and fell shy of funds due to a very restrictive work window due to nearby California Clapper Rail species habitat. The facility is a critical multi-modal facility, and improvements address a variety of needs along this heavily travelled corridor. Note that TAM staff confirms sufficient cash is available in the Transportation Sales Tax account for this action. Note also that staff estimates sufficient Vehicle Registration Fee funds will be available for the advance of those funds. Staff does recommend that registration fee funds be limited in reimbursement to the funds collected for Element 1.1 of the Measure B Expenditure Plan. Recommendation: Allocate Measure A Transportation Sales Tax funds from FY 13/14, FY 14/15, FY 15/16, and FY 16/17 Strategy 3.2 of the Measure A Transportation Sales Tax Strategic Plan and Measure B Vehicle Registration Fee funds from FY 13/14 and FY 16/17 Element 1.1 of the Measure B Vehicle Registration Fee Strategic Plan to Larkspur for the Doherty Drive Corridor Improvement Project. Total advancement is $533,935 and is subject to the conditions so named in the staff report. Vehicle Registration Fee funds be limited in reimbursement to the funds collected for Element 1.1 of the Measure B Expenditure Plan.



Background Measure A Transportation Sales Tax funds for Strategy 3.2 in the Expenditure Plan are used to maintain, improve, and manage Marin County’s local transportation infrastructure, including roadways, bikeways, sidewalks, and pathways. This could include safety improvements, pedestrian facilities including disabled access, or bicycle facilities such as bike lanes or signage. Measure B Vehicle Registration Fee funds are used for road maintenance, rehabilitation and congestion relief on local and residential streets. Other eligible projects include new facilities, safety improvements for all modes, emergency pothole repair on residential streets, sidewalks and pathways, crosswalk and accessibility enhancements, intersection control, pavement, and drainage improvements, streetscape improvements to better manage storm-water runoffs. Both Strategy 3.2 and Element 1 funds in the Measure A and Measure B Strategic Plans, respectively, are distributed 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 funds are distributed annually after the funds have been collected. Measure B funds are distributed triennially with the first targeted distribution to occurred in FY 13/14. However, TAM will consider, on a case-by-case basis, allocating funds sooner if a sponsor demonstrates a critical need. Larkspur’s Doherty Drive Corridor Improvements Project The Doherty Drive Corridor Improvements Project consists of the following individual construction projects: 1. Doherty Drive Pathway and Bike Lane - construction of a paved multi-use pathway and bike

lane on the south side of Doherty Drive connecting pathways and bike lanes from Magnolia Avenue to Redwood High School;

2. Doherty Drive Reconstruction Phase III - reconstruction of Doherty Drive from Doherty Bridge

to Riviera Circle (west); and 3. Doherty Drive Signing, Striping & ADA Accessibility - installation of signage, striping, and

ADA accessibility improvements on Doherty Drive from Magnolia Avenue to Lucky Drive. The Doherty Drive Reconstruction Phase III Project that encompasses the section of Doherty Drive from Riviera Circle to the Larkspur Creek Bridge near Piper Park, and is intended to reconstruct curb, gutter, sidewalk, paving, storm drainage, street lights, and striping. The proposed improvements include:

• New concrete sidewalks to minimize ongoing maintenance costs; • Additional street lights in a style to conform with the previous work installed in the area

east of Riviera Circle; • Raised roadway elevation to place street above major tidal flooding level without negative

impacts to adjacent streets and properties; and • Additional storm inlets and piping to direct storm water to existing outlets capable if

discharging to the existing creek



Prior Advanced Allocation to Larkspur In February 2010, the TAM Board approved an advanced allocation of Measure A funds to Larkspur in the amount of $240,000. The Measure A advancement of $240,000 was expected to complete the project. At the time, Larkspur explained that in order to advertise this project, it needed approval on its FY 10/11, FY 11/12, and FY 12/13 allocations in advance of their scheduled approval dates. It should be noted that while an advanced allocation was approved, Larkspur had not requested advanced disbursement of funds. The February 2010 approval allowed Larkspur to advertise the project but due to bids being higher than the funds available, work on the project did not proceed and no advanced reimbursements have been requested. Current Project Status and Request Larkspur advertised the Doherty Drive Corridor Improvements Project in the summer of 2011 and bids were received by August 16, 2011. The low bid was approximately $1.8 million, which was $500,000 over engineer’s estimate. As noted above, TAM has already provided an advanced allocation of Measure A funds from Strategy 3.2 to Larkspur for FY 10/11, FY 11/12, and FY 12/13. Larkspur is requesting a 2nd advanced allocation that would encompass another four years of Measure A funds from Strategy 3.2, including FY 13/14, FY 14/15, FY 15/16, and FY 16/17. Larkspur is also requesting an advanced allocation of Measure B funds from Element 1.1, covering the same four year period. In addition to seeking additional Measure A and Measure B funds, Larkspur is working to secure other funds to proceed with the construction of this project, hoping to re-advertise in the spring of 2012 with a bid opening date in May 2012. Larkspur’s Share of Strategy 3.2 and Element 1.1 Funds Based on projected revenues, collection for Strategy 3.2 of Measure A for FY 13/14, FY 14/15, FY 15/16, and FY 16/17 will likely be around $2.39 million annually and Larkspur’s annual share of Strategy 3.2 revenue is projected to be $380,162 for the four fiscal year period. Measure B funds are distributed triennially with the first targeted distribution to occurred in FY 13/14. The project collection of Measure B funds for Element 1.1 is $1.96 million, scheduled to be distributed in FY 13/14 and FY 16/17. Larkspur’s share of Element 1.1 is 3.92% or $76,886 for each of the fiscal year, based on the formula of 50/50 split derived from lane miles maintained and population. The total projected available of Measure A and B funds amount to $533,935. See below table.

Programmed 1 FY 13/14 FY14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 Total RequestedMeasure A $90,975 $93,641 $96,373 $99,173 $380,162 $380,162Measure B $76,886 $76,886 $153,772 $153,772 $533,935 $533,935

1 Programmed amounts shown are estimated figures that will be adjusted after revenues have been collected.



Actual Funds Needed As with the first advanced allocation, Larkspur will request actual disbursement of funds until needed. The approval of these advanced allocations will allow Larkspur to re-advertise. However, when Larkspur actually requests the disbursement of Measure A funds, staff proposes to use excess Measure A revenues to facilitate cash flow needed for this advancement to Larkspur. Note that excess revenue exists in the Major Roads category due to no funds having been expended in the Ross Valley sub-area, in which Larkspur is included. Funds are needed for the Major Road project in this area beginning in FY 14/15. The funds loaned to Larkspur will be repaid by the time funds are needed for this area, assigned to the County’s major road project, to improve Sir Francis Drake from Highway 101 to Wolfe Grade. For Measure B, the first allocation of funds is anticipated for FY 13/14 for over $1.96 million. Measure B funds are currently being collected for the FY 13/14 allocations. Since no other agencies are seeking advanced allocations at this time, there will be sufficient funds collected to cover Larkspur’s advancement. Note staff is recommending that reimbursements be limited to actual revenues collected for Element 1.1 of the Measure B Expenditure Plan so funds are not loaned between elements. Strategic Plan Policy on Borrowing The Measure A Strategic Plan, first adopted in 2006 and updated annually, allows borrowing between strategies or sub-strategies to the extent it lessens debt financing and allows projects and programs to move forward based on their readiness. The Strategic Plan also provides the TAM Board the discretion to consider assigning interest equal to the investment interest that would have accrued to the funds if they had not been borrowed. The current County Investment Pool return is less than one percent so the potential interest for the cash amount advanced would be nominal. Larkspur City Council Measure A requires that local Infrastructure funds can be used for any eligible local transportation need identified by the local agency’s Public Works Director and approved by the respective governing board. It should be noted that Larkspur’s City Council have already approved the use of Measure A funds from the first advancement (FY 10/11, FY 11/12, and FY 12/13) for this project. Larkspur’s staff would be required to seek approval from its City Council to use Measure A fund from the second advancement (FY 13/14, FY 14/15, FY 15/16, and FY 16/17). Conditions on the 2nd Advancement of Measure A and B Funds 1. Larkspur City Council authorizes the use of the second advancement of Measure A funds

for this particular project. 2. If the accepted bid is lower than the revised engineer’s estimate, Larkspur is required to

assign savings as a first priority to Measure A and B and deobligate unused Measure A and B funds. Larkspur would de-obligate Measure A and B funds before deobligating non-Measure A and B funds. Funds would be returned to TAM.



3. Larkspur would use all non-Measure A and B funds before using Measure A and B funds. 4. Larkspur must accept that an appropriate interest will be assessed for advancing the

disbursement of funds, possibly equivalent to what TAM would have earned from Marin County’s Investment Pool, where TAM’s funds are currently invested.

Larkspur staff has indicated to TAM staff that the conditions are acceptable. Executive Committee Staff initially reported to the Executive Committee a recommendation to provide advanced Measure A and B funds from FY 13/14, 14/15, and 15/16 to Larkspur for the Doherty Drive Corridor Improvement Project. At the meeting, Larkspur’s Public Works Director, Hamid Shamsapour, requested the Executive Committee to also include Measure A and B funds from FY 16/17. Mr. Shamsapour explained that this project is a very high priority project for Larkspur that is ready for construction. He also explained that it is also highly leveraged with other State and federal funds that can be lost if Larkspur does not proceed because of the funding shortfall. TAM Executive Director requested Mr. Shamsapour to provide details of all non-Measure A and B funds programmed for this project. Mr. Shamsapour agreed to the request. On the November 7, 2011, the Executive Committee unanimously approved the advancement of Measure A and B funds from FY 13/14, FY 14/15, FY 15/16, and FY 16/17 to Larkspur for the Doherty Drive Corridor Improvement Project. Recommendation Allocate Measure A Transportation Sales Tax funds from FY 13/14, FY 14/15, FY 15/16, and FY 16/17 Strategy 3.2 of the Measure A Transportation Sales Tax Strategic Plan and Measure B Vehicle Registration Fee funds from FY 13/14 and FY 16/17 Element 1.1 of the Measure B Vehicle Registration Fee Strategic Plan to Larkspur for the Doherty Drive Corridor Improvement Project. Total advancement is $533,935 and is subject to the conditions so named in the staff report. Vehicle Registration Fee funds be limited in reimbursement to the funds collected for Element 1.1 of the Measure B Expenditure Plan.

Item 5e - Attachment

Page 1 of 3

Transportation Authority of Marin Measure A and B

Allocation Request Form

Fiscal Year of Allocation: 2011/2 Expenditure Plan: Strategy 3.2 of Measure A and Element 1.1 of Measure B Project Name: Doherty Drive Corridor Improvements Project Implementing Agency: City of Larkspur Scope of Work: Construct the Doherty Drive Corridor Improvements Project, which consists of the following individual construction projects: 1. Doherty Drive Pathway and Bike Lane - construction of a paved multi-use pathway and bike

lane on the south side of Doherty Drive connecting pathways and bike lanes from Magnolia Avenue to Redwood High School;

2. Doherty Drive Reconstruction Phase III - reconstruction of Doherty Drive from Doherty

Bridge to Riviera Circle (west); and 3. Doherty Drive Signing, Striping & ADA Accessibility - installation of signage, striping, and

ADA accessibility improvements on Doherty Drive from Magnolia Avenue to Lucky Drive. The Doherty Drive Reconstruction Phase III Project that encompasses the section of Doherty Drive from Riviera Circle to the Larkspur Creek Bridge near Piper Park. The scope includes the reconstruction of curb, gutter, sidewalk, paving, storm drainage, street lights, and striping. The proposed improvements include:

• New concrete sidewalks to minimize ongoing maintenance costs; • Additional street lights in a style to conform with the previous work installed in the area

east of Riviera Circle; • Raised roadway elevation to place street above major tidal flooding level without

negative impacts to adjacent streets and properties; and • Additional storm inlets and piping to direct storm water to existing outlets capable if

discharging to the existing creek. Additional funds are needed for an added scope to include drainage, additional environmental review, and additional construction costs due to traffic control and construction sequencing. Project Report Requirement: The City of Larkspur will provide a Project Report for project(s) upon which TAM funds are expended within 60 working days of the end of fiscal year 2011-12. The Project Report will include a brief description of the project and describe the benefits realized from the project. The report will identify the amount spent during the reporting year, including the total estimated project costs, the sources of project funding, and total expenditures to date.

T:\03. TAM BOARDS & COMMITTEES\03.01 TAM Board\03.01.03 Board Packets\2011\12-1-11\FINAL\PRINTED\5e - Attachment - ARF.doc Page 2 of 3

Cost of Scope: $2.593 million $350,000 PSE $151,000 ENV $1,811,000 CON $181,000 Contingency $100,000 CON management Measure A and Measure B Strategic Plan Programmed and Requested Amounts:

Programmed 1 FY 13/14 FY14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 Total RequestedMeasure A $90,975 $93,641 $96,373 $99,173 $380,162 $380,162Measure B $76,886 $76,886 $153,772 $153,772 $533,935 $533,935

1 Programmed amounts shown are estimated figures that will be adjusted after revenues have been collected. The amount needed for this allocation will come from Larkspur’s FY 13/14, FY 14/15, FY 15/16, and FY 16/17 allocations. Excess Measure A revenues to facilitate cash flow needed for this advancement to Larkspur will come from the Ross Valley Planning Area in Major Roads category. Funds loaned to the City of Larkspur will be repaid with interest by the time funds are needed for this planning area. The assessed interest will be a rate equal to the investment interest that would have accrued to the funds if they had not been borrowed. Other Funding: City of Larkspur, Prop 1B funding, prior Measure A funds Conditions: 1. Larkspur City Council authorizes the use of the second advancement of Measure A funds

for this particular project. 2. If the accepted bid is lower than the revised engineer’s estimate, Larkspur is required to

assign savings as a first priority to Measure A and B and deobligate unused Measure A and B funds. Larkspur would de-obligate Measure A and B funds before deobligating non-Measure A and B funds. Funds would be returned to TAM.

3. Larkspur would use all non-Measure A and B funds before using Measure A and B funds. 4. Larkspur must accept that an appropriate interest will be assessed for advancing the

disbursement of funds, possibly equivalent to what TAM would have earned from Marin County’s Investment Pool, where TAM’s funds are currently invested.

Cash flow Availability: 100% in FY 11/12 Project Delivery Schedule (include start & completion milestones): July 1, 2011 – June 30, 2012 Environmental Clearance: The City of Larkspur is responsible for environmental clearance. Documentation will be provided in the Project Report.

T:\03. TAM BOARDS & COMMITTEES\03.01 TAM Board\03.01.03 Board Packets\2011\12-1-11\FINAL\PRINTED\5e - Attachment - ARF.doc Page 3 of 3

Non-Motorized Travel Considerations: Have the needs of non-motorized travelers been considered in the design of the project and is the project consistent with Caltrans Deputy Directive 64? Yes Is non-motorized travel impeded by this project? No

If yes, has a cross-facility, non-motorized access been included in the project?

Has a parallel non-motorized facility been designed to accommodate non-motorized travelers? Yes

T:\03. TAM BOARDS & COMMITTEES\03.01 TAM Board\03.01.03 Board Packets\2011\12-1-11\FINAL\PRINTED\5f - Attachment - COC appointment.doc

TAM Advisory Committee Membership December 1, 2011

Citizens’ Oversight Committee Technical Advisory Committee Northern Marin Planning Area – (1) Nominated by TAM Commissioners representing the area

Member – V-Anne Chernock Alternate – Vacancy

Marin Managers Association – (2)

Member 1 – Vacancy Alternate 1 – Vacancy Member 2 – Michael Frank Alternate 2 – David Bracken

Central Marin Planning Area – (1) Nominated by TAM Commissioners representing the area

Member - Barbara George Alternate – Joy Dahlgren

Marin Public Works Association – (3)

Member 1 - Vacancy Alternate 1 - Craig Tackabery Member 2 – Vacancy Alternate 2 – Jason Nutt Member 3 - Hamid Shamsapour Alternate 3 – Jill Barnes

Ross Valley Planning Area – (1) Nominated by TAM Commissioners representing the area

Member – Gilda Selchau Alternate – Paul Roye

Marin County Planning Directors Group – (1)

Member – Brian Crawford Alternate – Vacancy

Southern Marin Planning Area – (1) Nominated by TAM Commissioners representing the area

Member - Robert Burton Alternate – Vacancy

Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation District – (1)

Member – Ron Downing Alternate – Maurice Palumbo

West Marin Planning Area – (1) Nominated by TAM Commissioner representing the area

Member – Scott Tye Alternate – Doris Pareas

Marin County Transit District – (1)

Member – David Rzepinski Alternate – Amy Van Doren

Marin County Paratransit Coordinating Council – (1)

Member - Allan Bortel Alternate – Rocky Birdsey


Member - Rocky Birdsey Alternate –Allan Bortel

Advocacy Group Representing Bicyclists and Pedestrians – (1)

Member – Vacancy Alternate - Vacancy


Member – Tim Gilbert Alternate - Vacancy

Environmental Organizations – (1)

Member - Don Wilhelm Alternate – Nancy Okada


Member – Karen Nygren Alternate – Doug Wilson

School Districts – (1) Member – Heather McPhail Sridharan Alternate – Vacancy

Marin County Office of Education – (1)

Member – Luke McCann Alternate –Mary Jane Burke

Major Marin Employers – (1) Member – Peter Pelham Alternate – Monique Broussard

Advocacy Group Representing Business Organizations – (1)

Member – Vacancy Alternate – Vacancy

Taxpayer Group – (1) Member - Ray Hirsch Alternate - Vacancy

League of Women Voters – (1) Member - Ann Batman Alternate - Sue Beittel

Applicants are listed in “bold/italicized font”

T:\03. TAM BOARDS & COMMITTEES\03.01 TAM Board\03.01.03 Board Packets\2011\12-1-11\FINAL\PRINTED\5f - Memo - COC appointment-ds.doc

December 1, 2011 TO: Transportation Authority of Marin Board of Commissioners FROM: Dianne Steinhauser, Executive Director RE: Appointments to the Citizens’ Oversight Committee, Agenda Item 5f

Dear Commissioners:

Executive Summary The Citizens’ Oversight Committee (COC) oversees the revenue and expenditure activities for both Measure A, the half-cent transportation sales tax, and Measure B, the $10 vehicle registration fee, as an independent oversight group, to assure the voter approved Measure A and Measure B Expenditure Plans are carried out accordingly. The COC is composed of 12 members and 12 alternates who are private citizens residing in Marin County. The Committee collectively represents the diversity of Marin County and none of its members has any economic interest in TAM’s projects. The COC By-laws state that there shall be one representative from a School District. Note that the By-laws specify that parents are considered eligible candidates. A candidate must receive a nomination from their respective school district in order to be considered for this appointment. Ms. Heather McPhail Sridharan has applied for this position and has been nominated by Ms. Mary Jo Pettegrew, the Superintendent of the Kentfield School District. All candidates applying for membership to a TAM committee must be appointed by the TAM Commission. If appointed to this position, Ms. Sridharan will serve the balance of a four-year term set to expire on May 31, 2013. There continue to be vacancies on the Citizens’ Oversight Committee and TAM staff is continuously seeking nominations to fill the vacancies. The remaining current vacancy is in the bike/pedestrian representative slot. Recommendation: 1) Appoint Heather McPhail Sridharan to the member seat representing School Districts on TAM’s Citizens’ Oversight Committee. Attachment: Citizens’ Oversight Committee Membership Table

T:\03. TAM BOARDS & COMMITTEES\03.01 TAM Board\03.01.03 Board Packets\2011\12-1-11\FINAL\PRINTED\5f - Attachment - COC appointment.doc

TAM Advisory Committee Membership December 1, 2011

Citizens’ Oversight Committee Technical Advisory Committee Northern Marin Planning Area – (1) Nominated by TAM Commissioners representing the area

Member – V-Anne Chernock Alternate – Vacancy

Marin Managers Association – (2)

Member 1 – Vacancy Alternate 1 – Vacancy Member 2 – Michael Frank Alternate 2 – David Bracken

Central Marin Planning Area – (1) Nominated by TAM Commissioners representing the area

Member - Barbara George Alternate – Joy Dahlgren

Marin Public Works Association – (3)

Member 1 - Vacancy Alternate 1 - Craig Tackabery Member 2 – Vacancy Alternate 2 – Jason Nutt Member 3 - Hamid Shamsapour Alternate 3 – Jill Barnes

Ross Valley Planning Area – (1) Nominated by TAM Commissioners representing the area

Member – Gilda Selchau Alternate – Paul Roye

Marin County Planning Directors Group – (1)

Member – Brian Crawford Alternate – Vacancy

Southern Marin Planning Area – (1) Nominated by TAM Commissioners representing the area

Member - Robert Burton Alternate – Vacancy

Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation District – (1)

Member – Ron Downing Alternate – Maurice Palumbo

West Marin Planning Area – (1) Nominated by TAM Commissioner representing the area

Member – Scott Tye Alternate – Doris Pareas

Marin County Transit District – (1)

Member – David Rzepinski Alternate – Amy Van Doren


Member - Allan Bortel Alternate – Rocky Birdsey


Member - Rocky Birdsey Alternate –Allan Bortel


Member – Vacancy Alternate - Vacancy


Member – Tim Gilbert Alternate - Vacancy


Member - Don Wilhelm Alternate – Nancy Okada


Member – Karen Nygren Alternate – Doug Wilson

School Districts – (1) Member – Heather McPhail Sridharan Alternate – Vacancy

Marin County Office of Education – (1)

Member – Luke McCann Alternate –Mary Jane Burke

Major Marin Employers – (1) Member – Peter Pelham Alternate – Monique Broussard

Advocacy Group Representing Business Organizations – (1)

Member – Vacancy Alternate – Vacancy

Taxpayer Group – (1) Member - Ray Hirsch Alternate - Vacancy

League of Women Voters – (1) Member - Ann Batman Alternate - Sue Beittel

Applicants are listed in “bold/italicized font”

December 1, 2011 TO: Transportation Authority of Marin Board of Commissioners FROM: Dianne Steinhauser, Executive Director THROUGH: Bill Whitney, Principal Project Delivery Manager RE: Central Marin Ferry Connection Project - Approve Cooperative Funding Agreement

between TAM and the County of Marin (Action) - Agenda Item 5g Dear Commissioners: Executive Summary Staff is recommending the Board approve a Cooperative Funding Agreement with the County of Marin to facilitate the future transfer of lead agency role to the County of Marin to oversee the construction of the Central Marin Ferry Connection Project (CMFCP). The County Department of Public Works has agreed to provide construction administration services and manage the construction phase of the CMFCP using county staff and qualified consulting services. To aid in the transfer of the lead agency role TAM has requested the County provide oversight during the design phase as well as serving as the applicant for regulatory permits. The public works department would provide design oversight associated with a constructability review, and work with TAM to secure regulatory permits, to finalize right-of-way clearance and obtain Caltrans NTPP funding approval. TAM staff will continue to provide overall project management as lead agency and will coordinate with regulatory agencies and prepare permit applications and right-of-way clearance documents for use by the County. TAM has also asked the County Parks Department to consider providing routine maintenance services similar to those provided to operate the Cal Park Hill Multi-Use Pathway. No decision has been made regarding who will provide routine maintenance services, but TAM staff is recommending parks department staff involvement during design milestones to review the maintainability of the project, assessing future maintenance needs, risks, and opportunities to design in a cost-effective fashion. Both the Public Works Department and the Parks Department have requested TAM cover the additional costs associated with the increased workload resulting from providing these services. Staff believes the involvement of both public works and parks staff is beneficial and will aid in the delivery of the CMFCP. Staff has negotiated the level of services provided by County staff and recommends the Board approve a funding agreement in an amount not to exceed $135,000 to reimburse the County of Marin for costs associated with the additional workload.

TAM Board Item 5g Page 2 of 2 December 1, 2011

Funding is available from the recent RM2 allocation for the design phase. Recommendation: Staff recommends the TAM Board authorize the Executive Director to execute a Cooperative Funding Agreement with the County of Marin in an amount not to exceed $135,000, for all design oversight services associated with the design phase of the Central Marin Ferry Connector project, up to the advertisement of the project. Funds cover all costs of both Marin County Public Works and Marin County Parks and Open Space.

December 1, 2011 TO: Transportation Authority of Marin Board of Commissioners FROM: Dianne Steinhauser, Executive Director THROUGH: David Chan, Manager of Programming and Legislation RE: Exercise First One-Year Option on Contract with Shaw/Yoder/Antwih to Provide

State Legislative Services (Action), Agenda Item 5h Dear Commissioners: Executive Summary The firm of Shaw Yoder was selected in the Fall of 2009 to provide state government analysis and advocacy services to TAM. The contract was for a term of two years, with two one-year extensions. The current contract with Shaw Yoder, Inc., will expire in December 2011. Staff recommends exercising the first one-year option with Shaw Yoder Antwih at the current budgeted amount of $35,000 because of the following reasons: - Familiarity with TAM’s legislative needs - Intimate knowledge on Marin County’s transportation needs - Ability to coalesce with other agencies, including other CMAs, the League of Cities, the

California State Association of Counties, MTC and Caltrans, and the California Transit Association to advance TAM’s state legislative interests

- Close and direct relationships with Marin legislative representatives and their staff - Satisfaction with the quality of the work from the current team If the TAM Board decides not to exercise this option, staff would bring other options forward as directed. Recommendation: Exercise the First One-Year Option on Contract with Shaw Yoder Antwih to Provide State Legislative Services. Background The firm of Shaw Yoder was selected in the Fall of 2009 to provide state government analysis and advocacy services to TAM. The contract was for a term of two years, with two one-year extensions. The current contract with Shaw Yoder, Inc., will expire in December 2011. With inputs from the Executive Committee, the contract scope included the following elements: 1. Represent and advocate—before the California Transportation Commission, the State

Legislature, and the Governor’s Office—the positions and policies of the Authority.

TAM Board, Item 5h Page 2 of 3 December 1, 2011

T:\03. TAM BOARDS & COMMITTEES\03.01 TAM Board\03.01.03 Board Packets\2011\12-1-11\FINAL\PRINTED\5h - Memo - Exercise Contract Option on State Legislative Service-ds.doc

2. Represent the Authority before the various legislative committees in Sacramento, as directed. 3. Proactively monitor transportation and other committees as appropriate and represent the

Authority before such committees, as directed. 4. Advise the Authority on legislative strategy and serve as an advisor to staff and the Board of

Directors. 5. Represent the Authority, when directed, before State Departments, Agencies, and regulatory

bodies that impact the policies and programs of the Authority. 6. Proactively provide information relative to legislative hearings which may have impact on the

policies and programs of the Authority. 7. Closely monitor and manage legislative issues and/or bills which the Authority has identified

as high priority items. 8. Provide assistance to the Authority in drafting proposed testimony before the Legislature and

present such testimony when requested. 9. Coordinate advocacy efforts with the Authority’s Board of Directors and staff. 10. Respond quickly and effectively to TAM’s requests for assistance or information. 11. Undertake such other assignments upon which the Authority and consultant mutually agree. 12. Prepare written reports as directed and when workload suggests a need for them,

summarizing the consultant’s activities on behalf of the Authority. 13. Comply with all Federal and State laws and regulations relating to the activities of lobbyists.

Provide necessary documentation to support the filing of all required Federal and State forms related to legislative assistant or lobbying services.

14. Coalesce with other agencies to effectively further TAM’s influence and positions on State

legislation. Exercise First Option Staff recommends exercising the first one-year option with Shaw Yoder Antwih at the current budgeted amount of $35,000 because of the following reasons:

• Familiarity with TAM’s legislative needs • Intimate knowledge on Marin County’s transportation needs • Ability to coalesce with other agencies, including other CMAs, the League of Cities, the

California State Association of Counties, MTC, Caltrans, and the California Transit Association to advance TAM’s state legislative interests

• Close and direct relationships with Marin legislative representatives and their staff • Satisfaction with the quality of the work from the current team

TAM Board, Item 5h Page 3 of 3 December 1, 2011

T:\03. TAM BOARDS & COMMITTEES\03.01 TAM Board\03.01.03 Board Packets\2011\12-1-11\FINAL\PRINTED\5h - Memo - Exercise Contract Option on State Legislative Service-ds.doc

If the TAM Board decides not to exercise this option, Shaw Yoder Antwih would stop work on December 1, 2011. Staff would issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) for State Legislative Services whereby any consultant, including Shaw Yoder Antwih, could submit a proposal for consideration. Based on the complexities of the RFP, a minimum of two months would be needed to select a consultant. Staff recommends exercising the option to extend the Shaw Yoder Antwih contract for one year, as per the contract. Note TAM often exercises this kind of option on its contracts as it is an efficient and effective way to expend our public dollars, if delivery of goods and services are high quality, which they are in this case. Recommendation: Exercise the first one-year option on contract with Shaw Yoder Antwih to provide state legislative services.

T:\03. TAM BOARDS & COMMITTEES\03.01 TAM Board\03.01.03 Board Packets\2011\12-1-11\FINAL\PRINTED\5i - Memo - Transmetro Contract Option-ds.doc

December 1, 2011 TO: Transportation Authority of Marin Board of Commissioners FROM: Dianne Steinhauser, Executive Director THROUGH: David Chan, Manager of Programming and Legislation RE: Exercise Option on Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Software

Contract (Action), Agenda Item 5i Dear Commissioners: Executive Summary In the effort to develop TAM’s TDM program elements in 2009, staff learned that other Bay Area TDM programs were labor intensive, needing to operate with multiple staff members or consultants. In considering how to minimize costs, staff concluded that planning for key elements of TAM’s TDM program to be web-based would automate the proposed incentive programs, allow for a cost-effective emergency ride home program, and potentially streamline program management and participation. Though a staff person or a consultant would still be needed to address questions from users, employers, and vendors, process reimbursements, enroll new users, conduct outreach, and market incentives, labor would be minimized with a fully automated, interactive, web-based system. Most of TAM’s TDM Program elements were combined and a scope of work was developed for the proposed TDM software vendor that would allow for ease of future management, making many of the system components web-based, including the following: • TDM program marketing • Vanpool incentive program (and future incentives) • Emergency Ride Home program • SchoolPool program • Future TDM elements (such as telecommute training, carpool incentives, or others) After conducting a Request for Proposals process, TAM retained Transmetro, Inc. to implement a software application that administers TAM’s Emergency Ride Home, Vanpool, and SchoolPool Programs. The website for the SchoolPool Program has been successfully launched and in operation for more than a year. The website for the ERH Program has been developed and will be launched soon. Both websites will need minor but continued maintenance and upgrades.

TAM Board, Item 5i Page 2 of 2 December 1, 2011

T:\03. TAM BOARDS & COMMITTEES\03.01 TAM Board\03.01.03 Board Packets\2011\12-1-11\FINAL\PRINTED\5i - Memo - Transmetro Contract Option-ds.doc

TAM entered into contract with Transmetro for $90,000 in December 2009 for a term of two years for software development. For ongoing management and maintenance, two one-year extension options were included in the original contract as options. The original contract is due to expire on December 9, 2011. In the two years with TAM, Transmetro has performed admirably. The contract with Transmetro is based on task-orders; whereby Transmetro does not proceed with a particular task unless TAM has authorized the scope, price, and duration. To date, Transmetro has produced each assigned task on-time and within budget. In addition, Transmetro has responded well with routine maintenance and changes proposed by TAM’s Safe Routes to Schools team. Now that the essential software has been developed and delivered to TAM, with the SchoolPool elements up and running, staff recommends an extension of services with Transmetro to continue with ongoing maintenance, adjustments to the ERH software that is being launched, and response to changes introduced by interfacing with users. Transmetro is also needed to provide on-going maintenance and upgrades as the SchoolPool program matures and schools request changes for the SchoolPool Program. Staff is recommending exercising the first one-year option with Transmetro, not to exceed $35,000. Inclusive of that amount, Transmetro pays $11,600 to vendors for website hosting, database services, insurance, and server hosting. Recommendation: Authorize the Executive Director to exercise the first one-year option with Transmetro.

Item 5j - Attachment

Page 1 of 9

Technical Advisory Committee

BYLAWS

ARTICLE I

GENERAL PROVISIONS

§ 1.1 Purpose

These Bylaws govern the proceedings of the Technical Advisory Committee (Committee), an advisory committee established by the Commissioners of the Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM).

§ 1.2 Construction of Bylaws Unless otherwise required, the general provisions, rules of construction and definitions set forth in the TAM Advisory Committees Standing Rules and Application and Appointment Procedures, with Article IV Section 104.3 of the TAM Administrative Code, shall govern the construction of these Bylaws. These Bylaws shall govern the Committee’s proceedings to the extent they are consistent with Standing Rules and Application and Appointment Procedures, the TAM Administrative Code, and law.

§ 1.3 Definitions

As used in these Bylaws:

• “Committee” means the Technical Advisory Committee. • “Chair” means the person chairing the Committee. • “Authority” means the Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM). • “Brown Act” means California’s open meeting law, the Ralph M. Brown Act,

California Government Code, Sections 54950 et seq. • “Expenditure Plan” means the Marin County Transportation Sales Tax

Expenditure Plan, the 20-year plan for expending the half-cent sales tax revenues contained in Measure A, approved by voters in 2004, and implemented in 2005.

• ‘Measure A” means the measure approved by voters of Marin County on November 2, 2004, that initiates a half-cent sales tax for transportation Projects and Programs.

§ 1.4 Adoption and Amendment of Bylaws

• The Committee shall have adopted Bylaws approved by the TAM Commission

within 90 days of Committee formation. • These Bylaws shall be adopted and amended by the Committee by majority vote

of its total membership, and with approval of the TAM Commission.


Page 2 of 9

ARTICLE II DUTIES AND AUTHORITY

The purpose of the Committee is to prioritize infrastructure improvements in the Expenditure Plan and make recommendations to the Authority.

§ 2.1 Duties

• Adhere to guidelines incorporated into Marin County Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan dated May 6, 2004

• Prioritize major roadway and infrastructure projects in joint effort with the Public Works Directors of each City, Town, and the County.

• Assess the school-related strategy of the Marin County Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan every two years through a public process involving parents, school officials, and students throughout the County.

• Undertake other technical review as requested by the TAM Commission.

§ 2.2 Authority and Limitations • The Committee shall only have advisory powers to the Authority. • The Committee shall not have the authority to communicate externally, but all

communications by the Committee shall go to and through the Authority. No expenditures or requisitions for services and supplies shall be made by the Committee and no individual member shall be entitled to reimbursement for travel or other expenses except as authorized by the Authority.

ARTICLE III MEMBERSHIP

The Committee shall be composed of 13 members. Membership shall be limited to

individuals without economic interest in any of the Authority’s projects. Members will be required to comply with the disclosure and conflict of interest requirements of the Political Reform Act of 1974, California Government code Section 81000 et seq. (as amended).

Each organization represented on the Committee shall nominate its representative, with final appointments approved by the governing board of TAM. The TAM Commission shall retain discretion to rescind any Committee appointment(s) as deemed necessary. Members of this Committee shall be appointed to their full terms, subject to eligibility provisions contained in Section 104.3 of the TAM Administrative Code.

§ 3.1 Membership Composition

Thirteen members are to be selected among Public Works staff, other City staff and representatives of diverse public interests. These members shall be nominated by their respective organizations and appointed by the Authority Commission as follows:

Two representatives from the Marin Managers Association; Three representatives from the Marin Public Works Association; One representative from the Marin County Planning Directors Group;


Page 3 of 9

One representative from the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District;

One representative from the Marin County Paratransit Coordinating Council, representing seniors and persons with disabilities;

One representative from the Marin County Transit District; One representative from the Marin County Office of Education; One representative from the environmental organizations of Marin County; One representative from an advocacy group representing bicyclists and

pedestrians; One representative from business organizations.

§ 3.2 Alternates

• Each Committee member shall have a designated alternate, nominated by the

nominating organization and appointed by TAM, who shall attend Committee meetings in the event that the appointed Committee member is unable to attend. It shall be the responsibility of the appointed Committee member to inform their designated alternate when they are unable to attend a meeting of the Committee.

§ 3.3 Terms

• Members and alternates shall be appointed for a term of four years. • To provide for staggered terms, at the first meeting of the Committee, the

members will draw lots to determine whether their initial appointment is for two or four years.

• All initial appointment terms shall commence on June 1, 2005 and, subject to earlier removal or termination, shall expire on May 31, 2007, as to two-year terms, and on May 31, 2009, as to four-year terms. Thereafter, terms shall commence on June 1 and shall terminate on the fourth anniversary date of such commencement date.

• Committee candidates are required to complete and submit an application. Applications shall be submitted to the TAM Executive Director.

• Existing members who wish to continue serving in their appointed capacity for an additional term are required to complete and submit a new application or may update and resubmit their original application if no pertinent information has changed. Applications shall be submitted to the TAM Executive Director.

§ 3.4 Vacancies

• If a Committee member is unable to complete his or her term, a replacement member will be nominated by the nominating organization and be appointed by the TAM Commission to fill the vacancy and complete the appointed term.

• All qualifying applications for the vacancy will be submitted to the Authority for consideration, selection, and appointment. When a vacancy exists on the Committee and no applications have been submitted, the vacancy will be continued until such time as an appointment is made. The TAM Commission may, at any time, move to continue an appointment to a subsequent date.


Page 4 of 9

§ 3.5 Conduct

• Members shall be responsible for having a working knowledge of the establishing ordinance, Bylaws, federal or state mandates, and any other governing regulations that define and set forth the intent and purpose of their appointment and shall only represent and take action on matters related thereto.

• Members shall not misrepresent the scope of their influence or authority, in matters assigned, or represent recommendations of the Committee as official TAM policy until such time as formal action has been taken by the TAM Commission.

• Unless authorized as the designated spokesperson by the Committee, an individual member may not represent the Committee before any other committee or agency or to the press or general public.

§ 3.6 Subcommittees

• The Committee may elect to form subcommittees to perform specific parts of its

mission. All subcommittees shall have an odd number of members so that tie votes are less likely.

• Any special or ad hoc advisory committees may be abolished upon the accomplishment of its purpose or by a majority vote of the TAM Commission.

ARTICLE IV OFFICERS

At the first meeting after the appointment of each new member,Annually at the first meeting occurring after June 1 the Committee shall elect a Chair and a Vice-Chair. The Committee may choose to establish other elected positions as well; elections for such positions shall take place at the same meeting as the elections of the Chair and the Vice-Chair.

§ 4.1 Chair and Vice-Chair

A Chair and Vice-Chair shall be appointed by a majority of the Committee members present through a process of nomination and seconding. If more than one person is nominated and seconded, the appointment will be by a majority vote. In the event of a vacancy in the Chair’s position, the Vice- Chair shall succeed as Chair for the balance of the Chair’s term, and the Committee shall elect a successor to fill the vacancy in the Vice-Chair’s position. In the event of a vacancy in the Vice-Chair’s position, the Committee shall elect a successor from its membership.

• Duties of the Chair:

Call the meetings to order; Preside over each meeting; Identify items of interest for future committee agendas that are relevant to

the Committee’s responsibilities; Appoint the members of each Subcommittee that the Committee chooses

to form;


Page 5 of 9

Attend, or appoint another Committee member to attend, meetings of the Authority at which items forwarded from the Committee are on the agenda.

Serve as liaison to TAM staff between meetings. To serve as designated spokesperson for the Committee.

• Duties of the Vice-Chair:

Perform the duties of the Chair when the Chair is absent.

ARTICLE V MEETINGS

§ 5.1 Regular Meetings

• Regular meetings of the Committee shall be held on the third Thursday of each

month. The Committee meeting shall commence at 3:300 P.M. in the Room 304 Conference Room at the Marin County Civic Center, 3501 Civic Center Drive,at the offices of TAM located at 750 Lindaro Street, San Rafael, California.

• Whenever a regular meeting falls on a holiday observed by the Authority, the meeting shall be held on another day or canceled at the direction of the Committee.

• A rescheduled regular meeting shall be designated a regular meeting. • All meeting locations shall be accessible.

§ 5.2 Special Meetings

• A special meeting may be called by the Chair with the approval of the TAM

Executive Director. The meeting shall be called and noticed as provided in Section 5.3 below.

§ 5.3 Calling and Noticing of Open Meetings

• All meetings shall be called, noticed and conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Brown Act, which mandates open meetings for legislative bodies. Information announcing the hearings must be well publicized and posted in advance. The TAM Executive Director shall be given notice of all meetings. The Committee may meet in a session closed to the public only for purposes permitted by the Brown Act.

• Writings which are public records and which are distributed during the Committee meeting shall be made available for public inspection at the meeting if prepared by the Authority or a member of the Committee, or after the meeting if prepared by some other person.

• The Committee shall meet at least once every six month(s), unless the Committee’s activities are suspended.

§ 5.4 Quorum; Vote; Committee of the Whole

• The presence of a majority of the Committee members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. All official acts of the Committee shall require the


Page 6 of 9

presence of a quorum and the affirmative vote of a majority of the members present.

• At any regularly called meeting not held because of a lack of a quorum, the members present may constitute themselves a “committee of the whole” for the purpose of discussing matters on the agenda of interest to the committee members present. The committee of the whole shall automatically cease to exist if a quorum is present at the meeting.

• This quorum requirement does not change when any of the positions on the Committee become vacant.

§ 5.5 Attendance

• Members are expected to attend all meetings; however, it is anticipated that some members may not be able to attend all meetings for various reasons. If a member is unable to attend a meeting, he or she should notify TAM staff and the designated alternate as soon as possible prior to the scheduled meeting.

• If a member is absent from four Committee meetings in any twelve-month period or for three consecutive meetings without notifying TAM staff and the designated alternate, the position shall automatically be vacated, and a successor shall be appointed to fill the remainder of that member’s term.

§ 5.6 Matters Requiring Committee Action

• A matter requiring Committee action shall be listed on the posted agenda before the Committee may act upon it except as provided below:

Upon a determination by a two-thirds vote of the Committee, or if less

than two-thirds of the members are present, a unanimous vote, there is a need to take immediate action and the need to take action came to the attention of the Authority subsequent to the agenda being posted.

§ 5.7 Public Comment

• For a regular meeting, members of the public shall be given an opportunity to

address the Committee either before or during the Committee’s consideration of the item, if it is listed on the agenda, or, if it is not listed on the agenda but is within the scope of the Committee, under the agenda item heading “Public Comments.”

• Each member of the public shall limit their comments to three minutes. Any person addressing the Committee may submit written documents to complement their comments.

• The Chair may change the time limit and/or the order of public comments as deemed appropriate but may not reduce the time limit to less than two minutes.

§ 5.8 Ground Rules

• When presentations are being made, they should proceed without interruption.

Questions and comments should be made following the completion of the presentation.


Page 7 of 9

• The Chair may order any person removed from the Committee meeting who causes a disturbance, and the Chair may direct the meeting room cleared when deemed necessary to maintain order, unless the rest of the Committee determine otherwise by a majority vote.

§ 5.9 Robert’s Rules

• All rules of order not herein provided for shall be determined in accordance with

Robert’s Rules of Order, latest edition.

ARTICLE VI

AGENDAS AND MEETING NOTICES

§ 6.1 Agenda Format

• Starting time and meeting location • Introductions • Public Comment • Review and approval of draft action minutes from the last meeting • Scheduled monthly agenda items • • Confirm date and time of the next meeting

§ 6.2 Agenda Preparation

• TAM staff shall produce the agenda for each meeting in consultation with the Committee Chair. Material intended for placement on the agenda shall be delivered to staff on or before 12:00 Noon on the date established as the agenda deadline for the forthcoming meeting. TAM staff may withhold placement on the agenda of any matter which is not received in a timely manner, lacks sufficient information or is in need of staff review and report prior to Committee consideration.

§ 6.3 Agenda Posting and Delivery

• The written agenda for each regular meeting shall be posted by TAM staff at

least 72 hours before the meeting is scheduled to begin. The written agenda for every special meeting shall be posted by TAM staff at least 24 hours before the special meeting is scheduled to begin. The agenda shall be posted in a location that is freely accessible to members of the public. Together with supporting documents, the agenda shall be delivered to each Committee member and the TAM Executive Director at least 72 hours before each regular meeting and at least 24 hours before each special meeting.


Page 8 of 9

§ 6.4 Meeting Notices

• TAM staff shall provide notice of every regular meeting, and every special meeting to each person who has filed a written request for notice with TAM. The notice shall be provided at least one week prior to the date set for the meeting. Notice of special meetings called less than seven days prior to the date set for the meeting shall be given as TAM staff deems practical. All notices shall clearly indicate that reasonable accommodations will be provided on request.

§ 6.5 Meeting Minutes

• The Committee shall cause to be kept at the offices of TAM a record of minutes

of all meetings and actions of the Committee with the time and place of holding, the names of those present at the meeting, and the proceedings.

• Draft minutes will be prepared by TAM staff and will be distributed with agendas before the next meeting. Adoption of minutes shall occur at the next meeting with the support of the majority members present.

ARTICLE VII MISCELLANEOUS

§ 7.1 Public Information List of Members

• The TAM Executive Director shall maintain a public information list of members

and designated alternates appointed to the Committee. The list shall include the name of the appointee, the date the term expires, and the affiliation and/or nominating organization. The list shall be updated annually on January 1.before June 30.

§ 7.2 Staff Support

• TAM staff shall prepare and distribute the Committee’s agendas, notices,

minutes, correspondence and other documents. TAM staff shall maintain a record of all proceedings of the Committee as required by law and shall perform other duties as provided in these Bylaws.


Page 9 of 9

Certificate of Chair

I am the duly elected Chair of the Technical Advisory Committee for the Transportation Authority of Marin, and I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Bylaws of the Committee as of ___________________, 20__. _________________________ Print Name _________________________ Signature

T:\03. TAM BOARDS & COMMITTEES\03.01 TAM Board\03.01.03 Board Packets\2011\12-1-11\FINAL\PRINTED\5j - Memo - TAC By Laws Changes-ds-dc.doc

December 1, 2011 TO: Transportation Authority of Marin Board of Commissioners FROM: Dianne Steinhauser, Executive Director THROUGH: Dan Cherrier – Principal Project Delivery Manager RE: Proposed By-Law Changes for the Technical Advisory Committee (Action),

Agenda Item 5j Dear Commissioners: Executive Summary At the October 27, 2005 meeting the TAM Board approved the current By-Laws for the TAM Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Since that time, a few changed conditions have resulted in the need to update the approved By-Laws. The TAC is an advisory body that is tasked with evaluating Measure A expenditures and planning for Measure A Strategy 3.1 (Major Roads) and Strategy 4 (School Access). The TAC has played a significant role in determining recommendations for Major Roads and evaluating locations for crossing guard placement (Strategy 4.2). The first change in the By-Laws is located on Page 4 of Attachment A and recommends that a new Chair and Vice-Chair only be elected once a year instead of after each new appointment. In the original concept this would have resulted in the Chair and Vice-Chair serving two-year terms, since TAC appointments are scheduled for four-year terms alternating to expire in each year ending in an odd number. However, constantly changing membership has resulted in new members throughout each year. To maintain continuity the TAC members have recommended changing this requirement to an annual election each year at the first meeting after June 1. This date was selected based on terms expiring in May of every other year. The next two changes on Pages 5 and 7 of Attachment A, remove an unused bullet under the Agenda format and change the location and time of the TAC meetings. The final proposed change on Page 8 modifies the timing of when the update of the current roster of TAC members occurs. The change will place the update immediately after new members are appointed in May of odd number years. The TAC voted on each of these proposed changes at the November 17, 2011 meeting, supporting the changes, and is requesting Board approval. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed changes as presented. Recommendation: Approve the proposed changes to the Technical Advisory Committee By-Laws as presented in Attachment A. Attachment: TAC By-Laws with Changes


Page 1 of 9

Technical Advisory Committee

BYLAWS

ARTICLE I

GENERAL PROVISIONS

§ 1.1 Purpose

These Bylaws govern the proceedings of the Technical Advisory Committee (Committee), an advisory committee established by the Commissioners of the Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM).

§ 1.2 Construction of Bylaws Unless otherwise required, the general provisions, rules of construction and definitions set forth in the TAM Advisory Committees Standing Rules and Application and Appointment Procedures, with Article IV Section 104.3 of the TAM Administrative Code, shall govern the construction of these Bylaws. These Bylaws shall govern the Committee’s proceedings to the extent they are consistent with Standing Rules and Application and Appointment Procedures, the TAM Administrative Code, and law.

§ 1.3 Definitions

As used in these Bylaws:

• “Committee” means the Technical Advisory Committee. • “Chair” means the person chairing the Committee. • “Authority” means the Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM). • “Brown Act” means California’s open meeting law, the Ralph M. Brown Act,

California Government Code, Sections 54950 et seq. • “Expenditure Plan” means the Marin County Transportation Sales Tax

Expenditure Plan, the 20-year plan for expending the half-cent sales tax revenues contained in Measure A, approved by voters in 2004, and implemented in 2005.

• ‘Measure A” means the measure approved by voters of Marin County on November 2, 2004, that initiates a half-cent sales tax for transportation Projects and Programs.

§ 1.4 Adoption and Amendment of Bylaws

• The Committee shall have adopted Bylaws approved by the TAM Commission

within 90 days of Committee formation. • These Bylaws shall be adopted and amended by the Committee by majority vote

of its total membership, and with approval of the TAM Commission.


Page 2 of 9

ARTICLE II DUTIES AND AUTHORITY

The purpose of the Committee is to prioritize infrastructure improvements in the Expenditure Plan and make recommendations to the Authority.

§ 2.1 Duties

• Adhere to guidelines incorporated into Marin County Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan dated May 6, 2004

• Prioritize major roadway and infrastructure projects in joint effort with the Public Works Directors of each City, Town, and the County.

• Assess the school-related strategy of the Marin County Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan every two years through a public process involving parents, school officials, and students throughout the County.

• Undertake other technical review as requested by the TAM Commission.

§ 2.2 Authority and Limitations • The Committee shall only have advisory powers to the Authority. • The Committee shall not have the authority to communicate externally, but all

communications by the Committee shall go to and through the Authority. No expenditures or requisitions for services and supplies shall be made by the Committee and no individual member shall be entitled to reimbursement for travel or other expenses except as authorized by the Authority.

ARTICLE III MEMBERSHIP

The Committee shall be composed of 13 members. Membership shall be limited to

individuals without economic interest in any of the Authority’s projects. Members will be required to comply with the disclosure and conflict of interest requirements of the Political Reform Act of 1974, California Government code Section 81000 et seq. (as amended).

Each organization represented on the Committee shall nominate its representative, with final appointments approved by the governing board of TAM. The TAM Commission shall retain discretion to rescind any Committee appointment(s) as deemed necessary. Members of this Committee shall be appointed to their full terms, subject to eligibility provisions contained in Section 104.3 of the TAM Administrative Code.

§ 3.1 Membership Composition

Thirteen members are to be selected among Public Works staff, other City staff and representatives of diverse public interests. These members shall be nominated by their respective organizations and appointed by the Authority Commission as follows:

Two representatives from the Marin Managers Association; Three representatives from the Marin Public Works Association; One representative from the Marin County Planning Directors Group;


Page 3 of 9

One representative from the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District;

One representative from the Marin County Paratransit Coordinating Council, representing seniors and persons with disabilities;

One representative from the Marin County Transit District; One representative from the Marin County Office of Education; One representative from the environmental organizations of Marin County; One representative from an advocacy group representing bicyclists and

pedestrians; One representative from business organizations.

§ 3.2 Alternates

• Each Committee member shall have a designated alternate, nominated by the

nominating organization and appointed by TAM, who shall attend Committee meetings in the event that the appointed Committee member is unable to attend. It shall be the responsibility of the appointed Committee member to inform their designated alternate when they are unable to attend a meeting of the Committee.

§ 3.3 Terms

• Members and alternates shall be appointed for a term of four years. • To provide for staggered terms, at the first meeting of the Committee, the

members will draw lots to determine whether their initial appointment is for two or four years.

• All initial appointment terms shall commence on June 1, 2005 and, subject to earlier removal or termination, shall expire on May 31, 2007, as to two-year terms, and on May 31, 2009, as to four-year terms. Thereafter, terms shall commence on June 1 and shall terminate on the fourth anniversary date of such commencement date.

• Committee candidates are required to complete and submit an application. Applications shall be submitted to the TAM Executive Director.

• Existing members who wish to continue serving in their appointed capacity for an additional term are required to complete and submit a new application or may update and resubmit their original application if no pertinent information has changed. Applications shall be submitted to the TAM Executive Director.

§ 3.4 Vacancies

• If a Committee member is unable to complete his or her term, a replacement member will be nominated by the nominating organization and be appointed by the TAM Commission to fill the vacancy and complete the appointed term.

• All qualifying applications for the vacancy will be submitted to the Authority for consideration, selection, and appointment. When a vacancy exists on the Committee and no applications have been submitted, the vacancy will be continued until such time as an appointment is made. The TAM Commission may, at any time, move to continue an appointment to a subsequent date.


Page 4 of 9

§ 3.5 Conduct

• Members shall be responsible for having a working knowledge of the establishing ordinance, Bylaws, federal or state mandates, and any other governing regulations that define and set forth the intent and purpose of their appointment and shall only represent and take action on matters related thereto.

• Members shall not misrepresent the scope of their influence or authority, in matters assigned, or represent recommendations of the Committee as official TAM policy until such time as formal action has been taken by the TAM Commission.

• Unless authorized as the designated spokesperson by the Committee, an individual member may not represent the Committee before any other committee or agency or to the press or general public.

§ 3.6 Subcommittees

• The Committee may elect to form subcommittees to perform specific parts of its

mission. All subcommittees shall have an odd number of members so that tie votes are less likely.

• Any special or ad hoc advisory committees may be abolished upon the accomplishment of its purpose or by a majority vote of the TAM Commission.

ARTICLE IV OFFICERS

At the first meeting after the appointment of each new member,Annually at the first meeting occurring after June 1 the Committee shall elect a Chair and a Vice-Chair. The Committee may choose to establish other elected positions as well; elections for such positions shall take place at the same meeting as the elections of the Chair and the Vice-Chair.

§ 4.1 Chair and Vice-Chair

A Chair and Vice-Chair shall be appointed by a majority of the Committee members present through a process of nomination and seconding. If more than one person is nominated and seconded, the appointment will be by a majority vote. In the event of a vacancy in the Chair’s position, the Vice- Chair shall succeed as Chair for the balance of the Chair’s term, and the Committee shall elect a successor to fill the vacancy in the Vice-Chair’s position. In the event of a vacancy in the Vice-Chair’s position, the Committee shall elect a successor from its membership.

• Duties of the Chair:

Call the meetings to order; Preside over each meeting; Identify items of interest for future committee agendas that are relevant to

the Committee’s responsibilities; Appoint the members of each Subcommittee that the Committee chooses

to form;


Page 5 of 9

Attend, or appoint another Committee member to attend, meetings of the Authority at which items forwarded from the Committee are on the agenda.

Serve as liaison to TAM staff between meetings. To serve as designated spokesperson for the Committee.

• Duties of the Vice-Chair:

Perform the duties of the Chair when the Chair is absent.

ARTICLE V MEETINGS

§ 5.1 Regular Meetings

• Regular meetings of the Committee shall be held on the third Thursday of each

month. The Committee meeting shall commence at 3:300 P.M. in the Room 304 Conference Room at the Marin County Civic Center, 3501 Civic Center Drive,at the offices of TAM located at 750 Lindaro Street, San Rafael, California.

• Whenever a regular meeting falls on a holiday observed by the Authority, the meeting shall be held on another day or canceled at the direction of the Committee.

• A rescheduled regular meeting shall be designated a regular meeting. • All meeting locations shall be accessible.

§ 5.2 Special Meetings

• A special meeting may be called by the Chair with the approval of the TAM

Executive Director. The meeting shall be called and noticed as provided in Section 5.3 below.

§ 5.3 Calling and Noticing of Open Meetings

• All meetings shall be called, noticed and conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Brown Act, which mandates open meetings for legislative bodies. Information announcing the hearings must be well publicized and posted in advance. The TAM Executive Director shall be given notice of all meetings. The Committee may meet in a session closed to the public only for purposes permitted by the Brown Act.

• Writings which are public records and which are distributed during the Committee meeting shall be made available for public inspection at the meeting if prepared by the Authority or a member of the Committee, or after the meeting if prepared by some other person.

• The Committee shall meet at least once every six month(s), unless the Committee’s activities are suspended.

§ 5.4 Quorum; Vote; Committee of the Whole

• The presence of a majority of the Committee members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. All official acts of the Committee shall require the


Page 6 of 9

presence of a quorum and the affirmative vote of a majority of the members present.

• At any regularly called meeting not held because of a lack of a quorum, the members present may constitute themselves a “committee of the whole” for the purpose of discussing matters on the agenda of interest to the committee members present. The committee of the whole shall automatically cease to exist if a quorum is present at the meeting.

• This quorum requirement does not change when any of the positions on the Committee become vacant.

§ 5.5 Attendance

• Members are expected to attend all meetings; however, it is anticipated that some members may not be able to attend all meetings for various reasons. If a member is unable to attend a meeting, he or she should notify TAM staff and the designated alternate as soon as possible prior to the scheduled meeting.

• If a member is absent from four Committee meetings in any twelve-month period or for three consecutive meetings without notifying TAM staff and the designated alternate, the position shall automatically be vacated, and a successor shall be appointed to fill the remainder of that member’s term.

§ 5.6 Matters Requiring Committee Action

• A matter requiring Committee action shall be listed on the posted agenda before the Committee may act upon it except as provided below:

Upon a determination by a two-thirds vote of the Committee, or if less

than two-thirds of the members are present, a unanimous vote, there is a need to take immediate action and the need to take action came to the attention of the Authority subsequent to the agenda being posted.

§ 5.7 Public Comment

• For a regular meeting, members of the public shall be given an opportunity to

address the Committee either before or during the Committee’s consideration of the item, if it is listed on the agenda, or, if it is not listed on the agenda but is within the scope of the Committee, under the agenda item heading “Public Comments.”

• Each member of the public shall limit their comments to three minutes. Any person addressing the Committee may submit written documents to complement their comments.

• The Chair may change the time limit and/or the order of public comments as deemed appropriate but may not reduce the time limit to less than two minutes.

§ 5.8 Ground Rules

• When presentations are being made, they should proceed without interruption.

Questions and comments should be made following the completion of the presentation.


Page 7 of 9

• The Chair may order any person removed from the Committee meeting who causes a disturbance, and the Chair may direct the meeting room cleared when deemed necessary to maintain order, unless the rest of the Committee determine otherwise by a majority vote.

§ 5.9 Robert’s Rules

• All rules of order not herein provided for shall be determined in accordance with

Robert’s Rules of Order, latest edition.

ARTICLE VI

AGENDAS AND MEETING NOTICES

§ 6.1 Agenda Format

• Starting time and meeting location • Introductions • Public Comment • Review and approval of draft action minutes from the last meeting • Scheduled monthly agenda items • • Confirm date and time of the next meeting

§ 6.2 Agenda Preparation

• TAM staff shall produce the agenda for each meeting in consultation with the Committee Chair. Material intended for placement on the agenda shall be delivered to staff on or before 12:00 Noon on the date established as the agenda deadline for the forthcoming meeting. TAM staff may withhold placement on the agenda of any matter which is not received in a timely manner, lacks sufficient information or is in need of staff review and report prior to Committee consideration.

§ 6.3 Agenda Posting and Delivery

• The written agenda for each regular meeting shall be posted by TAM staff at

least 72 hours before the meeting is scheduled to begin. The written agenda for every special meeting shall be posted by TAM staff at least 24 hours before the special meeting is scheduled to begin. The agenda shall be posted in a location that is freely accessible to members of the public. Together with supporting documents, the agenda shall be delivered to each Committee member and the TAM Executive Director at least 72 hours before each regular meeting and at least 24 hours before each special meeting.


Page 8 of 9

§ 6.4 Meeting Notices

• TAM staff shall provide notice of every regular meeting, and every special meeting to each person who has filed a written request for notice with TAM. The notice shall be provided at least one week prior to the date set for the meeting. Notice of special meetings called less than seven days prior to the date set for the meeting shall be given as TAM staff deems practical. All notices shall clearly indicate that reasonable accommodations will be provided on request.

§ 6.5 Meeting Minutes

• The Committee shall cause to be kept at the offices of TAM a record of minutes

of all meetings and actions of the Committee with the time and place of holding, the names of those present at the meeting, and the proceedings.

• Draft minutes will be prepared by TAM staff and will be distributed with agendas before the next meeting. Adoption of minutes shall occur at the next meeting with the support of the majority members present.

ARTICLE VII MISCELLANEOUS

§ 7.1 Public Information List of Members

• The TAM Executive Director shall maintain a public information list of members

and designated alternates appointed to the Committee. The list shall include the name of the appointee, the date the term expires, and the affiliation and/or nominating organization. The list shall be updated annually on January 1.before June 30.

§ 7.2 Staff Support

• TAM staff shall prepare and distribute the Committee’s agendas, notices,

minutes, correspondence and other documents. TAM staff shall maintain a record of all proceedings of the Committee as required by law and shall perform other duties as provided in these Bylaws.


Page 9 of 9

Certificate of Chair

I am the duly elected Chair of the Technical Advisory Committee for the Transportation Authority of Marin, and I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the Bylaws of the Committee as of ___________________, 20__. _________________________ Print Name _________________________ Signature

December 2011 TAM Board Meeting

Caltrans Report

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PM: Post Mile Report Prepared by Caltrans District 4 Office of Project Management PSE: Plans, Specifications, and Estimate November 21, 2011 EA: Project Expense Authorization Number

Page 1 of 4

PROJECTS ENVIRONMENTAL PHASE

Greenbrae Corridor Project; MRN-101 PM 7.2/8.9; On Route 101 from 0.2 miles north of Tamalpais Drive Interchange to 0.3 miles north of Sir Francis Drake Blvd. Interchange Scope: Freeway and Interchange improvements. Cost Estimate: $95M (Construction Capital) Schedule: Start Construction: Fall 2014 End Construction: Fall 2017

PROJECTS IN DESIGN PHASE

AC Overlay; MRN-101 PM 0.0/8.5; On Route 101 from the Golden Gate Bridge to Corte Madera Creek Scope: Overlay mainline pavement with asphalt concrete. Cost Estimate: $24M (Construction Capital) Schedule: Start Construction: Spring 2012 End Construction: Fall 2013

Project Issues: Project advertised on October 31, 2011. Bids will open on January 12, 2012 Detours will be needed for ramp closures.

Marin-Sonoma Narrows Contract B1 - Redwood Landfill Interchange and Frontage Roads; MRN-101PM 18.6/23.3; On Route 101 from 0.1 mile north of North Novato Overhead to 0.6 mile south of Marin/Sonoma County line Scope: Construct a new interchange at Redwood Landfill Road. The project also includes new frontage roads and pedestrian/bicycle facility. Cost Estimate: $29M (Construction Capital) Schedule: Start Construction: Summer 2012 End Construction: End of 2014 Marin-Sonoma Narrows Contract B3 - San Antonio Curve Correction; MRN-101 PM 26.5/27.6 & SON-101 0.0/1.2; On Route 101 from 0.6 mile south of San Antonio Rd. to 1.2 mile north of Marin/Sonoma County line Scope: Realign route 101 to the west to correct horizontal alignment and construct a new mainline San Antonio Creek Bridge. The project will extend frontage roads constructed in other MSN contracts and pedestrian/bicycle facility along San Antonio Creek. Cost Estimate: $52M (Construction Capital) Schedule: Start Construction: Fall 2014 End Construction: End of 2016

Item 6


Caltrans Report


Page 2 of 4

PROJECTS IN CONSTRUCTION PHASE

AC Overlay; MRN 12.8/18.8; On Route 101 from 0.2 miles north of San Paedro Road undercrossing to 0.3 miles south of Route 101/37 separation Scope: Overlay mainline pavement with asphalt concrete. Cost Estimate: $21M (Construction Capital) Schedule: Completion of construction contract anticipated in December 2011. Project Issues: Detours will be needed for ramp closures.

Marin-Sonoma Narrows Contract A1 - HOV lanes in Marin; MRN 18.6/R23.3; On Route 101 from Route 37/101 separation to Atherton Ave. Scope: Construct northbound HOV lane from Route 37 to Atherton Avenue and a southbound HOV lane from Route 37 to Rowland Blvd. The scope includes new HOV lanes in the median, sound walls, ramp metering on mainline and ramps, and Traffic Operation Systems (TOS) elements. Cost Estimate: $27.9M (Construction Capital) Schedule: Construction activities started in July 2011. Completion of construction contract work anticipated in spring of 2012. Project Issues: Ground breaking ceremony was held on July 14, 2011. Implementing reduction of speed from 65 mph to 55 mph to enhance safety within construction zone.

Drainage Improvement and AC Overlay; MRN-1-15/17; On Route 1 near Stinson Beach from north of Calle Del Arroyo to Bolinas Road. Scope: Improve drainage, Install rock slope protection (RSP) and Overlay pavement with asphalt concrete. Cost Estimate: $2.1M (Construction Capital) Schedule: Construction started in July 2011. Completion of construction contract anticipated in December 2011. Project Issues: One way traffic control will be implemented on Highway 1.

AC Resurfacing; MRN-580-2.5/4.8; On Route 580 from Richmond-San Rafael Bridge to Bellam Blvd. Undercrossing Scope: Overlay pavement with asphalt concrete. Cost Estimate: $600K (Construction Capital) Schedule: Construction started in July 2011. Completion of construction contract anticipated in December 2011. Project Issues: All major construction activities completed.

Item 6


Caltrans Report


Page 3 of 4

AC Resurfacing and Improvements; MRN-131-4.0/4.4; On Route 131 from Mar West Street to Main Street Scope: Overlay pavement with asphalt concrete, construct curb ramps, and upgrade signal (at the Beach Road intersection). Cost Estimate: $1.15M (Construction Capital) Schedule: Contract awarded. Construction activities started in August 2011. Completion of construction contract anticipated in January 2012. Project Issues: All major construction activities completed.

AC Resurfacing; MRN-1 PM 19/22.8; On Route 1 from 6 miles north of Panoramic Highway to 4 miles South of Sir Francis Drake Blvd. Scope: Overlay of the pavement with warm mix asphalt concrete. Cost Estimate: $842K (Construction Capital) Schedule: Construction activities anticipated to start in early November 2011. Completion of construction contract anticipated by the end of December 2011. Project Issues: One way traffic control will be implemented on Highway 1.

Highway 1 Pavement Repair; MRN-1 PM var; On Route 1 in Muirwood and Stinson Beach Scope: Pavement repairs (digouts) at various locations, around Muirwood Beach and Stinson Beach. Cost Estimate: $726K (Construction Capital) Schedule: Construction activities anticipated to start in September 2011. Completion of construction contract anticipated in December 2011. Project Issues:

One way traffic control will be implemented on Highway 1.

Item 6


Caltrans Report


Page 4 of 4

STORM DAMAGE PROJECTS

Project EA Location/Description Construction

Capital Cost Begin

Construction

4S550

Project in Design (PSE) Location: Route 101, PM 7.4, In Marin County, near Corte Madera, at Tamalpais Drive. Scope: Remove fill and replace with lightweight fill

$2.2M Spring 2012

4S220 Project in Design (PSE) Location: Route 1, PM 10.95, In Marin County, at Web Creek. Scope: Construct tie-back retaining wall.

$1.9M Fall 2013

3S570

Project in Design (PSE) Location: Route 37, PM 37.1, In Marin County, at 1.5 miles south of Marshall Petaluma Road. Scope: Install Rock Slope Protection (RSP) and Replace culvert.

$800K Fall 2013

4S770

Project in Design (PSE) Location: Route 1, PM 0.9/1.0; In Marin County from Ross Drive to Tennessee Ave. Scope: Replace culverts.

$880K Fall 2013

3S580

Project in Design (PSE) Location: Route 37, PM 11.7/12.2, In Novato, from 0.7 miles east of Route 101/37 separation to 0.9 miles west of Simonds Slough bridge. Scope: Repair levee.

$1.3M Summer 2012

3S900

Project in Design (PSE) Location: Route 1, PM 6.6, In Marin County, near Muir Beach, 0.3 mile north of Seacape Drive. Scope: Construct tie-back retaining wall.

$5.8M Fall 2013

3S910

Project in Design (PSE) Location: Route 1, PM 7.7, In Marin County, near Muir Beach, 0.2 mile north of Cold Stream Fire Road. Scope: Construct tie-back retaining wall.

$6.1M Fall 2013

4S780

Project in Design (PSE) Location: Route 1, PM 24.7; In Marin County, approximately 0.6 south of Olema. Scope: Replace culvert and reconstruct embankment.

$1.2M Fall 2013

4S450

Project in Design (PSE) Location: Route 1, PM 31.3, In Marin County, near Point Reyes station at Petaluma Road. Scope: Remove Rock Slope Protection (RSP) and construct a headwall.

$1.1M Fall 2013

4S530

Project in Design (PSE) Location: Route 1, PM 11.0, In Marin County, near Web Creek. Scope: Stabilize slope using soil nail launcher and install Rock Slope Protection (RSP)

$1.2M Spring 2013

4S660 Project in Design (PSE) Location: Route 1, PM 8.1/10 In Marin County, at Slide Ranch. Scope: Construct retaining wall.

$1.7M Fall 2013

Item 6

December 1, 2011 TO: Transportation Authority of Marin Board of Commissioners FROM: Dianne Steinhauser, Executive Director THROUGH: Gail Papworth, Human Resources Consultant, Local Government Services RE: Salary Structure Adjustment (Action), Agenda Item 7a Dear Commissioners: Executive Summary In the spring of 2010, TAM engaged external consultant support to conduct a classification review of positions inside TAM. The classification study results were presented to the TAM Board at the Executive Committee and TAM Board meetings in February 2011. The Board adopted the revised classifications and the recommendation of a new class of Administrative Services Associate. Note: the last time a classification or compensation evaluation had been performed was 6 years ago, in late 2005. In June of 2011, a list of comparable agencies for salary surveying purposes was determined and adopted by the Board and a salary market survey followed. This report presents the results of that study and recommendations of adjustments to existing salary ranges for TAM classifications. Because the new Administrative Services Associate coincides with a reclassification of the incumbent, the associated salary survey results for the new class and recommendation is presented in a separate Board report on this date. The existing salary ranges for all TAM staff classifications have not been surveyed since the inception of the classifications in 2005-2006. At that time the compensation plan was adopted to allow the market average to serve as mid-range control point for these ranges. This strategy supports the Authority’s ability to meet its staffing needs and to recruit top qualified professionals in the industry without annual salary surveying and equity related changes to the existing salary ranges. Additionally the purpose of the compensation plan is to retain and motivate employees to achieve organizational goals in a cost-effective manner. TAM has developed a compensation approach that addresses each of these distinct elements while aligning to its strategic plan, projected operations timelines and growth strategy. The compensation approach also allows for more stable staffing cost projections. TAM’s classifications range from 4.5% to 21.5% below the average of the same positions assessed across the nine comparable agencies evaluated.

TAM Board Item 7a Page 2 of 5 December 1, 2011

On November 7, 2011, TAM’s Executive Director recommended to the Executive Committee to adopt the revised salary structures with the new market average placed at the mid-point, or control point, of the range. This recommendation is with the understanding that employees will be eligible to move into the new salary ranges at their next performance evaluation and that there will be no automatic increases to employee salaries. Actual increases are approved by the Executive Director or other supervisory managerial staff based upon employee performance. A detailed performance evaluation process has been established, in concert with TAM’s employer-of-record, Local Government Services. If all incumbents move into the new salary structure over the next year, the overall budget effect will be a projected increase in salaries and benefit cost of $55,000. Assuming TAM’s total expenditure for the next year is at a similar level as the current year, this increase will result in TAM’s overall salaries and benefits growing from 4.9% to 5.1% as compared to TAM’s overall budget for the year. TAM has sufficient funds over the next years to allow the pay-for-performance increases to be considered. TAM’s Executive Director also recommended adopting a five-year salary survey cycle which would result in the TAM Board consider any additional changes to the salary structure at the end of the next five year period. On November 7th the Executive Committee voted unanimously to recommend the TAM Board approve the adoption of TAM’s new salary ranges. Recommendation: Adopt the new salary ranges for the specified TAM classifications. Background TAM engaged external consultant support for the purpose of conducting a classification study of all positions inside TAM. The classification study results were presented to the TAM Board at the Executive Committee and TAM Board meetings in February 2011. The study determined that one classification, Executive Assistant/Clerk to the Board, did not accurately represent the incumbent’s scope of work or duties as assigned. The Board adopted the recommendation for a new classification of Administrative Services Associate and moved the incumbent, Ms. Denise Merleno, into the new classification. Other TAM classifications were revised and updated to reflect the current duties of TAM assignments. Most of the TAM classifications had not been revised or updated since their development and adoption in late 2005. Classification and the description of the work and its requirements are distinct from determining the worth of that work in the labor market and to the organization. Recommending the appropriate compensation for the work of a class depends upon an understanding of what that work is and what it requires- this was accomplished through the classification study. The next step as authorized by the TAM board was to perform a compensation study and consider results. The identification of an external labor market for TAM was undertaken to ensure adequate market data and survey results when comparing TAM jobs within the labor market. The TAM Board of Commissioners adopted the below market for surveying purposes at the May 2011 Board meeting.


Market for Staffing Purposes 2011 Alameda County Transportation Commission County of Marin Contra Costa Transportation Authority San Francisco Transportation Authority San Mateo Valley Transportation Authority (SAMTRANS) Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Sonoma County Transportation Authority Solano Transportation Authority Golden Gate Highway & Transportation District

Traditionally, salary surveys are conducted on an annual or two year cycle to ensure that agencies remain competitive in the labor market and offer an equitable range in line with comparator agencies. Adjustments to class salary ranges based on the market survey data results in equity increases/decreases. A Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) is a separate salary plan maintenance tool used to ensure an organization stays within the competitive market. This is typically a negotiated item with represented groups. TAM has not applied a COLA or equity adjustment since the inception of the classification plan. A COLA adjustment process is not being recommended at this time. However, a restructuring of salary ranges is recommended to remain competitive within the labor market. The table below shows a sample of TAM’s comparing agencies and their traditionally applied compensation strategies and salary survey frequency. It is noted that the current economic crisis has prompted frozen equity increases and COLAs for a number of local jurisdictions. Comparator COLA Annual

Equity Increase

Frequency of Salary surveying since 2005

Marin County Yes yes Last survey 2010: no applied COLA for Dept Heads since 2008, Equity adjustments for classifications as surveyed on individual class basis.

Marin Transit follows Marin County

follows Marin County

2010 (follows Marin County for some positions)

City of San Rafael Yes yes as governed by MOU’s City of Novato yes yes 2008-4%, 2007-4%, 2006-5% adjustments (for

SEIU MOU and unrepresented) Sonoma Co Transportation Authority

yes yes 3.5% on 6/20/06; and 3.5% on 6/19/07 As per unrepresented management salary ordinance.

Transportation Authority of Marin

No no Salary ranges adopted 2005- zero % overall adjustment, pay for performance


Agency Estimated Frequency of Salary Surveys

Marin County 1 year cycle 1, 2 Marin Transit TBD SMART n/a City of San Rafael two year cycle 1 City of Novato 2-3 year cycle 1, 2 Sonoma Co Transportation Authority 2-3 year cycle 1, 2 Transportation Authority of Marin 5 year cycle 1- as negotiated, comparable administrative management agreement 2- current salary freeze

As the purpose of the compensation plan and strategy is to attract, retain and motivate employees to achieve organizational goals in a cost-effective manner. TAM originally adopted in early 2006 a compensation approach that addresses each of these distinct elements while aligning to its strategic plan, projected operations timelines, and growth strategy while allowing for more stable staffing cost projections. This approach is based on the market average from survey results with the related average placed at the mid-point (or control point) of the range. This has allowed the Executive Director and other supervisory managerial staff to adjust salaries based on pay-for-performance. Findings Though the original compensation plan and strategy has allowed TAM to remain competitive since that time, results for the current study show most of the TAM classifications have fallen under market. With TAM salary ranges below market averages, TAM is at risk of being unable to attract qualified candidates during recruitments and retain top performing staff. Below is the result of the survey per TAM classification. Note the position of the Associate Transportation Planner was originally set internally at 10% below the Senior Transportation Planner. Adjustment to this range is being addressed under a separate report for the Board this date. Note also the position of Manager of Finance and Administration is being re-titled to Chief Financial Officer. Classification title

current top monthly salary

market average (top monthly salary)

percentage above/below market average

Chief Financial Officer $10,283 $12,255 -16.1% Planning Manager $10,079 $11,562 -12.8% Front Office Receptionist $3,298 $4,291 -11.6% Programming & Legislation Manager $10,515 $11,843 -8.5% Accounting & Administrative Services Specialist

$5,327 $5,792 -8.0%

Principal Project Delivery Manager $11,317 $11,877 -5.1%

Senior Transportation Planner $8,839 $9,218 -4.1%


At this time, the Executive Director recommends the adoption of the revised salary structures, with the new market average placed at the mid-point, or control point, of the range. Individual incumbents within the positions will be eligible to move into the new salary classification at their next performance evaluation. There are no automatic increases to employee salaries. Actual increases are approved by the Executive Director or other supervisory managerial staff based upon employee performance. The Authority has 10 employees who report to the Executive Director or designated supervisory positions. A detailed performance evaluation process has been established in concert with TAM’s employer-of-record, Local Government Services. The evaluations are carried out typically on or near the employee’s anniversary date. The adoption of adjusted salary ranges will allow the Executive Director to continue to reward good performance in accordance with the developed performance standards. This system of pay-for-performance is being recommended in lieu of annual or biennial Equity Increases or Cost of Living Adjustments. Recommendation: Adopt the new salary ranges for the TAM classifications. Attachments: 1) Organization Chart 2011 2) Market Salary Survey Results

Item 7a – Attachment 1

Transportation Authority of MarinMonthly Salary Data

September 2011

Administrative Services Associate

Minimum Maximum Monthly Monthly Eff

Comparator Agency Class Title Salary Salary DateGolden Gate Bridge, Hwy & Transportation District Administrative Assistant/Executive Assistant

to the General Manager 1$7,047 $7,575 unknown

Sonoma County Transportation Authority Executive Assistant $6,042 $7,345 1/11San Mateo County Transportation Authority Assistant District Secretary $4,826 $7,239 1/11San Francisco Transportation Authority Clerk of the Authority $5,348 $7,221 5/07Solano Transportation Authority Clerk of the Board/Office Manager $5,583 $6,786 7/08Alameda County Transportation Commission Clerk of the Board/Commission $5,638 $6,341 1/08County of Marin Administrative Services Associate $5,224 $6,313 unknownContra Costa Transportation Authority Executive Secretary $4,650 $6,280 7/10Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Management Aide/Executive Secretary to

the General Manager 1$4,639 $6,003 11/08

Transportation Authority of Marin Administrative Services Associate $4,361 $5,327 6/05$61,103

Average of Comparators $6,789 % Above/Below -21.5%

1 brackets TAM classification by two comparators to encompass all duties.

retitled from Executive Assistant/ Clerk to the Board

Item 7a - Attachment 2


September 2011

Accounting & Administration Specialist


Comparator Agency Class Title Salary Salary DateAlameda County Transportation Commission Accountant I $5,638 $7,330 8/10County of Marin Administrative Services Technician $5,224 $6,313 6/10Contra Costa Transportation Authority Accounting Technician $4,650 $6,280 7/10San Mateo County Transportation Authority Accounting Technician/Accounting

Specialist$3,802 $5,902 1/11

Sonoma County Transportation Authority Administrative Assistant III (contract, database, accounting)

$4,754 $5,779 unknown

County of Marin Accounting Services Specialist $4,524 $5,423 6/10Transportation Authority of Marin Accounting & Administrative Specialist $4,361 $5,327 6/05Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Accounting Assistant/Accountant I 1 $4,311 $5,213Golden Gate Bridge, Hwy & Transportation District Accounting Specialist $4,155 $5,020 unknown

Solano Transportation Authority Accounting Technician $4,008 $4,871 6/08San Francisco Transportation Authority n/c

$52,131Average of Comparators $5,792 % Above/Below -8.0%

1 brackets TAM classification by two comparators to encompass all duties.n/c = non comparator



September 2011

Chief Financial Officer retitled from Finance and Administrative ManagerMinimum Top EffMonthly Monthly Date

Comparator Agency Class Title Salary Salary Alameda County Transportation Commission Director of Finance & Administration $10,982 $14,277 7/11Contra Costa Transportation Authority Chief Financial Officer $10,100 $13,640 7/10Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Fiscal Resources Manager/Deputy Director of

Accounting 1$10,205 $13,470 11/08

San Francisco Transportation Authority Deputy Director for Finance and Administration $8,973 $13,010 5/07

San Mateo County Transportation Authority Manager, Finance Treasury/Director of Finance 1

$8,685 $12,593 1/11

Golden Gate Bridge, Hwy & Transportation District

Director of Budgets & Program Analysis $8,750 $10,575 unknown

Transportation Authority of Marin Chief Financial Officer $8,419 $10,283 6/05Solano Transportation Authority Accounting & Administrative Services Manager $6,765 $8,222 7/08

Sonoma County Transportation Authority n/cCounty of Marin n/c





September 2011

Front Office ReceptionistMinimum Maximum Monthly Monthly Eff

Comparator Agency Class Title Salary Salary DateAlameda County Transportation Commission Receptionist/Administrative

Assistant 1$3,827 $4,975 8/10

Contra Costa Transportation Authority Administrative Assistant/Clerk $3,550 $4,800 7/10Golden Gate Bridge, Hwy & Transportation District Office Assistant/Administrative

Receptionist$3,970 $4,798 unknown

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Office Specialist II $3,562 $4,299County of Marin Office Assistant II $3,359 $4,004 6/10Transportation Authority of Marin Front Office Receptionist $3,105 $3,793 6/06Solano Transportation Authority Administrative Assistant ll $3,409 $3,580 6/08Sonoma County Transportation Authority Administrative Assistant I $2,944 $3,579 7/10San Francisco Transportation Authority n/cSan Mateo County Transportation Authority n/c




Transportation Authority of MarinTop Monthly Salary Data

September 2011

Planning ManagerMinimum Maximum Monthly Monthly Eff

Comparator Agency Class Title Salary Salary DateAlameda County Transportation Commission Principal Transportation Planner/Deputy

Director of Planning 1$10,482 $13,627 7/11

San Francisco Transportation Authority Deputy Director of Planning $8,973 $13,010 5/07Solano Transportation Authority Director of Planning $9,891 $12,132 7/08San Mateo County Transportation Authority Manager, Planning and Research/Deputy

Director, Sustainability 1$8,254 $11,969 1/11

Contra Costa Transportation Authority Senior Transportation Planner/Deputy Executive Director, Planning 1

$8,575 $11,585 7/10

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Transportation Planning Manager $8,716 $11,505 11/08Golden Gate Bridge, Hwy & Transportation District Principal Planner/Director of Planning 1 $9,133 $11,037 unknown

Transportation Authority of Marin Planning Manager $8,252 $10,079 6/05County of Marin Principal Planner/Deputy Director,

Planning Services 1$8,896 $9,952 7/09

Sonoma County Transportation Authority Deputy Director, Planning & Public Outreach

$9,243





September 2011

Principal Project Delivery Manager

Minimum Maximum EffMonthly Monthly Date

Comparator Agency Class Title Salary Salary Contra Costa Transportation Authority Director, Projects/Deputy Executive Director,

Projects 1$10,365 $13,985 7/10

San Mateo County Transportation Authority Deputy Director, Engineering Support $8,609 $12,484 1/11County of Marin Assistant Director - Public Works $11,196 $12,317 7/08San Francisco Transportation Authority Senior Engineer-Capital Projects/Deputy

Director for Capital Projects$8,696 $12,256

Golden Gate Bridge, Hwy & Transportation District

Supervising Civil Engineer $9,948 $12,021 unknown

Transportation Authority of Marin Principal Project Delivery Manager $9,266 $11,317 7/09Alameda County Transportation Commission Principal Transportation Engineer $9,707 $11,163 unknownSonoma County Transportation Authority Deputy Director, Programming & Projects $8,277 $11,092 unknownSanta Clara Valley Transportation Authority Transportation Engineering Manager $8,287 $10,074 unknownSolano Transportation Authority n/c





September 2011

Programming & Legislation ManagerMinimum Maximum EffMonthly Monthly Eff Date

Comparator Agency Class Title Salary Salary Alameda County Transportation Commission Chief Deputy Director of Projects &

Programming/Deputy Director of Policy, Legislation, & Public Affairs 1

$10,714 $13,927 7/10

San Francisco Transportation Authority Principal Planner,Policy & Programming/Chief Deputy Director Policy & Programming 1

$8,696 $12,256 7/10

San Mateo County Transportation Authority Manager, Programming & Monitoring/Director, Contracts & Procurement 1

$8,254 $11,969 unknown

Sonoma County Transportation Authority Deputy, Programming & Projects $8,276 $11,091 unknownGolden Gate Bridge, Hwy & Transportation District

Director Capital & Grants Programs $9,081 $10,975 unknown

Contra Costa Transportation Authority Programs Manager/Director, Government & Community Relations 1

$8,030 $10,840 7/11

Transportation Authority of Marin Programming & Legislation Manager $8,609 $10,515 6/05Solano Transportation Authority n/cSanta Clara Valley Transportation Authority n/cCounty of Marin n/c

$71,058Average of Comparators $11,843 % Above/Below TAM maximum salary

-8.5%

1 brackets TAM classification by two comparators to encompass all duties.n/c-non comparator



September 2011

Senior Transportation Planner


Comparator Agency Class Title Salary Salary DateSonoma County Transportation Authority Senior Transportation Planner $10,957 $13,319 unknownSan Mateo County Transportation Authority Senior Planner/Manager, Planning &

Research 1$7,020 $10,179 1/11

Alameda County Transportation Commission Senior Transportation Planner $7,583 $9,858 7/11Contra Costa Transportation Authority Senior Transportation Planner $7,050 $9,530 7/10Transportation Authority of Marin Senior Transportation Planner $7,237 $8,839 6/05County of Marin Senior Transportation Planner $7,252 $8,679 7/10Golden Gate Bridge, Hwy & Transportation District Senior Planner $6,467 $7,817 unknownSanta Clara Valley Transportation Authority Transportation Planner III $6,256 $7,578 unknownSolano Transportation Authority Senior Planner $5,583 $6,786 6/08San Francisco Transportation Authority




Page 1 of 2

Accounting & Administrative Speicalist - new salary range

steps 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9hourly 30.20 30.97 31.77 32.58 33.42 34.25 35.11 35.98 36.88monthly 5,234.16 5,368.37 5,506.02 5,647.20 5,792.00 5,936.80 6,085.22 6,237.35 6,393.28yearly 62,809.92 64,420.43 66,072.24 67,766.40 69,504.00 71,241.60 73,022.64 74,848.21 76,719.41

Administrative Services Associate - new salary range


Chief Finance Officer - new salary range


Front Office Receptionist - new salary range


Associate Transportation Planner - new salary range



Page 2 of 2

Planning Manager - new salary range


Planning Specialist


Principal Project Delivery Manager - new salary range


Programming & Legislation Manager - new salary range


Senior Transportation Planner - new salary range



December 1, 2011 TO: Transportation Authority of Marin Board of Commissioners FROM: Dianne Steinhauser, Executive Director RE: New Salary Range for Administrative Services Associate, (Action), Agenda Item 7b Dear Commissioners: Executive Summary TAM conducted a classification and compensation analysis for TAM staff positions in 2010 with the resulting recommendations adopted by the TAM Board in February 2011. The study findings indicated that all staff positions within the Authority were correctly classified with the exception of the position of Executive Assistant/Clerk to the Board. At that time, this position was recommended for reclassification to Administrative Services Associate to reflect the full scope and work duties assigned to the position and its incumbent. The TAM Board approved and adopted this recommendation. . The recommendation for salary range for the new class was postponed so that a concurrent market survey could be conducted along with all other TAM classifications. The list for the market comparable agencies for the salary survey was adopted by the TAM board in June 2011. It is the subject of a separate Board action on this date to consider adopting extended salary ranges in response to the market survey results. The resulting survey information and recommended salary range is consistent with TAM compensation strategies and plan. The total salary and benefits for TAM will increase by approximately $15,000 annually or 0.8% as a result of this action. There is sufficient capacity within the currently adopted TAM Budget for this change, and projected to be sufficient funds in future years. On November 7, 2011, the Executive Committee voted unanimously to recommend to the Board adoption of the new salary range for Administrative Services Associate and place the current incumbent at Step 1 of the new range. Recommendation: Adopt the recommended salary range for the new position of Administrative Services Associate and place incumbent at step 1 in the new range. Background: A position classification study was completed for all TAM staff positions in 2010. Position description questionnaires, desk audits and employee interviews were used in the job analysis to revise, update and determine correct classification levels. The study results showed all positions within TAM organizational structure were performing duties within the scope of their

TAM Board Item 7b Page 2 of 2 December 1, 2011

T:\03. TAM BOARDS & COMMITTEES\03.01 TAM Board\03.01.03 Board Packets\2011\12-1-11\FINAL\PRINTED\7b - BOC item Admin Svcs Assoc Bd letter 11-21-ds.doc

associated classifications with the exception of the Executive Assistant/Clerk to the Board. This position was found to be performing duties outside of the scope of its assigned classification. In February 2011, the TAM Board adopted the new class of Administrative Services Associate with the recommended reclassification of the position of Executive Assistant/Clerk to the Board and its incumbent, Denise Merleno. A determination for a new salary range was postponed in February to be included in the upcoming market salary survey for all TAM classifications. The new classification was assigned the salary range of Executive Assistant/Clerk to the Board until market salary results could be compiled and a new salary range could be recommended. This action was approved with the understanding after the new classification was surveyed, Ms. Merleno’s salary rate would be adjusted based on the results of the salary survey for the new class. Findings: See attached market survey results. The proposed salary range has been set with the market average at mid-range and adheres to TAM’s overall compensation plan and strategy and is as follows: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 35.3950 36.3026 37.2334 38.1881 39.1673 40.1465 41.1502 42.1789 43.2334 6,135.14 6,292.45 6,453.79 6,619.28 6,789.00 6,958.73 7,132.69 7,311.01 7,493.79 73,621.65 75,509.38 77,445.52 79,431.30 81,468.00 83,504.70 85,592.32 87,732.13 89,925.43

Recommendation: Approve the recommended salary range for the classification of Administrative Services Associate and place incumbent at step 1 in the new range. Attachments: 1) Market survey results 2) Administrative Services Associate job classification

Transportation Authority of MarinMonthly Salary DataSeptember 2011

Item 7b ‐ Attachment 1

Administrative Services Associate: new class

retitled from Executive Assistant/ Clerk to the Board


Comparator Agency Class Title Salary Salary DateGolden Gate Bridge, Hwy & Transportation District Administrative Assistant/Executive Assistant to

the General Manager 1$7,047 $7,575 unknown

Sonoma County Transportation Authority Executive Assistant $6,042 $7,345 1/11San Mateo County Transportation Authority Assistant District Secretary $4,826 $7,239 1/11San Francisco Transportation Authority Clerk of the Authority $5,348 $7,221 5/07Solano Transportation Authority Clerk of the Board/Office Manager $5,583 $6,786 7/08Alameda County Transportation Commission Clerk of the Board/Commission $5,638 $6,341 1/08County of Marin Administrative Services Associate $5,224 $6,313 unknownContra Costa Transportation Authority Executive Secretary $4,650 $6,280 7/10Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Management Aide/Executive Secretary to the

General Manager 1$4,639 $6,003 11/08

Transportation Authority of Marin Administrative Services Associate $4,361 $5,327 6/05$61,103

Average of Comparators $6,789 % Above/Below -21.5%


Item 7b – Attachment 2

Job Specification Established: February 2006 Revised: February 2011

Page 1

TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY OF MARIN

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ASSOCIATE

DEFINITION Under general supervision, provides varied, complex, and confidential secretarial and administrative support to executive and management staff and acts as assistant to the Executive Director and Clerk of the Board of Commissioners for the Authority. Coordinates administrative and technical activities between divisions, outside agencies and organizations; and performs other related duties as assigned. DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS This is a single position, executive support class serving at the highest level of administrative support for the Authority. This position is distinguished from other administrative support classes in the nature, diversity and scope of responsibilities as well as its required independence of action and decision-making. The incumbent is expected to exercise a high level of discretion and judgment in dealing with complex and sensitive information that can include budget, employee relations, legislative and legal matters pertaining to the overall administration of the Authority. Successful performance of the work requires a high degree of independent judgment in matters concerning the attention of the Executive Director, Board Chair, or members of the Board. SUPERVISION RECEIVED AND EXERCISED Receives general direction from the Executive Director and guidance from divisional management. Provides lead direction to other Authority support staff as assigned and on a project basis. EXAMPLES OF DUTIES Duties may include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Serve as liaison between Executive Director, managers, and staff and provide feedback and information to outside agencies, organizations and the public concerning Authority projects, administration and policies; receive complaints and requests and handles or route them for necessary action; refer requests and/or technical information to appropriate divisions.

• Maintain Executive Director calendar; schedule and arrange meetings and appointments, make travel arrangements for Executive Director, and Board members, coordinate invoices, payments, reimbursement forms for Executive Director and Board members.

• Schedule and organize meetings and workshops including notification of participants and the public room arrangements and preparation, development and distribution of informational materials. Assure compliance with Brown Act requirements.

• Schedule special board or committee meetings and inform the respective chairs of the presence of a quorum.



Page 2

• Develop and maintain Authority website including design, posting updates, ensures

follow through on scheduled maintenance; arranges regular and specific training for web use; coordinate website upkeep and changes with web development vendors and consultants.

• Provide information to officials regarding agenda items, legislation, public comment and other issues to facilitate the Board's operations and includes frequent exposure to confidential information including fiscal, political, and personnel matters. Prepare and handle confidential, personal and sensitive material for the Executive Director’s review; compile information and format correspondence and related documents; produce basic correspondence for ED review and approval.

• Prepare Board packets including resolutions, ordinances and supporting documents for submission; Oversee the assembly and distribution of the board packet ensuring compliance with legal requirements regarding notification of Board members and the public.

• Provide minute taking for regular and special Board and committee meetings, ensuring that Authority rules of order are followed; transcribe minutes and distributes according to Authority regulations.

• Monitor Board member term expirations; assist with outreach for reappointment or new applicants and follow-up documentation for local agency appointment.

• Monitor committee and subcommittee member term expirations; assist with outreach for new or reappointed members. Develop Board packet items for approval regarding such memberships.

• Initiate and compose routine memorandum, letters, contracts and other documents from handwritten notes, rough draft copy or verbal instructions; prepare statistical reports;

• Develop and format forms, charts and reports; edit and review documents for grammatical and punctuation errors.

• Perform and direct the organization and maintenance of confidential and administrative files and records; maintain confidential personnel files and oversee new employee orientation process and ensures supporting office needs are met such as phone, computer, business card, email, etc.

• Track Executive Director signature items for timeliness and accuracy and processes according to administrative policy; type and proofread reports, spreadsheets, correspondence.

• Assist with, administer, or coordinate special projects; foster cooperative working relationships with civic groups, inter-governmental agencies and agency staff; attend and participate in professional and community meetings.

• Develop, coordinate and maintain effective paper-flow processes, filing and record-keeping systems for the section or unit.

MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS Knowledge of:

• General knowledge of the policies and procedures of the Transportation Authority of Marin or other congestion management agency.

• All applicable policies, procedures and work methods associated with assigned duties. • Techniques for dealing with executive and top management staff from a wide variety of

public and private organizations.



Page 3

• Government structure, administrative processes and procedures, work practices, forms and documents associated with commissions, boards, and governmental agencies.

• Function and role of an elected Commission or other elected body including legislation and regulations affecting routine actions of a Board such as the Brown Act.

• Computer technology including standard desktop software and applications and related hardware and software utilized in local area networks and internet research. Principles for dealing successfully with individuals of various ages, and members of various ethnic and socio-economic groups.

• Data processing applications and systems and the principles of modern office management.

• Principles and practices of records management. • Principles and practices of preparing and indexing action minutes. • Correct business English, including spelling, grammar and punctuation. • Standard office and administrative policies and procedures; business arithmetic; and

business letter writing and the standard format for typed materials. Ability to:

• Understand community interest groups and issues and the public as they affect agenda items considered by the Board of commissioners in order to effectively synthesize and record essential points of discussions, motions and votes at Board meetings and/or actions taken.

• Organize, schedule, coordinate, research, compile, exchange and analyzing information. • Independently prepare correspondence and other written documents for executive

signature. • Use sound independent judgment within general policy and procedural guidelines;

interpret and apply Authority policies and procedures. • Learn the legal requirements governing the processing of documents related to Board

actions, or of the function and processes. • Identify and secure confidential, highly sensitive records and written or verbally

communicated information and recording such information accurately. • Plan, organize and schedule work and office priorities and provide follow-up in a timely

fashion. • Maintain confidential files, records and reports; research, analyze, compile and summarize

a variety of materials. • Analyze and resolve office administrative issues; use tact, discretion, initiative and

independent judgment in the delivery or assignments and daily interactions. • Read, understand and review documents for accuracy and relevant information. • Utilize modern technology, systems and software designed to assist in the computerized

management of information. • Communicate effectively in English both verbally and in written form sufficient to

convey information and instructions to the public and other employees in situations requiring tact, courtesy and poise.

• Establish and maintain effective working relationships with those contacted in the course of the work; understand information requests of others and responding courteously, efficiently and accurately.

• Manage time effectively and perform under tight deadlines. • Perform mathematical calculations quickly and accurately.



Page 4

• Serve effectively as a member of the agency administrative team. Experience and Training: Any combination of experience and training that would provide the required knowledge and abilities is qualifying. A typical way to obtain the required knowledge and abilities would be: Experience: Five years of administrative support experience that includes least 2 years of upper management level support and experience providing clerk support for a governmental, non-profit or private board. Training: Equivalent to a bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university with major course work in public administration, business administration, public finance, liberal arts, or a related field. Additional years of related experience may be substituted for the educational requirement on a year to year basis. License or Certificate: Possession of a valid California driver’s license may be required at the time of appointment. Individuals who do not meet this requirement due to a physical disability will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Physical Demands and Working Conditions The physical demands and working conditions described here are representative of those that must be met by an employee to successfully perform the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions. Work is usually performed in a typical office setting with moderate noise and may require evening and weekend work. Travel may be required to other meeting locations. The noise level in the work environment is usually quiet. Hand-eye coordination is necessary to operate computers and various pieces of office equipment. While performing the duties of this job, the employee is occasionally required to stand; walk; use hands to finger, handle, feel or operate objects, tools, or controls; and reach with hands and arms. The employee is occasionally required to sit; climb or balance; stoop, kneel, crouch, or crawl; talk or hear; and smell. The employee must occasionally lift and/or move up to 25 pounds. Specific vision abilities required by this job include close vision, distance vision, color vision, peripheral vision, depth perception, and the ability to adjust focus. FLSA: Non-Exempt

December 1, 2011 TO: Transportation Authority of Marin Board of Commissioners FROM: Dianne Steinhauser, Executive Director RE: Adopt Revised Classification and salary range for Associate Transportation Planner (Action), Agenda Item 7c Dear Commissioners: Executive Summary TAM has utilized the classifications of Associate Transportation Planner and Senior Transportation Planner since 2007 as an alternatively staffed classification for flexibility in work assignment and hiring practices. This lower level class was originally set internally at 10% below the Senior Transportation Planner range; however the Associate Transportation Planner was surveyed individually in the 2011 compensation study. The results of the survey showed the class at approximately 10% above market. Additionally, staff has recognized the need for a clearly defined professional entry level within the TAM planning series to allow for staff professional growth potential. Given this, staff recommended to the Executive Committee to revise the Associate Transportation Planner class to more appropriately reflect professional entry level assignments and hiring qualifications and to adjust the salary range according to the survey results to be consistent with all TAM classifications and salary ranges. On November 7th the Executive Committee voted unanimously to recommend to the Board the adoption of a new salary range and the associated revisions to the classification of Associate Transportation Planner. Recommendation: Adopt the revised classification of Associate Transportation Planner and the recommended salary range. Background: The Associate Transportation Planner class has been considered the journey level class into TAM’s professional transportation planner series. The position is expected to act independently to analyze, conduct appropriate outreach and communications, and develop resultant materials commensurate with the given assignment under guidance and supervision of senior planning staff. When a candidate is hired at the associate level, it is expected that the work performed will increase in complexity, responsibility and level of authority over time with the potential promotion in to the Senior Transportation Planner level. This standard is more fully realized through the concept of an entry level professional in the Transportation Planner series.

TAM Board Item 7c Page 2 of 2 December 1, 2011

The previous salary range for Associate Planner was set as a direct offset from the Senior Transportation Planner salary range. The newly recommended new salary range for the class is based on the external market survey findings utilizing the adopted labor market approved by the TAM Board at their May 2011 meeting. The range has been set with the market average as the mid-range control point and adheres to TAM’s overall compensation plan and strategy. Duties associated with the position are covered in the attached description. Salary Range 2008

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

41.1352 42.1899 43.2717 44.3813 45.5192 46.6572 47.8236 49.0192 50.2447

7,130.10 7,312.92 7,500.43 7,692.75 7,890.00 8,087.25 8,289.43 8,496.67 8,709.08

85,561.17 87,755.05 90,005.18 92,313.00 94,680.00 97,047.00 99,473.18 101,960.00 104,509.

00 New Salary Range

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 37.3605 38.3185 39.3010 40.3088 41.3423 42.3759 43.4353 44.5211 45.6342

6,475.83 6,641.87 6,812.18 6,986.85 7,166.00 7,345.15 7,528.78 7,717.00 7,909.92 77,709.93 79,702.49 81,746.15 83,842.20 85,992.00 88,141.80 90,345.35 92,603.98 94,919.08 Attachments: 1) Associate Transportation Planner Job Classification Description (revised) 2) Market Survey

Item 7c – Attachment 1 Job Specification Established: April 2008

Revised: November 2011

Page 1 of 4

TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY OF MARIN

ASSOCIATE TRANSPORTATION PLANNER DEFINITION Under the supervision of the Planning Manager, to assist in the delivery of transportation planning activities for the Authority; to manage, organize and coordinate assigned projects and areas of responsibilities that include community based transportation planning, unique analyses and studies, development of TAM’s congestion management planning activities, intergovernmental review under CEQA, management of climate initiative programs including TDM and electric vehicle infrastructure, transportation land use coordination, and transit oriented development activities, including participation in station area planning or other specific plans. The position may also assist in the oversight of fund programming activities, including analysis, report writing, and committee interaction and management. The position will represent the member agencies on transportation matters with other governmental agencies, community groups, and transportation organizations and will ensure the Authority’s mission and goals and represent the Authority. Perform other related duties as assigned. DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS The Associate Transportation Planner performs professional level planning, analysis, and program administration for multi-modal transportation planning and fund programming. Incumbents in this class work closely with senior TAM staff at the Senior Planner and managerial levels, and with regional transportation agencies in support of transportation planning and fund programming efforts for Marin County. SUPERVISION RECEIVED AND EXERCISED The Associate Transportation Planner receives direction from senior TAM staff and supervision from the Planning Manager. EXAMPLES OF DUTIES Duties may include, but are not limited to, the following: • Assisting in the management and delivery of TAM managed planning efforts

including Community Based Transportation Plans (CBTP), Development and maintenance of the Congestion Management Plan (CMP), Bike Plan Updates for County plus all eleven cities/towns through TDA Article 3 contract.

Determination of local land use changes resultant consistency with CMP. Review of local transportation and land use activity as a responsible agency under

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).



Page 2 of 4

Coordinate with county staff to develop and secure travel demand modeling data for congestion management.

Assure ongoing adherence to Strategic Plan Performance objectives. Manage fund programming of specific fund sources, adhering to eligibility

requirements- work with sponsors to assure delivery of funding, monitoring and management of reporting requirements

Works with professional staff in collecting, analyzing, and evaluating factual data; Manages transportation planning activities, including consultant team management,

committee and public outreach forums, assessment and response to comments, and resultant development of recommendations related to transportation system improvements.

Prepares written and graphical material for reports and public presentations; Serves as a member of a multi-disciplinary team for major transportation projects; Serves as liaison for various committees. Provides information to various groups, committees, and individuals regarding

transportation planning projects. Performs related duties as required.

MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS Knowledge of:

• Modern principles and practices of transportation planning and analysis. • Principles and techniques of quantitative analysis, including spreadsheets and

database analysis and management. • Land use, sustainable community initiatives, and environmental, economic and

social concepts as applied to transportation planning. • Principles and practices of project management and control, including techniques

to facilitate inter-agency cooperation. • Proposal writing and contract administration. • Principles and practices of program and budget development, analysis,

administration and evaluation. • Research, analytical and statistical methods applicable to transportation planning. • Inter-relationships among government agencies with respect to transportation

needs and the challenges to address those needs. Ability to: • Assist in the management of a comprehensive transportation program and other

transportation planning projects. • Assist in transportation planning and analysis including managing consultant contracts

and evaluating effectiveness of contract services provided. • Interpret, apply and explain laws, rules, regulations and policies. • Define problems, collect, analyze, interpret and evaluate data, define alternatives

and project consequences.



Page 3 of 4

• Make adjustments to standard operating procedures to improve effectiveness and comply with regulatory changes as appropriate.

• Develop and coordinate complex work programs, research projects and analytical studies.

• Analyze complex transportation issues, evaluate alternatives and reach sound conclusions.

• Conduct spreadsheet analysis and translate technical data and information into language understandable to the general public.

• Prepare and make presentations to a wide variety of audiences. • Keep accurate records. • Communicate clearly and concisely, both orally and in writing; and establish and

maintain effective working relationships. Experience and Training: Any combination of experience and training that would provide the required knowledge and abilities is qualifying. A typical way to obtain the required knowledge and abilities would be two years of professional experience in public transportation or transit planning or a related field and the equivalent to a bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university in an appropriate discipline such as transportation planning, city and regional planning, civil engineering, economics, or public administration. A Masters Degree in transportation planning or a related field may be substituted for experience on a year to year basis. License or Certificate: Possession of a valid California driver’s license may be required at the time of appointment. Individuals who do not meet this requirement due to a physical disability will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Physical Demands and Working Conditions The physical demands and working conditions described here are representative of those that must be met by an employee to successfully perform the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions. Work is usually performed in a typical office setting with moderate noise and may require evening and weekend work. Travel is required to meetings and other jurisdictions. The noise level in the work environment is usually quiet. Hand-eye coordination is necessary to operate computers and various pieces of office equipment. While performing the duties of this job, the employee is occasionally required to stand; walk; use hands to finger, handle, feel or operate objects, tools, or controls; and reach with hands and arms. The employee is occasionally required to sit; climb or balance; stoop, kneel, crouch, or crawl; talk or hear; and smell. The employee must occasionally lift and/or



Page 4 of 4

move up to 25 pounds. Specific vision abilities required by this job include close vision, distance vision, color vision, peripheral vision, depth perception, and the ability to adjust focus. FLSA: Exempt


September 2011

Item 7c - Attachment 2

Associate Transportation PlannerMinimum Maximum Monthly Monthly Eff

Comparator Agency Class Title Salary Salary DateContra Costa Transportation Authority Associate Transportation Planner $6,040 $8,150 7/10Transportation Authority of Marin Associate Transportation Planner $6,460 $7,890 6/05Alameda County Transportation Commission Assistant Transportation

Planner/Programming Analyst I$5,924 $7,701 8/10

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Transportation Planner III $6,074 $7,358 5/08County of Marin Planner $6,072 $7,256 6/10Golden Gate Bridge, Hwy & Transportation District

Associate Planner $5,779 $6,984 unknown

Sonoma County Transportation Authority Transportation Planner $5,536 $6,730 7/10Solano Transportation Authority Associate Planner $4,923 $5,984 7/08San Mateo County Transportation Authority n/cSan Francisco Transportation Authority n/c

$50,163Average of Comparators $7,166 % Above/Below 10.1%

n/c = non comparator

The original salary range for this TAM class was set internally at 10% below the Senior Trans Planner as an alternatively staffed class

T:\03. TAM BOARDS & COMMITTEES\03.01 TAM Board\03.01.03 Board Packets\2011\12-1-11\FINAL\PRINTED\8 - Memo - PMO Contract-ds-dc.doc

December 1, 2011 TO: Transportation Authority of Marin Board of Commissioners FROM: Dianne Steinhauser, Executive Director THROUGH: Dan Cherrier – Principal Project Delivery Manager RE: Award of Contract for Program/Project Management and Oversight Services

(Action), Agenda Item 8 Dear Commissioners: Executive Summary TAM staff manage a variety of projects and programs with a relatively small staff. This level of oversight requires supplemental assistance from a variety of consultants. This approach allows TAM to utilize expertise when it is needed, and creates access to the right kind of expertise depending on the circumstances. The current contracts for Program/Project Management, Construction Management, and On-Call Local Agency Support Services have expired or will expire in December 2011. Staff proceeded with a process to bring a new team onboard under a new contract, as the services needed are ongoing and the previous contracts had been in place for up to five years. TAM advertised a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Program/Project Management and Oversight Services and received one quality proposal from CSW/Stuber-Stroeh of Novato. Staff has verified that the proposal meets all of the expected requirements and that the qualifications of the proposed team members are adequate to perform the requested tasks. The RFP was designed to be in conformance with federal procurement guidelines as outlined in the Federal Acquisition Register. The subsequent contract will be fully eligible to receive federal funds, thereby allowing TAM to pay the consultant with federal funds, along with the traditional state, and local fund sources. The ability to use federal funding will be especially useful to local agencies in Marin County that occasionally have difficulty in administering design and construction management contracts that use federal funds. Staff is recommending an initial three-year contract with options for two one-year extensions. Rates are to be determined by use of an overhead multiplier and fee incorporated into the direct costs. A negotiated rate of compensation will be utilized for the firms that are unable to provide an overhead multiplier. All work will be authorized through a Task Order System with associated deliverables, schedule and budget. Task Orders will not be authorized until a source of funds is identified for the proposed work.

TAM Board, Item 8 Page 2 of 4 December 1, 2011


The proposed initial contract amount is $900,000. This amount is for contracting purposes only. Individual Task Orders will authorize the consultant to invoice against the contract. The work associated with these consultant support services was envisioned and is included in TAM’s adopted FY 2011-12 budget. Recommendation: Authorize the Executive Director to enter into a contract with CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc. for a not to exceed amount of $900,000. Contract to terminate December 31, 2014 with two one-year optional extensions. Individual work elements will be authorized through a Task Order system and have been envisioned as part of TAM’s FY 2011-12 approved budget. History At its December 14, 2006 meeting, the TAM Board of Commissioners approved award of a contract for Program and Project Management to the PDM Group. The TAM Board also awarded a separate contract for construction management and an on-call contract to provide design and support services for local agencies in Marin County. The contract for construction management was instrumental in the successful delivery of the Gap Closure Project while the Program and Project Management contract has been used extensively to help deliver and manage state highway projects including the 580/101 Connector Widening and the Marin-Sonoma Narrows, as well as numerous Measure A programs. This assistance included: public outreach; early support with the 580/101 connector project; coordination of the crossing guard program; funding and grant opportunity review and support; DBE compliance; many elements of the TDM program; RTP management; and ongoing Program Management for the MSN project. TAM is currently using consultant support to augment staff in project and program oversight, management, and delivery, which will continue to be the likely trend for the near future unless staff is increased to meet workload demand. Since TAM does not anticipate substantial staff increase, the prudent use of consultant support services can assist staff in delivering projects and programs associated with Measure A (Transportation Sales Tax) and Measure B (Vehicle Registration Fee), state funded projects and programs, as well as the funding programs and projects administered by TAM as the Congestion Management Agency (CMA). Each of the above contracts has been extended the maximum number of times allowed under the original contract terms. Due to the completion of the Gap Closure Project, the requirement for construction management has been substantially reduced. Staff has determined that each of the above services should be combined into a single contract. Selection Process In early October, TAM released an RFP for Program/Project Management and Oversight Services. Extensive advertising was performed including direct contact of several potential consultants. Approximately 25 consultant representatives attended the pre-proposal meeting held on October 24, 2011.



TAM calculated a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goal for this contract of 5.4% including a requirement of 4.2% participation for underutilized DBEs. The RFP was designed to be in conformance with federal procurement guidelines as outlined in the Federal Acquisition Register. The subsequent contract will be fully eligible to receive federal funds thereby allowing TAM to pay the consultant with multiple funding sources. The ability to use federal funding will be especially useful to local agencies in Marin County that occasionally have difficulty in administering design and construction management contracts that use federal funds. The scope of services outlined in the RFP included:

• Assist with the development of project controls and the overall management of program/project scope, schedule and budget;

• Assist with the development and application of criteria for project prioritization; • Management of project delivery, and oversight of projects, on the state highway system; • Review of compliance with performance standards and assist with reporting requirements

for claimants; • Provide on-call design services as required to assist with the needs of local agencies in

Marin County; • Development of public outreach and educational programs and materials; • Assist as necessary for development of elements of the Regional Transportation Plan; • Assist with technical expertise regarding CEQA and NEPA actions, including specific

environmental technical areas; • Provide support for long-range planning activities in the County of Marin; • Monitor and provide expert assistance in the preparation and maintenance of TAM’s

various Transportation Demand Management Programs such as Emergency Ride Home, Dynamic Ridesharing, and Vanpool Incentives;

• Provide assistance as necessary for management of TAM’s Crossing Guard Program; • Provide expertise with the assignment of various fund sources.

Proposal were due November 10. TAM received one proposal from CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group Inc. Their team included: AECOM Local Agency Design Support, and CEQA/NEPA Consulting; PDM Group Program Management, Project Delivery, Strategic Planning,

Performance Standards, and Reporting Requirements; Vali Cooper & Assoc. Program Controls, Performance Standards, Reporting Requirements,

and Construction Management; Advance Project Del. Project Controls, Project Prioritization, Strategic Planning, Project

Oversight, Funding Sources, and Crossing Guard Coordination; Gray-Bowen Strategic Planning, Project Prioritization, and Funding Sources; Nelson\Nygaard Public Outreach, TDM Programs, RTP Management, and Long Range

Planning; Eldridge Consulting Public Outreach, and Long Range Planning; Parisi Associates Local Agency Design Support, Traffic Engineering, and Long Range

Planning; Rick Ruvolo Consulting TDM programs; Green Valley Engineering Local Agency Design Support W-Trans Traffic Engineering



The prime consultant CSW/Stuber-Stroeh will provide overall Program Management, Contract Management as well as specialization in Project Delivery and Performance Standards. The designated point of contact will be Al Cornwell currently serving as the president of CSW/Stuber-Stroeh. A selection panel has not been formed due to the receipt of only one proposal. Staff have reviewed the qualifications of the firms listed in the proposal, as well as the overall presentation and have determined that the proposed team meets the minimum qualifications to perform the expected tasks. Contract Staff is recommending an initial three-year contract with options for two one-year extensions. Rates are to be determined by use of an overhead multiplier and fee incorporated into the direct costs. A negotiated rate of compensation will be utilized for the firms that are unable to provide an overhead multiplier. All work will be authorized through a Task Order System with associated deliverables, schedule and budget. Task Orders will not be authorized until a source of funds is identified for the proposed work. The proposed initial contract amount is $900,000. This amount is for contracting purposes only. Individual Task Orders will authorize the consultant to invoice against the contract. The work associated with these consultant support services was envisioned and is included in TAM’s adopted FY 2011-12 budget. Recommendation: Authorize the Executive Director to enter into a contract with CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc. for a not to exceed amount of $900,000. Contract to terminate December 31, 2014 with two one-year optional extensions. Individual work elements will be authorized through a Task Order system and have been envisioned as part of TAM’s FY 2011-12 approved budget.

December 1, 2011 TO: Transportation Authority of Marin Board of Commissioners FROM: Dianne Steinhauser, Executive Director THROUGH: James O’Brien – Crossing Guard Program Coordinator Dan Cherrier – Principal Project Delivery Manager RE: TAM Crossing Guard Program - New Location/Changed Conditions Policy (Action) Agenda Item 9 Dear Commissioners: Executive Summary The TAM crossing guard program is currently funded by Measure A Transportation Sales Tax and Measure B Vehicle Registration Fee and provides 75 adult trained crossing guards at 77 locations throughout the County (two guards have split shifts that guard more than one location). The 2011-12 school year represents the sixth year of the program. In June 2010, the TAM Board approved a ranked list of 125 locations reviewed by Public Work Directors, TAM’s Technical Advisory Committee, and school superintendents from across the County. The evaluation criteria used for the ranking were developed between fall 2008 and summer of 2009 by the TAM Technical Advisory Committee and the Marin Public Works Association. TAM has assigned guards from that ranked list since that time, totaling 75 guards. The Measure A Strategic Plan requires that the Program be recertified every three to six years. The recertification process that led to the approval of the ranked locations list in 2010 is not scheduled to occur again before 2013-14. The current ranking will remain in place until the next recertification, unless a policy and/or procedure is established to modify the list between re-certifications. From time to time, TAM receives a request for a new crossing guard location that is not on the master list of 125 approved by TAM. These requests can be for brand new sites, unaddressed in the original 125 location list, or for re-evaluation of an existing site due to changed conditions. TAM does not have a policy in place to consider these requests. TAM staff developed several policy options and took these options to the TAM Technical Advisory Committee and the Marin Public Works Association. The option to add a new guard mid-year if it qualifies “above the funding cutoff” was preferred, with any deleted guard “below the funding cutoff” considered for deletion after school lets out for the summer. A full discussion

TAM Board Item 9 Page 2 of 5 December 1, 2011

of options is presented below. Staff also presents the financial impact of this proposal, which concludes that this option is feasible as long as a substantial number of new guards is not added mid-year. MPWA requested consideration in the future of joint-funded locations (school or local jurisdiction funding), the pursuit of additional grant funds, and other public/private options. Staff is recommending the Board approve a policy to address requests for new locations and responses to changed conditions at existing crossing guard locations. Recommendation: Adopt a policy to update the master list of crossing guard locations between formal recertification cycles, as outlined in the staff memo. Background The TAM Crossing Guard program provides trained crossing guards for critical intersections throughout Marin County. The current list of 125 locations was evaluated and ranked during the 2009-10 school year as part of the recertification process required by Measure A. TAM approved an additional 12 guards into the program for the 2010-11 school year using short-term excess funds. It was noted at the time that if the Measure B Vehicle Registration Fee, which included funding for crossing guards, did not pass in November 2010, then the additional 12 guards would need to be discontinued after the 2010-11 school year. Measure B passed and the funding for the additional 12 guards is now in place permanently. The 75 guards provide services at 77 locations (two locations “split” a guard, i.e. the guard works at one location in the morning and another in the afternoon). The funding for the 75 guards was continued into the current, 2011-12 school year. At the time the current 125 location ranked list was approved, the jurisdictions were granted the authority to move a guard from a location ranked above the funding cutoff line to another location within their jurisdiction, including a location ranked below the funding cutoff. This swap authority was granted to the Public Works Director of the jurisdiction to acknowledge the nature of the crossing guards as part of the overall transportation and traffic control system within a jurisdiction. This allows for local judgment by the public works departments. However, what to do with brand new location requests has not been addressed. New Requests Since the approval of the location rankings in June 2010, TAM has received requests for new locations and conditions have changed at some existing locations that may impact the rankings if those locations were to be re-evaluated. Staff has taken several policy options to both the TAM Technical Advisory Committee and the Marin Public Works Association. The recommended policy would address the issues related to requests for new locations and for responding to changing conditions that have the potential to impact the location rankings. The issues related to new locations and locations with changed conditions are primarily related to school-related travel behavior. Over time, changes which involve school populations may impact the travel patterns and volumes of school-aged pedestrians (and bicyclists) going to and from school. School closures, school openings and changes to school enrollments each contribute to the factors used to evaluate and rank the crossing guard locations. Changes to


surrounding infrastructure such as new pathways, roadway expansions, traffic control improvements, etc. also contribute to changes in the factors used to evaluate and rank the locations. The ranking of the crossing guard locations in the TAM Crossing Guard Program are based in large part on the travel patterns and volumes of school-aged pedestrians (and bicyclists). If there have been changes at a given crossing guard location that impact the factors used for the ranking, the location may require re-evaluation in order to maintain the intent of the evaluation process to serve as a basis for prioritization related to placing the limited amount of crossing guards at locations throughout the County that provide the maximum benefit. Several options have been considered for addressing the issues described above related to new crossing guard locations and changes in conditions at existing locations.

Option 1: Maintain the approved ranking of the crossing guard locations until the next recertification cycle, which is currently scheduled for the 2013/14 school year, and consider new locations at that time. (Note: All locations will be re-evaluated at that time, so changes in conditions at any location will be considered inherently in the recertification process). Option 2: Respond to requests for new locations and/or requests for re-evaluation of an existing location by evaluating the new location or re-evaluating the existing location as soon as practicable following receipt of the request. The evaluation or re-evaluation would be conducted using the same evaluation criteria as used for the current rankings. The new location would be added to the master list (in order of its ranking), or the ranking of the re-evaluated location would be revised, and the revised rankings would be brought before the TAM Board for review and approval. The revised rankings would be put into effect immediately following Board approval of the revised rankings. Guards would be added to new or revised locations above the funding cutoff line, and removed from locations that fall below the cutoff as soon as practicable following the Board approval. Option 3: A variation of Option 2 with the revised rankings being put into effect at the end of the school year during which the revisions are approved by the TAM Board (as opposed to being put into effect immediately following Board approval of the revised rankings). This option would allow for the transition of guard locations to occur between school years instead of during the school year. Option 4: A variation of Options 2 and 3 with the revised rankings being put into effect immediately following Board approval of the revised rankings for locations to receive a new guard, and at the end of the school year during which the revisions are approved by the TAM Board for locations losing a guard. This option allows for the guard to be placed at the new location (as warranted by the revised rankings) as soon as practicable after Board approval, and the guard at the location that is pushed below the funding cutoff to continue at the existing location for the remainder of the school year so the transition occurs between school years.

Option 4 above is the basis of the recommended policy. This allows for appropriate notification of parents, students, and schools mid-year, if a guard is to be removed.


Both the TAM Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the Marin Public Works Association (MPWA) reviewed the policy options and recommended that Option 4 be presented to the TAM Board for approval, as the best option. Financial Impacts The current rate for crossing guard services is $16.20 an hour ($14.56 per hour with a reduced minimum per day for Novato Guards) resulting in annual costs of $11,700 per location ($7,900 for Novato locations). The basic rate coupled with summer school guards and a transit bus program resulted in a 2011/2012 school year budget of $840,000 for TAM crossing guards. The expected revenue from Measures A (½ cent sales tax) and B (the Vehicle Registration Fee) is $790,000 for the current year. The program is scheduled to operate with negative cash flows until 2021 and will gradually exhaust the annual carryover in 2018 (the original annual carryover was created by collected sales tax a year before implementation of the program). Between 2018 and 2022, if the same number of guards are maintained, the program will have to borrow funds from the other strategies that will be repaid from 2022 to 2024. Staff will present options back to the TAM Board as we approach 2018 regarding funding for guards. To date, the transit pass program has been under utilized by the crossing guards and it is estimated that sufficient funds will be available to fund two to three crossing guards for the remainder of this year. For future years, a short term extra guard may be accommodated by the conservative estimates associated with the guard costs. Implementation of Option 4

New Locations: Evaluate each new location requested by a Public Works Director and rank the location as soon as practicable using the same evaluation criteria as used for the current ranking. Add the new location to the current master list of location rankings in the order of its rank based on the evaluation. If the new location is ranked above the funding cutoff (i.e. the new location qualifies for funding), add a guard at the location as soon as can be arranged following Board approval of the revised rankings; and continue to provide the guard at the existing location that is pushed below the funding cutoff by the new location until the end of the school year during which the new location is added.

Changed Conditions: Re-evaluate each location at which a changed condition exists using the same evaluation criteria as used for the current rankings. Revise the master list of ranked locations based on the re-evaluation. If the reevaluation results in a location which was currently ranked above the funding cutoff falling below the funding cutoff, the location will be funded until the end of the school year during which the reevaluation occurs. If the reevaluation results in a location which was currently ranked below the funding cutoff moving above the funding cutoff, add a guard at the location as soon as can be arranged following Board approval of the revised rankings; and continue to provide the guard at the existing location that is pushed below the funding cutoff by the revised rankings until the end of the school year during which the new location is added.


Recommendation: Adopt a policy to update the master list of crossing guard locations between formal recertification cycles, as outlined in the staff memo. Attachment: Current Rankings of 125 Crossing Guard Locations

Item 9 – Attachment Page 1 of 7

June 24, 2010 Approved List

Ranked List of TAM Marin County Crossing Guard Locations

Rank Description Note City or

Community School District

1 Miller Ave & Evergreen Ave

Mill Valley Mill Valley

2 Tam Racket Club & Doherty Rd

Larkspur Larkspur

3 Nova Albion Way (at Vallecito School)

San Rafael Dixie

4 177 N San Pedro Rd

Santa Venetia San Rafael Elementary

5 Center Rd & Diablo Ave

Discontinued August 2011 due to school

closure. Novato PW Director swapped with

Rank 76

Novato Novato Unified

6 Bahia Way & Kerner Blvd

San Rafael San Rafael Elementary

7 Center Rd & Leland Dr


8 Sir Francis Drake & Oak Tree Lane

Fairfax Ross Valley

9 E Strawberry Dr (at Strawberry School)

Marin County Mill Valley

10 Paladini & Vineyard


11 Sutro Avenue, in front of Pleasant Valley Elementary, just south of Meisner Drive


12 Alameda Loma & Calla Mesa

Ignacio Novato Unified

13 Camino Alto & Sycamore Ave


14 E. Blithedale & Lomita Ave


15 Bell Lane & Enterprise Concourse

Tamalpais Valley

Mill Valley

16 San Ramon Way & San Benito Way







17 5th Ave & River Oaks Dr


18 Sutro Ave & Dominic Dr


19 Butterfield Rd & Green Valley Ct

Sleepy Hollow Ross Valley

20 Mohawk (in front of Neil Cummins School)

Guarded by staff from LCMSD, Corte

Madera PW Director swapped with Rank 81

Corte Madera Larkspur

21 Hickory Ave (near Mohawk)


22 Karen Way (in front of school)

Tiburon Reed Union

23 Olive Avenue, in back of school, west of Rosalia Drive and east of Westwood Drive


24 College Ave & Stadium Way

Kentfield Kentfield

25 Kerner Blvd & Canal St


26 Doherty Dr at Piper Park Crosswalk

Larkspur Larkspur

27

Lagunitas & Allen Avenue

Ross Ross

28 Diablo Ave (between Hill and Center)

Discontinued August 2011 due to school

closure. Novato PW Director swapped with

Rank 80


29 Lomita Dr (in front of Edna Maguire School)


30 One Main Gate Road (at School)


31 Lovell Ave & Old Mill St







32 Mt Shasta & Idylberry

Lucas Valley Dixie

33 Las Gallinas & Miller Creek Rd

Marinwood Dixie

34 Tiburon Blvd & Lyford Dr

Tiburon Reed Union

35 Arthur & Cambridge St


36 Nova Albion & Monticello

San Rafael Dixie

37 Woodland Ave & Lindaro St


38 Throckmorton Ave & Old Mill St


39 Avenida Miraflores (at School)

Tiburon Reed Union

40 Bahia Way (at School Entrance)


41 Adams St & Johnson St


42 Center Rd & Tamalpais Ave


43 Richmond & Belle

San Anselmo Ross Valley

44 Sir Francis Drake & Marinda Dr

Fairfax Ross Valley

45 Magnolia Ave & Wilshire Ave

Larkspur Larkspur

46 College Ave & Woodland Ave

Kentfield Kentfield

47 Butterfield Rd (in front of School)


48 Knight Dr & Ashwood Ct


49 Happy Lane & 5th Ave


50 Magnolia Ave & King St

Larkspur Larkspur

51 Nova Albion Way & Las Gallinas Ave

No guard, San Rafael PW Director swapped

with Rank 86

San Rafael Dixie






52 S Novato Blvd & Sunset Pkwy


53 W Castlewood Dr & Knight Dr


54 Miller Ave & Almonte Blvd


55 S Novato Blvd & Yukon Way

Guard service in PM only


56 Sir Francis Drake & Laurel Grove Ave

Kentfield Kentfield

57 Lagunitas & Ross Common

Ross Ross

58 Oak Manor (mid-block at school)

Fairfax Ross Valley

59 Tiburon Blvd & Kleinert Way

Tiburon Reed Union

60 N San Pedro & Roosevelt

Santa Venetia San Rafael Elementary

61 Center Rd & Wilson Ave


62 Sir Francis Drake & College Ave

Kentfield Kentfield

63 Tiburon Blvd & Avenida Miraflores

Tiburon Reed Union

64 E Blithedale & Buena Vista Ave


65 Woodland Ave & Eva


66 Sunset Parkway & Merritt Dr

Guard service in AM only


67 E Blithedale & Elm Ave


68 Golden Hind Passage (in front of school)


69 Sir Francis Drake & Glen Drive

Guard service in AM only

Fairfax Ross Valley

70 Tiburon Blvd & Trestle Glen

Tiburon Reed Union

71 Sunset Pkwy & Lynwood Dr







72 Blackstone & Las Gallinas

Marinwood Dixie

73 Las Gallinas & Elvia Ct

Marinwood Dixie

74 Wilson & Vineyard


75

Woodland (at back entrance of school)

No guard, San Anselmo PW Director swapped with Rank 90


76 San Marin Dr & San Ramon Way

Location has been swapped with Rank 5


77 Tiburon Blvd & Blackfield Dr

Tiburon Reed Union

78 Sir Francis Drake & Tamal Ave*

Guard service in PM only


79 Sir Francis Drake & Bon Air Rd

Kentfield Kentfield

80 Wilson Ave at X-walk to field

Location guarded per Novato PW Director

request


81 Tamalpais Dr & Eastman Ave

Location guarded per CM PW Director

request


82 Grand Ave & Jewell St


83 Sunset Pkwy & Ignacio Blvd

Location guarded by NUSD


84 Tiburon Blvd & Stewart Dr

Tiburon Reed Union

85 Racquet Club Dr & 5th Ave


86 Belle Ave (in front of school)

Location guarded per San Rafael PW Director request


87 Nova Albion Way & Arias Street

San Rafael Dixie

88 Melrose Ave & Evergreen Ave

Marin Co - Mill Valley

Mill Valley

89 Corte Madera & Tamalpais Dr







90 Sir Francis Drake & Butterfield Rd

Location guarded per San Anselmo PW Director request


91 Woodland Ave & Siebel


92 Ross & Kensington


93 Front of School Bolinas Bolinas-Stinson Unified

94 Sir Francis Drake & Broadmoor Ave


95 Sir Francis Drake & Wolfe Grade

Kentfield Kentfield

96 Woodland Ave & Lovell Ave


97 Marinwood Ave & Miller Creek Rd

Marinwood Dixie

98 Sir Francis Drake & Manor Rd

Kentfield Kentfield

99 Ricardo Rd & E Strawberry Dr

Marin County Mill Valley

100 Sir Francis Drake & Bolinas Ave


101 Wilson Ave & Hansen Road


102 Sir Francis Drake & Meadow Way

San Geronimo Lagunitas

103 Sir Francis Drake & Lagunitas

Location guarded by RSD

Ross Ross

104 Blackfield Dr & Karen Way

Tiburon Reed Union

105 Sir Francis Drake & Oak Manor

Fairfax Ross Valley

106 Montford Ave & Melrose Ave


Mill Valley

107 Lincoln Ave & Paloma (east side)


108 Sequoia & Miracle Mile


109 Sir Francis Drake & Barber Ave/Ross Ave







110 Evergreen Ave & Ethel Ave


Mill Valley

111 Richmond & Mariposa


112 Tinker Way & Bowling Circle


113 Harvard Ave & Wellesley


Mill Valley

114 Tiburon Blvd & E Strawberry Dr


Mill Valley

115 Olive Ave & Summers Ave


116 Gibson & Shoreline


Mill Valley

117 Bellam Blvd & Anderson Dr


118 Sir Francis Drake & Saunders Ave


119 San Marin Dr & San Carlos Way


120 Bellam Blvd & I-580 on ramp


121 Bellam Blvd & I-580 off ramp


122 Bellam Blvd & Francisco Blvd East


123 Olema-Bolinas Rd & Mesa

Bolinas Bolinas-Stinson Unified

124 Sir Francis Drake & Aspen Court


125 Sir Francis Drake & S Eliseo Dr

Kentfield Kentfield

T:\03. TAM BOARDS & COMMITTEES\03.01 TAM Board\03.01.03 Board Packets\2011\12-1-11\FINAL\10 - Memo - RTP- staff recommendation-ds.doc

December 1, 2011 TO: Transportation Authority of Marin Board of Commissioners FROM: Dianne Steinhauser, Executive Director RE: Regional Transportation Plan: Staff Recommendation for Candidates to be

Included (Action), Agenda Item 10 Dear Commissioners: Executive Summary Over the last three months, staff have been presenting information to the TAM Board regarding the RTP candidate pool. TAM received over $3 Billion in candidates, when it conducted a very thorough outreach process last Spring. The candidates we originally received cover all modes, as TAM worked very closely with its counterparts in local government, with our transit operators, with our communities of concern, and with our advocates such as the bike/ped community. Staff believe our final recommendation to the RTP must be multi-modal, especially in light of the goals we have in Marin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The final submittal to the RTP must also be geographically balanced, so all of the areas of Marin have their transportation needs met. In late September, prior to the TAM Board meeting, staff conducted an open house workshop that exhibited some of the important criteria that influence the RTP candidate selection, such as committed funds, like Marin’s ½ cent transportation sales tax, our $10 vehicle registration fee for transportation, and our Regional Measure 2 toll funds; fund eligibility; and external policy influences, including those of MTC and the California Transportation Commission, or CTC. Commissioners became more familiar with the candidates we have supported in the past and the needs in many areas of transportation in Marin. In October, staff presented a plethora of information on each candidate being considered for funding. This information was meant to better inform the TAM Commissioners, and aid in the final selection of a candidate list. That information included a focus on eligibility of candidates for the three fund sources TAM has available to consider in its RTP budgeting: STIP/TE, STP/CMAQ, and STIP/RTIP. Each of these fund sources has eligibility requirements based on law, regulations, and policies. That information also included whether candidates could compete well for those fund sources - while the funds are theoretically dedicated to Marin, they are under the control of other agencies, which have exhibited a need to prioritize who gets funding, especially when revenue decreases in poor economic conditions, common over the last nine years. The October information presented to the TAM Board also included what funds have been committed to date / whether TAM has historically supported the project and already invested in it,



what the benefit / cost is likely to be, and whether the project is currently leveraging outside funds, or has the potential to do so. Your staff at TAM know all of these factors well. Having had key staff, such as the Executive Director and the CFO, manage the RTP process while at MTC, our ability to understand funding is strong. Commissioners addressing the data for the first time have gotten up to speed very quickly, and Commissioners that worked to select RTP candidates in past cycles are already familiar with the process and likely outcomes. Staff is offering its recommendation on what should be included in the RTP, based on all the factors we have presented to date: eligibility for the funds; likelihood of getting those funds; priorities of our local governments, sister agencies, and dedicated advocates; benefit/cost; multi-modal balance; and geographic equity. Finally, keep in mind that staff is recommending submitting candidates that fit the fund sources and the dollar amounts available. This is MTC’s preferred process. Attached are two spreadsheets that exhibit recommended funding for each of the three fund sources, Attachments A & B. Also attached, Attachment C, is a listing of what exactly is included in the general candidate listings, specifically those candidate listings that are a roll-up of many smaller candidates submitted. Note, MTC recommended aggregating candidates into these general categories, a practice being exercised in all counties. Since the October 27th TAM Board meeting, staff has been responding to the requests made by Commissioners at the meeting, as well as gathering further input from project sponsors in Marin, along with MTC. Here is a brief summary of new information provided and activity since October 27th: 1. Staff discussed the RTP submittal with the Marin Public Works Association on November 17th. The public works directors agreed with the staff recommendation for assigning funds, with a commitment by TAM staff to send out the list of specific project elements that were included under three aggregated RTP candidate listings: - Non-capacity increasing freeway/expressway and interchange modifications - Bike/Pedestrian Enhancements - Bike/Pedestrian Expansion Public Works staff will review what projects are included in these listings, and recommend any necessary changes. Staff have sent out these lists to the DPW’s and will bring a final listing to the TAM Board on December 1st. In the meantime, Attachment C exhibits what staff have received to date in those categories. 2. Per the request made by the TAM Board at the October 27th board meeting, TAM staff include as Attachment D the CTC policy on prioritizing STIP/RTIP allocations of funds. As mentioned previously, the CTC has historically assigned low priority to other than capacity increasing highway or transit construction projects (except TE projects, which are a unique fund source within the STIP). While a large suite of candidates are eligible for STIP/RTIP funding, in any year where capacity is less than programmed amounts, CTC will most likely not allocate those lower priority projects. CTC has made exceptions for extremely small counties that have no highway needs. By programming RTIP funds to non-highway projects, a County is essentially



telling the state that it has no more highway priorities, and this will affect a County’s ability to compete successfully for other future state discretionary funds (whether ITIP, or future state bonds, etc.) The CTC expects and rewards local participation in highway projects, and views the STIP/RTIP as mainly a highway expansion/improvement program. 3. At the TAM Executive Committee meeting of November 7th, TAM staff were asked to compare the listings for local road projects requesting these discretionary fund sources with those projects included in the Measure A sales tax program. Of the projects listed under Roadway Improvement Programs funded by STIP/RTIP, only Novato Boulevard (Segment 1) from Grant to Diablo is also programmed with Measure A funds in the amount of $6.4 million. Note that Marin Transit capital projects being requested out of discretionary funds may also have Measure A funds assigned to them in the future. 4. Since the TAM Board meeting of October 27th, MTC has released their performance evaluation results. The MTC results of two performance evaluation efforts are attached. Note MTC evaluated major projects and general project categories around the Bay Area. In Marin, major projects included the Marin-Sonoma Narrows, the SMART rail improvements, Golden Gate Transit expansion, and Marin Transit expansion.. See Attachment E. The MTC results are one set of factors to be considered by the MTC Commission in setting funding priorities for the region in this RTP cycle. While highway projects generally performed lower in relation to MTC’s adopted performance criteria, transit projects generally performed lower in relation to benefit /cost assessment. MTC will be discussing these results at future meetings of the Commission. Staff will report on results. 5. In response to feedback from TAM’s Executive Committee, staff have developed a list of Vision candidates that reflect projects TAM may recommend in a future RTP, along with Vision candidates developed by local project sponsors. See Attachment F indicating Vision candidates. Regarding SMART, no TAM discretionary funds are being recommended at this time due to TAM board policy adopted in June and July. However, SMART is recommended for inclusion as a Vision candidate to inform MTC that it could be an important candidate for TAM in the future. As well, any local funds from local jurisdictions for SMART could be entered into the RTP. Note also TAM’s support for SMART funds from other regional sources will be mentioned in the transmittal letter to MTC. A number of smaller changes have been made in response to input received from TAM Commissioners at the November 7th Executive Committee meeting. Staff seek concurrence from the TAM Board on these changes: * Under STIP-TE funds, staff have expanded the description to include local enhancements including aesthetic treatments and landscaping. Note that it is intended that a majority of funds be dedicated to bike and pedestrian needs. ( 90%) * TAM staff recommend $600,000 in future STIP-RTIP for further evaluation of the feasibility of a trolley system from the Ross Valley to either the Larkspur Ferry Terminal or the Bettini Transit Center. Funding for this has been moved over from the Marin Sonoma Narrows project. Finally, Staff include a key code to terminology associated with the RTP submittal, see Attachment G.



Staff recognize that future discussion may be necessary to fine-tune TAM’s RTP submittal based on MTC Commission discussion over the next few months, and any new requirements that come to light from MTC. Staff will return to the TAM board for updates and any additional actions in the coming months. Recommendation: Approve staff’s recommendation for funding candidates in the RTP. Recommend funding list to be sent to MTC for consideration. Attachments: A: Plan Bay Area 28-Year RTP Marin County Local Discretionary Fund Programming Proposal – STP/CMAQ & STIP/TE Fund B: Plan Bay Area 28-Year RTP Marin County Local Discretionary Fund Programming Proposal - STIP/RTIP Fund C: Breakdown of RTP Programmatic Applications D: STIP Allocation Plan E: MTC Project Assessment Handouts F: List of RTP Marin Vision Projects G: Key Code to Spreadsheet Terms

Agenda Item 10 - Attachment A

TAM Discretionary Funding Sources Sponsor

Discretionary Funds Requested

(YOE $, In Millions) Plan Bay Area

Recommended $ Transit Element Bike/Ped Element STP/CMAQ - $89 Million

Regional Planning TAM N/A 22.40$ -$ -$ Local Streets & Roads O&M - Rehab various 1,948.80$ 24.90$ Climate/Local Air Quality Initiatives/EV/Rideshare various 15.10$ 5.05$ Bike Enhancement & Expansion various 228.90$ 6.73$ 6.73$ SAP Improvements various 93.40$ 28.60$ 28.60$ Priorty Conservation Area (PCA) various 1.25$ 1.33$

TOTAL 2,287.45$ 89.00$ 28.60$ 6.73$



(YOE $, In Millions) Plan Bay Area

Recommended $ Transit Element Bike/Ped Element STIP - TE - $45 Million

Bicycle/Pedestrian Enhancements/Expansion; local enhancements including aesthetic treatments and landscaping. various 228.90$ 45.00$ 45.00$

TOTAL 228.90$

1. TFCA, at approximately $350,000 annually, this will yield $ 9.8 million for bikes and peds2. TDA Article 3 , at about $185,000 annually, this yields $ 5.1 million for bike/ped projects and can also be dedicated to major maintennace of bike/ped facilities3. Regional bike program, from MTC's STP/CMAQ funds, which has yielded about $500,000 annually, if continued, would result in $14 million, but is dependent on MTC policy4. Vehicle Registration Fee funds- at a dedicated $100,000 per year for pathway maintenance, this will yield $2.8 million over the life of the RTP

6. Measure A transportation sales tax interest funds for maintenance contribute $2 million over the life of the RTP7. Regional Measure 2 toll funds are dedicated to the central Marin Ferry Connector project totalling $11 million

This yields an additional $58.7 million in bike/ped investment in Marin, without considering SMART's Multi-Use Path or Community Based plan projects

Note 2 - While we are assigning an agnostic share according to the MTC dollar amount as compared to the total dollars available, these funds are flexible in which category TAM programs the funds to in any given cycle.

Note 3 - These funds are currently further restricted by MTC policy regarding Priority Development Areas , which policy will require funds be spent in PDA areas in Marin- in a range from 50% to 70% ( currently under negotiation)

Plan Bay Area 28-Year RTP Marin County Local Discretionary Fund Programming Proposal - STP/CMAQ Fund

Note 1 - The funds under Plan bay Area recommended are a reflection of the percentage share that MTC assigned to each of the categories in their current MTC OBAG grant process. While this grant process only reflects a three-year cycle, it is a reasonably good proxy to both needs in the region and MTC policy emphasis. MTC manages the programming of these funds.

Plan Bay Area 28-Year RTP Marin County Local Discretionary Fund Programming Proposal - STIP/TE Fund

NOTE: There are 8 ( eight) other fund sources that dedicate bike and pedestrian funds to Marin. Based on a 28 year RTP cycle, and current levels of funding ( not escalated) , these funds are also available:

5. Safe Pathway projects under TAM's 1/2 cent transportation sales tax: TAM dedication of sales tax has been averaging about $500,000 annually, or $14 million over the life of the RTP, assuming the 1/2 cent transpo sales tax gets extended beyond 2023-24

8. Note also that future Community Based Transportation Plans will yield bike/ped improvements, that will likely be funded from MTC's Lifeline Program, which are seperate funding

Item 10 - Attachment B



(YOE $, In Millions)Plan Bay Area

Recommended $ Transit Element Bike/Ped ElementSTIP-RTIP - $248 Million

Larkspur Ferry Terminal Parking Garage GGT 55.70$ 4.00$ -$ -$ Downtown Novato Transit Facility Marin Transit 3.60$ 3.60$ 3.60$ -$ Real-time Transit Travel Marin Transit 0.60$ 0.60$ 0.60$ -$ Transit Management Systems Marin Transit 1.50$ 1.50$ 1.50$ -$ Enhance Muir-woods Shuttle and West Marin Stagecoach Marin Transit 2.50$ 1.25$ 1.25$ -$ Marin County Local Transit Expansion (Capital & Operating) Marin Transit 664.60$ -$ -$ -$ Transit enhancements Marin Transit 45.20$ -$ -$ -$ Golden Gate Transit Bus Service Expansion/ Marin GGT -$ -$ -$ -$ Mulit-Modal Transit Hubs- ( Green Mobility Hubs) Marin Transit 6.00$ 6.00$ 6.00$ -$ Senior Mobility Program Marin Transit 9.90$ -$ -$ -$ Hub Intersection Improvements Town San Anselmo 9.00$ 1.00$

US 101/Lucas Valley Road interchange improvements (PAED) TBD / Caltrans 29.90$ 3.00$ 1.50$ 1.50$ US 101 Greenbrae/Twin Cities Corridor Improvements TAM/ Caltrans 104.80$ 104.80$ 7.00$ 17.00$ Marin Sonoma Narrows Stage 2 (Marin County) TAM/ Caltrans 110.00$ 54.50$ -$ 2.00$

US 101/Tiburon Boulevard interchange improvements (PAED) TBD / Caltrans 22.00$ 2.00$ 1.00$ 1.00$ Pacific Way Bridge County 7.20$ 7.20$ -$ 1.00$ Andersen Dr/ East Sir Francis Drake Boulevard Project City San Rafael 6.00$ 6.00$ 2.00$ 1.00$ Widen Novato Blvd. between Diablo Ave. and Grant Ave. City Novato 8.30$ 8.30$ 1.00$ 1.00$ Non-Capacity Increasing Freeway/Expressway I/C Mods various 120.50$ 43.25$ 5.00$ 2.00$ Local Streets and Roads O&M - Rehab various 1,948.80$ -$ -$ -$

Implementation of Station Area Plans ImprovementsSan Rafael and Larkspur 93.40$ -$ -$ -$

Trolley- Ross Valley Transit Connector TBD 0.60$ 0.60$ 0.60$ -Highway 101 at Highway 37 Interchange TBD / CaltransHighway 101 at San Marin Drive and Atherton Avenue TBD / Caltrans

TOTAL 3,250.10$ 247.60$ 31.05$ 26.50$

1. Larkspur Ferry Terminal Parking Garage 2. US 101/Lucas Valley interchange improvements 3. US 101 / Tiburon Blvd interchange improvements 4. Hub intersection Improvements

NOTE 1: Marin's transit expansion capital element includes 72 new vehicles, totalling $43.1 million, not escalated. A source of operating funds is still being developed by Marin Transit

NOTE 2: Local Streets and Roads funds are being recommended from a different fund source, STP/CMAQ, because eligibility is more certain with that fund source

NOTE 3: Marin Transit does not support the Transit Enhancements candidate and it will be removed from further consideration

NOTE 5: Station Area Plans are funded from STP/CMAQ funds dedicated by MTC

NOTE 6: the two Hwy 101 projects- Hwy 37 interchnage and San Marin Drive are Vision candidates, as confirmed by City of Novato staff, and will be included on a Vision candidate submittal from TAM.

The following projects are recommended for support funds only- for Project Approval Environmental Document (PAED)

Plan Bay Area 28-Year RTP Marin County Local Discretionary Fund Programming Proposal - STIP/RTIP Fund

NOTE 4: funding for the Marin Sonoma Narrows is shown at 50% of funding needed. This assumes that funds will be forthcoming from Caltrans for the corrridor, coming from Caltrans share of the STIP, or Interregional Transportation Improvement Program, ITIP funds

Item 10 – Attachment C

Breakdown of RTP Programmatic Applications

Transit Programs

Discretionary Funds RTP Candidate Name Requested ($) Specific Projects Real time Transit Travel 0.6 M 1. Extend Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) to 20

additional buses. 2. Extend AVL to 10 additional signs. 3. Connect AVL to 511 Program and Google Transit. Transit Management 1.5 M 1. Install Mobility Data Terminals to allow drivers Systems and schedulers to communicate with Marin Transit’s

Mobility Management Center. 2. Install Integrated Voice Response System to

communicate with clients. 3. Install onboard camera systems. Marin County Local 664.6 M 1. Decrease core service interval to 15 minutes. Transit Expansion 2. Decrease basic service interval to 30 minutes. (Capital & Operating) 3. Increase service along 101 corridor. 4. Increase evening and weekend service. 5. Increase rural service. 6. Purchase 72 buses. Golden Gate Transit Bus 806.8 M 1. Supplement operating costs Service Expansion in Marin 2. Purchase additional rolling stock (Vision Project) 3. Rolling stock maintenance 4. Access improvements 5. Bus stop upgrades Multi‐Modal Transit 6.2 M 1. Install 20 Multi‐modal Transit Hubs. (Green Mobility Hubs) 2. Install bicycle lockers. 3. Improve pedestrian access. Roadway Improvement Programs

Discretionary Funds RTP Candidate Name Requested ($) Specific Projects Non‐Capacity Increasing 120.5 M 1. Freitas Parkway near 101. Freeway/Expressway 2. Irwin/Heatherton along 101. Interchange Modifications 3. North San Pedro near 101. 4. Novato Blvd along 101 from Grant to Diablo.

Item 10 – Attachment C

5. Miller Creek near 101. Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvement Programs

Discretionary Funds RTP Candidate Name Requested ($) Specific Projects Bicycle/Pedestrian 21.1 M 1. Fund routine maintenance of 42 miles of Class 1 Facilities Rehabilitation Paths. And Maintenance 2. Maintenance of bridges and tunnels Bicycle/Pedestrian 55.7 M 1. Magnolia Blvd. in Larkspur. Enhancements 2. Francisco Blvd. East between Vivian and Grand. 3. Pedestrian Safety and Access Programs, including

lighting and traffic calming. Bicycle/Pedestrian 173.2 M 1. Improve Bay Trail in San Rafael. Expansion 2. Pedestrian bridge over the canal to Montecito

Shopping Center in San Rafael 3. Cross Marin Bikeway from Fairfax to San Anselmo. 4. Grand Avenue Bridge Project in San Rafael. 5. Alexander Ave. to Richardson St. bike/ped

improvements in or near Sausalito. 6. Construct pedestrian overcrossing from Medway at

Francisco Blvd. East over Highway 101 to Francisco Blvd. West.

Local Air Quality and 15.1 M 1. Implement countywide electric vehicle program. Climate Protection 2. Implement transportation demand strategies. Strategies 3. Implement carsharing and ridesharing. 4. Implement bikesharing.

Item 10 – Attachment D

FY 09/10 STIP Allocation Plan It is anticipated that not all STIP projects programmed in 2009-10 can be allocated this fiscal year because of the State Budget constraints, which can also be compounded if the State is unable to sell enough bonds. While the CTC will still follow the first-come, first served component, the CTC adopted a general 2009-10 STIP allocation plan based on the below principles and priorities. Guiding Principles:

• Mode neutral. • Avoid the loss of federal funds. • Prioritize construction and other capital expenditures. • Prioritize projects funded with other competitively selected Proposition 1B funds

(the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account, the Route 99 Bond Program, the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund, State-Local Partnership Program, or the Traffic Light Synchronization Program) including projects programmed for preconstruction in the STIP.

• Consolidate bond funding by allocating Transportation Facilities Account funds (STIP Augmentation Bond) to projects with other competitively selected Proposition 1B funding. Limit additional allocations of Transportation Facilities Account funds to projects with more than $10 million programmed for STIP construction funding.

• Limit potential allocations to projects programmed in 2009-10, projects with extensions to 2009-10, and projects delivered in 2008-09 that could not be allocated in 2008-09 because resources were insufficient (do not advance out-year projects).

• Evaluate exceptions to the allocation plan on an individual basis. General Allocation Plan Priorities: Projects in the following categories will receive allocations on a first come, first served basis so long as sufficient capacity remains. 1. AB 3090 cash reimbursements. 2. Planning, programming and monitoring. 3. Projects funded with both STIP and other competitively selected Proposition 1B funds, including allocations for preconstruction components. STIP construction funding for these projects will be allocated from the Transportation Facilities Account. Additionally, the Commission intends to use Transportation Facilities Account funds for projects requesting construction allocations of $10 million. Attachment 5 lists the projects proposed for Transportation Facilities Account allocation. 4. Projects at risk of losing federal funding if not allocated (e.g. Highway Bridge Program) 5. Capital funding for: A. Required mitigation projects for construction projects previously allocated.

Item 10 – Attachment D

B. Capacity expansion projects on the interregional road system and capacity expansion intercity rail projects.

C. Capacity expansion urban transit projects with intercity rail benefit or significant regional impact.

D. Operational improvements to urban transit with intercity rail benefit or significant regional impact.

E. Operational improvements on the state highway system. The Commission will give lower priority to projects in the following categories (excluding TE funded projects):

• Preconstruction funding (excluding preconstruction components for projects funded with both STIP and other Proposition 1B funds).

• Capacity expansion projects on local roads and capacity expansion transit projects without intercity rail benefit or significant regional impact.

• Operational improvements on local roads and transit operational improvements. • Local road rehabilitation and reconstruction. • Bicycle and pedestrian facilities. • Landscaping (if not a required mitigation). • Enhancements, including soundwalls.

Summary of Benefit‐Cost Ratios and Target Scores ‐ DRAFT (listed by benefit‐cost ratio) Public Draft ‐ 11/4/2011

Project ID Project Name County* Project Type

Project Capital Costs

(in millions of 2013 dollars)

Total Annualized 2035 Benefits(in millions of 2013 dollars)

Total Annualized 2035 Costs


Plan Bay Area B/C Ratio

T‐2035 B/C Ratio

Overall Targets Score

Targets Supported

Targets Adversely Affected

240182BART Metro Program (including Bay Fair Connection and Civic Center Turnback)

Multi‐

County

Transit

Efficiency350 161 ‐7 >60 n/a 8.5 8.5 0

240694 Treasure Island Congestion PricingSan

FranciscoPricing 59 69 1 59 n/a 4.5 4.5 0

240522 Congestion Pricing PilotSan

FranciscoPricing 102 227 5 45 n/a 6.5 6.5 0

22780 AC Transit Grand‐MacArthur BRTAlameda/

3434Transit

Efficiency36 32 2 18 n/a 6.0 6.0 0

230419 Freeway Performance Initiative Regional FPI 2,991 3,175 202 16 28 4.0 4.0 0

22274 ITS Improvements in San Mateo County San MateoRoad

Efficiency66 56 4 16 n/a 4.0 4.0 0

240494 ITS Improvements in Santa Clara County Santa ClaraRoad

Efficiency320 752 48 16 n/a 4.0 4.0 0

22062 Irvington BART Station AlamedaTransit

Efficiency123 19 2 12 n/a 6.0 6.0 0

240171 SFMTA Transit Effectiveness ProjectSan

Francisco

Transit

Efficiency157 90 8 11 n/a 7.5 7.5 0

22400 SR‐239 Expressway Construction (Brentwood to Tracy)Contra

Costa

Highway

Expansion373 144 21 7 1 ‐3.5 1.0 4.5

240431 SR‐85 Auxiliary Lanes (El Camino Real to Winchester Boulevard) Santa ClaraRoad

Efficiency198 81 12 7 n/a 1.0 1.0 0

94506 Fremont/Union City East‐West Connector AlamedaArterial

Expansion190 65 10 7 1 ‐1.5 1.5 3.0

98207T Alameda‐Oakland BRT + Transit Access Improvements AlamedaTransit

Efficiency16 14 2 6 n/a 5.5 5.5 0

240523, 240060

US‐101 HOV Lanes (Whipple Avenue to Cesar Chavez Street)Multi‐

County

Road

Efficiency331 123 19 6 n/a 2.5 2.5 0

230161 Van Ness Avenue BRTSan

Francisco/3434

Transit

Efficiency140 44 7 6 n/a 6.5 6.5 0

HOTd Silicon Valley Express Lanes Network Santa ClaraExpress Lanes

Network1,398 408 70 6 n/a ‐0.5 2.0 2.5

240155 Better Market StreetSan

Francisco

Transit

Efficiency200 56 10 6 n/a 5.5 5.5 0

22455 AC Transit East Bay BRTAlameda/

3434Transit

Efficiency211 62 12 5 n/a 6.0 6.0 0

HOTeCTC Application + Alameda County Authorized Lanes Express Lanes Network

Multi‐

County

Express Lanes

Network2,364 602 118 5 n/a ‐0.5 2.0 2.5

230468 I‐80 Auxiliary Lanes (Airbase Parkway to I‐680) SolanoRoad

Efficiency50 18 4 5 2† 1.5 1.5 0

n/a Local Streets and Roads Capital Maintenance Needs Regional Maintenance n/a 1,369 280 5 5 4.5 4.5 0

240375 BART to San Jose/Santa Clara (Phase 2: Berryessa to Santa Clara)Santa Clara/3434

Transit

Expansion4,094 324 70 5 n/a 8.0 8.0 0

240134, 21627

Caltrain Service Frequency Improvements (6‐Train Service during Peak Hours) + Electrification (SF to Tamien)

Multi‐

County

Transit

Efficiency848 153 34 5 n/a 8.5 8.5 0

240557 Oakdale Caltrain StationSan

Francisco

Transit

Efficiency51 3 1 4 n/a 4.5 4.5 0

240062, 22776

SR‐84/I‐680 Interchange Improvements + SR‐84 Widening (Jack London to I‐680)

AlamedaHighway

Expansion381 87 21 4 n/a ‐2.0 1.0 3.0

High B/C

Page 1 of 4 ‐ * = 3434 projects marked in orange; † = project definition has changed somewhat between T‐2035 and Plan Bay Area J:\PROJECT\2013 RTP_SCS\Performance Assessment\Project Evaluation\Project Lists\Detailed Preliminary B‐C Results 103111 (Monetized & Nominal).xlsx

Item 10 - Attachment E

dvauti

Text Box

Exhibit 1









T‐2035 B/C Ratio


Targets Supported


230294 New SR‐152 Alignment Santa ClaraHighway

Expansion776 148 41 4 n/a ‐2.5 1.5 4.0

240410 Transportation for Livable Communities Regional TLC 7,131 875 255 3 2 7.5 7.5 021205, 22350

I‐680/SR‐4 Interchange Improvements + SR‐4 Widening (Morello Avenue to SR‐242)

Contra

Costa

Highway

Expansion396 65 21 3 1 1.0 1.5 0.5

21341 Fairfield/Vacaville Capitol Corridor Station (Phases 1, 2, and 3) SolanoTransit

Efficiency54 2 1 3 n/a 3.5 3.5 0

240617 SR‐29 HOV Lanes and BRT (Napa Junction to Vallejo) NapaRoad

Efficiency60 11 4 3 n/a 1.5 1.5 0

22227, 240328, 240334

Geneva Avenue Corridor Improvements (Roadway Extension, BRT, and Southern Intermodal Terminal)

Multi‐

County

Transit

Efficiency216 36 15 2 n/a 4.5 4.5 0

240147 Southeast Waterfront Transportation ImprovementsSan

Francisco

Transit

Efficiency397 88 36 2 n/a 3.0 3.0 0

240026 SamTrans El Camino BRT San MateoTransit

Efficiency120 59 25 2 n/a 5.5 5.5 0

00BART BART Service Frequency ImprovementsMulti‐

County

Transit

Efficiency1,275 126 56 2 n/a 8.5 8.5 0

230604 Bay Bridge Contraflow LaneMulti‐

CountyPricing 611 67 31 2 n/a 4.0 4.0 0

240018 Dumbarton Corridor Express BusMulti‐

County

Transit

Efficiency101 23 12 2 n/a 6.0 6.0 0

22511, 22512, 22122, 230613, 22120, 230581

WETA Service Expansion (Treasure Island, Berkeley/Albany, Richmond, Hercules, and Redwood City)

Multi‐County/3434

Transit

Expansion320 41 22 2 n/a 5.5 5.5 0

22605 SR‐4 Bypass Completion (SR‐160 to Walnut Avenue)Contra

Costa

Highway

Expansion150 15 9 2 1† ‐3.5 1.0 4.5

00MUNI Muni Service Frequency ImprovementsSan

Francisco

Transit

Efficiency0 25 14 2 n/a 5.5 5.5 0

240526 SFCTA Transit Performance InitiativeSan

Francisco

Transit

Efficiency490 28 16 2 n/a 7.5 7.5 0

22247 Regional Bikeway Network Regional Bike/Ped 1,464 124 73 2 0.5 7.0 7.0 0

n/a New Freedom Program RegionalLifeline/New

Freedomn/a 3 2 2 n/a 6.0 6.0 0

22268 San Mateo Countywide Shuttle Service Frequency Improvements San MateoTransit

Efficiency0 10 6 2 n/a 1.5 1.5 0

230550 Climate Initiatives (5‐year program) Regional Climate 560 158 112 1 0.4 3.0 3.0 0

n/a Transit Capital Maintenance Needs Regional Maintenance n/a 1,787 1,286 1 1 4.5 4.5 0

240545 Parkmerced Light Rail CorridorSan

Francisco

Transit

Efficiency76 6 5 1 n/a 4.5 4.5 0

230055 Golden Gate Ferry Service Frequency ImprovementsMulti‐

County

Transit

Efficiency34 6 4 1 n/a 4.0 4.0 0

230164 Geary Boulevard BRTSan

Francisco

Transit

Efficiency242 15 12 1 7 6.5 6.5 0

240521, 240134, 21627

Caltrain Vision (10‐Train Service during Peak Hours) + Electrification (SF to Tamien)

Multi‐County/3434

Transit

Efficiency5,599 272 220 1 n/a 8.5 8.5 0

Med

ium B/C











T‐2035 B/C Ratio


Targets Supported


240196BART to Livermore (Phase 1: 1‐Station Rail Extension with Bus Enhancements)

AlamedaTransit

Expansion1,250 50 42 1 4† 5.5 5.5 0

00ACT1 AC Transit Service Frequency ImprovementsMulti‐

County

Transit

Efficiency654 606 510 1 n/a 5.5 5.5 0

240119 VTA El Camino BRT Santa ClaraTransit

Efficiency239 28 24 1 n/a 6.5 6.5 0

22343 I‐680 Express Bus Service Frequency Improvements (Phase 2)Contra

Costa

Transit

Efficiency60 12 11 1 1 4.5 4.5 0

98147, 240691

Marin‐Sonoma Narrows (Phase 2: HOV Lanes)Multi‐

County

Road

Efficiency300 20 18 1 8† 0.5 2.5 2.0

22415 Historic Streetcar Expansion ProgramSan

Francisco

Transit

Efficiency66 9 9 0.9 2 4.0 4.0 0

240216 Dumbarton RailMulti‐County/3434

Transit

Expansion755 31 36 0.8 n/a 4.0 4.0 0

230290Transbay Transit Center ‐ Phase 2B (Caltrain Downtown Extension)

San Francisco/

3434

Transit

Expansion1,174 25 31 0.8 n/a 8.0 8.0 0

240650 Sonoma Countywide Bus Service Frequency Improvements SonomaTransit

Efficiency428 32 41 0.8 n/a 5.0 5.0 0

240676, 240675, 240677

SMART (Phase 2: Extensions to Cloverdale & Larkspur + IOS Cost Deferrals)

Multi‐County/3434

Transit

Expansion283 10 13 0.7 n/a 6.0 6.0 0

230252 Marin Countywide Bus Service Frequency Improvements MarinTransit

Efficiency0 9 12 0.7 1 5.5 5.5 0

230219, 230314

Golden Gate Bus Service Frequency ImprovementsMulti‐

County

Transit

Efficiency143 16 29 0.5 n/a 5.0 5.0 0

22956Capitol Expressway Light Rail Extension (Phase 2: to Eastridge Transit Center)

Santa ClaraTransit

Expansion276 4 8 0.5 n/a 5.5 5.5 0

230547 Monterey Highway BRT Santa ClaraTransit

Efficiency140 15 37 0.4 n/a 5.5 5.5 0

22667 BART to Livermore (Phases 1 & 2: Rail Extension) AlamedaTransit

Expansion4,177 57 153 0.4 n/a 5.0 5.0 0

22019 Downtown East Valley (Phase 2: LRT)Santa Clara/3434

Transit

Expansion307 5 16 0.3 n/a 5.0 5.0 0

98139 ACE Service ExpansionMulti‐County/3434

Transit

Efficiency600 19 67 0.3 n/a 4.5 4.5 0

230554 Sunnyvale‐Cupertino BRT Santa ClaraTransit

Efficiency100 5 26 0.2 n/a 5.5 5.5 0

22978Capitol Expressway Light Rail Extension (Phases 2 & 3: to Nieman)

Santa ClaraTransit

Expansion435 3 19 0.2 n/a 5.5 5.5 0

240690 Lifeline Program RegionalLifeline/New

Freedomn/a 10 119 0.1 0 6.0 6.0 0

22009Capitol Corridor Service Frequency Improvements (Oakland to San Jose)

Multi‐County/3434

Transit

Efficiency509 1 18 0.1 n/a 7.0 7.0 0

98119 Vasona Light Rail Extension (Phase 2) Santa ClaraTransit

Expansion176 0 6 0.0 n/a 5.5 5.5 0

240589 EV Solar Installation [BAAQMD program] Regional Climate 1 0 2 0.0 n/a 0.5 1.0 0.5

240582 Truck & Motorcycle Retirement [BAAQMD program] Regional Climate 6 0 6 0.0 n/a 0 1.0 1.0

Low B/C











T‐2035 B/C Ratio


Targets Supported


240577 Heavy‐Duty Truck Replacement [BAAQMD program] Regional Climate 42 0 44 0.0 n/a 0 1.0 1.0

230101Union City Commuter Rail Station + Dumbarton Rail Segment G Improvements

Alameda/3434

Transit

Efficiency180 0 2 0.0 n/a 5.5 5.5 0

230326, 230327

I‐80/I‐680/SR‐12 Interchange Improvements + Widening SolanoHighway

Expansion1,600 ‐3 83 0.0 2 ‐0.5 1.5 2.0

Low B/C(B/C ratio less than 1)

Strong Adverse Impact(score of ‐7.0 or lower)

Minimal Impact(score between ‐1.0 and 1.0)

Moderate Support(score between 1.5 and 6.5)

Strong Support(score of 7.0 or higher)

TARGETS SCORE ‐ COLOR KEY

Moderate Adverse Impact(score between ‐1.5 and ‐6.5)

B/C RATIO ‐ COLOR KEYHigh B/C

(B/C ratio greater than 10)

Medium B/C(B/C ratio between 1 and 10)



0

5

10

15

59

-10 10Be

nef

it/C

ost

Adverse Impact on Targets Supports Targets

1

Regional Program

Road Project

Transit Project

FreewayPerformance

Initiative

Express LaneNetwork

RoadE�iciency

HighwayExpansion

CongestionPricing

BRT andInfill

TransitStations

TransitFrequencyImprovements(CentralBay Area)

Transit FrequencyImprovements

(North Bay Area)

RailExpansion

MaintenanceTransportation for Liveable Communities

Bike NetworkClimateProgram

Lifeline andNew Freedom

Project Performance Assessment: Results by Project TypeBubble size represents the total annual benefits for all projects of that type.

-5


dvauti

Text Box

Exhibit 2

0

5

10

15

-5

45

59

-10 10Be

nef

it/C

ost


1

Road ProjectFreeway

PerformanceInitiative

Project Performance Assessment: All Road ProjectsBubble size represents the project benefits.

Congestion Pricing Pilot

I-80 Auxiliary Lanes (Airbase Parkway to I-680)

Be�er Market StreetSR-84/I-680 InterchangeImprovements and Widening

Fremont/Union City East-West Connector

SR-85AuxiliaryLanes

ITS Improvements in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties

SR-239 Expressway(Brentwood to Tracy)

US-101 HOV Lanes(Whipple to Cesar Chavez)

SR-29 HOVLanes and BRT

Silicon ValleyExpress LanesNetwork

New SR-152 Alignment

MTC Express Lanes Network

SR-4 Bypass Completion Bay Bridge Contraflow Lane

Treasure Island Congestion Pricing

I-80/I-680/SR-12Interchange

Improvementsand Widening

Marin-Sonoma Narrows (Phase 2)

I-680/SR-4 InterchangeImprovements and Widening


dvauti

Text Box

Exhibit 3

0

-5

5

10

15

>60

-10 10Be

nef

it/C

ost


1

Project Performance Assessment: Selected Transit ProjectsBubbles shown for projects with greater than $15 million in annual benefits.Bubble size represents the project benefits.

Transit Project

SFMTA TransitE�ectiveness Project

Caltrain ServiceExpansion (6 Train Service during Peak Hours) and Electrification

AC Transit Grand-MacArthur BRT

Irvington BART Station

Van Ness Avenue BRT

BART FrequencyImprovements

BART to San Jose(Phase 2)

AC Transit East Bay BRT

VTA El Camino BRT

AC Transit Frequency

Improvements

Caltrain Vision (10-Train Service

during Peak Hours)and Electrification

BART to Livermore (Phase 1)

Dumbarton RailCaltrainDowntownExtension

BART to Livermore (Phases 1 & 2)

ACE Service Expansion

BART Metro

SamTrans El Camino BRT

Sonoma Countywide Bus Frequency Improvements

Golden Gate Bus Frequency Improvements


dvauti

Text Box

Exhibit 4

Item 10 – Attachment F

List of RTP Marin Vision Projects

Golden Gate Transit Expand level of bus service in the Golden Gate corridor between San Bus Service Expansion Francisco and Novato including; operating costs; capital costs; and $806.8 M (YOE) maintenance costs. Also access improvements and bus stop upgrades. Improve lifeline service for the transit‐dependent population.

Highway 101 and Provide capacity enhancements for the interchange of U.S. 101 and S.R. Highway 37 $45.2 M (YOE) 37. Highway 101 and Address anticipated capacity constraints at the Highway 101 San Marin Drive and Atherton Avenue interchange with San Marin/Atherton to accommodate future $67.8 M (YOE) development. SMART – Initial Operating Install Fare Collection Equipment (TVM),Atherton/North Novato Station, Segment – Project Cost Fiber Optic Communication system, closed Circuit TV on Platforms, Deferrals Novato Creek Bridge Replacement, Corona Road/North Petaluma $91 M (YOE) Station, Haystack Bridge Replacement, Increase in Operations / Maintenance Facility, and Rail Vehicle Budget. SMART – Downtown San Rafael to Larkspur extension, including; NEPA clearance, federal San Rafael to Larkspur environmental technical studies, engineering, right of way, construction, Extension $43.3 M (YOE) vehicle procurement and operations.

Item 10 – Attachment G

Key Code to Spreadsheet Terms Sponsor: This is the public agency who submitted the application to MTC. TAM acted as a liaison between the sponsor and MTC to obtain missing data and develop projects into groups. Discretionary Funds Requested: This is the amount the sponsor requested from MTC’s group of discretionary funds. NOTE: TAM funds are only a portion of the discretionary funds available. Vision Project: These are projects that the sponsor submitted as a future project to be considered, not necessarily included in this RTP. Note the RTP is updated every 4 years. STIP-TE: Transportation Enhancement funds, assigned to enhancements to facilities, which can include bike/ped, landscaping, and community aesthetic projects. These funds are a share of the federal gas tax funds each state receives and come to each county thru the STIP. They are administered by the CTC and Caltrans. STP/CMAQ: These are federal gas tax funds returned to the nine county Bay Area under MTC’s authority as MPO; MTC decides what programs they get spent on. The funds currently will be assigned based on MTC’s OBAG grant categories. RTIP: These are state gas tax funds that each County has available for expenditure. The CTC administers these funds and decides on fund priorities. The CTC has policy on what they will prioritize for allocations. Ability to Compete: This is based on whether the candidate is clearly eligible for the funds. It is also based on the CTC’s 10- year policy regarding the allocation of RTIP funds. In Last RTP: This shows whether the candidate was in the last RTP as discretionary funding as submitted by TAM in February 2008. It exhibits some indication of ongoing priorities of TAM’s member agencies. Committed to Date: This comes from data submitted by the project sponsor to MTC . It includes committed funds as exhibited in this RTP submittal PLUS other funds committed to date for the project or program. It exhibits ongoing priorities. Benefit/Cost Ratio: MTC is conducting a Benefit/Cost ratio for major investment projects going into the RTP, and will have results published in early November. Leveraging: The ability of the project to attract other fund sources than TAM discretionary. The following metrics were utilized: - High if project is funded > 50% by other sources - Med if project is funded > 25% but < 50% by other sources - Low if project is funded < 25% by other sources

MARIN COUNTY

SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS

PROGRAM EVALUATIONDRAFT

3 NOVEMBER 2011

DRAFT

Agenda Item 11

This page intentially left blank.

DRAFT

This page intentially left blanktentially left blank

Agenda Item 11

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1

Program Highlights ............................................................................................................................................ 1 About this Report ............................................................................................................................................... 2

01 PROGRAM OVERVIEW ........................................................................................... 3

Program History .................................................................................................................................................. 3Safe Routes to Schools in Marin County .................................................................................................... 4Mode Shift Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 8SR2S Team ...........................................................................................................................................................10

02 EDUCATION .......................................................................................................... 11

Keeping it Fresh .................................................................................................................................................14Building on Successes .....................................................................................................................................14Involving Teens ..................................................................................................................................................15

03 ENCOURAGEMENT............................................................................................... 17

Launching Green Ways to School ...............................................................................................................19Using Technology .............................................................................................................................................22

04 ENGINEERING ....................................................................................................... 25

Developing Concept Plans ............................................................................................................................26Achieving Results .............................................................................................................................................28

05 ENFORCEMENT .................................................................................................... 33

Law Enforcement ..............................................................................................................................................33Crossing Guards ................................................................................................................................................34Street Smarts Marin .........................................................................................................................................36

06 FUNDING .............................................................................................................. 39

Measure A ...........................................................................................................................................................40Measure B ...........................................................................................................................................................40Leveraging of Funds ........................................................................................................................................41Securing Consistent Funding .......................................................................................................................42

07 A LOOK TO THE FUTURE ...................................................................................... 43

Recommendations ...........................................................................................................................................44

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DRAFT

..............

.................................................................................................

........................................................................

................................................................................n Marin County ......................n County

y ...................................................y ....................................................................................................................................

ON ................................ON ......................

g it Fresh ...................................g it Fresh ..........................ding on Successes ................ng on Successes ................

nvolving Teens ......................g Teens ......................

03 03 ENCOUURARAGEMENEME

Launching Greeng GUsing TechnoUsing Techn

GGININ

Agenda Item 11

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: SR2S Participating Schools (2010-2011) ............................................................................... 6 Figure 2: Number of Participating Schools in Marin’s SR2S (2004-2011) .................................... 7Figure 3: Number of Participating and Non-Participating Schools by Type .............................. 7Figure 4: Mode Share (Fall 2008- Spring 2011) ..................................................................................... 8 Figure 5: Schools with the Highest Overall Increase in Green Trips since

Joining SR2S ................................................................................................................................... 9Figure 6: Percentage Change of Green Trips by School Participation in SR2S

Programs (Fall 2010-Spring 2011) ........................................................................................... 9 Figure 7: If you have reduced the number of times you drove your child to

school, which of the following have influenced this change?....................................13Figure 8: Number of Schools Participating in SR2S CLASSROOM Training

(Fall 2005-Spring 2011) .............................................................................................................13Figure 9: Number of Schools Participating in SR2S FIELD Training (Fall 2005-

Spring 2011) ..................................................................................................................................13Figure 10: Number of Schools Participating in SR2S Encouragement Program

(Fall 2005-Spring 2011) .............................................................................................................18Figure 11: Did you or your child(ren) participate in any of these programs

during the past school year?...................................................................................................18Figure 12: How effective (on a scale of 1-5) are the following programs at

encouraging students to walk, bike, carpool and take transit to school? ..............18Figure 13: How do your child(ren) travel TO/FROM school in a typical week? ..........................19Figure 14: On a scale of 1-5, how important are the following factors at

allowing your child(ren) to walk or bike to school? ........................................................27Figure 15: Recent SR2S Infrastructure Improvements........................................................................30Figure 16: What concerns limit your child’s ability to walk and bike to school? .......................35Figure 17: How effective do you think the Street Smarts campaign is (or will be)

in encouraging positive change in your attitudes and behaviors while driving, bicycling, and walking? ............................................................................................................36

Figure 18: Would you like the Street Smarts campaign brought to your community again? ......................................................................................................................36

Figure 19: Infrastructure Funding (2001-2011) .....................................................................................41

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Strategy 4 of Measure A.............................................................................................................. 5Table 2: Task Forces .....................................................................................................................................10Table 3: SR2S Education Program ..........................................................................................................12Table 4: SR2S Encouragement Program ..............................................................................................17Table 5: Measure A Funding Allocation for Strategy #4 ................................................................40

APPENDIX

Student Tally Survey Form2011 Parent SurveyEducation and Encouragement Program DescriptionsTAM SR2S Program Tasks Completed through Spring 2011Inventory of Recent SR2S Related Infrastructure Improvements

DRAFT

.................- -

................................13.....................rogram rogram

.............................................18.............................................1e programs programs

..........................................................................wing programs at wing programs at

ol and take transit to schooand take transit to schM school in a typical week? in a typical week?

e the following factors at e the following factor bike to school? ................or bike to school? ......

mprovements..........................mprovements........................r child’s ability to walk and s ability to walk and

think the Street Smarts cathink the Street Smositive change in your attituositive change in your attilking? ...................................lking? .........................

treet Smarts camtreet Smarts cam........................................

1-201-20

Agenda Item 11

PROGRAM EVALUATION | 1

Established in 2000, Marin County’s Safe Routes to Schools (SR2S) is an award-winning program designed to reduce congestion around schools, while at the same time instilling healthy habits in children and creating a safer and cleaner environment for all. It does this through classroom education, special events, infrastructure improvements, and other strategies that aim to increase the number of non-motorized (walk and bike) and higher occupancy (carpool and transit) trips to and from schools.

PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS

Marin’s SR2S program has been in operation for ten years and has expanded to include 52 schools and over 23,500 students. With its long history and continued community participation, SR2S has enjoyed long-term success.

• In 2000, there were nine schools participating in Safe Routes to Schools; today, there are 52 schools.

• Since the program began, there has been an eight percent mode shift countywide from single-student car trips to walking, bicycling, riding public transit, and carpooling to/from schools.

• Twenty-one schools have exceeded the countywide average since joining SR2S. Old Mill and Tam Valley elementary schools in Mill Valley and Bacich Elementary in Kentfield, for example, have increased the number of green trips to/from their school by over 20 percent.

• According to the most recent parent survey, over 25 percent of families changed their travel mode because of SR2S.

• Launched in 2009, the Green Ways to School Campaign proved to be a success through the Spring 2011. During this time, there was an overall four percent increase in green trips to school, but schools participating in the Green Ways to School Programs demonstrated an even higher increase of six percent.

• Over 100 Safe Routes to Schools infrastructure projects totaling more than $17 million have been constructed or are currently under design.

• Nearly 2,000 familes have enrolled in SchoolPool Marin or taken the Green Ways to School pledge, representing 71 schools across the county.

• Street Smarts Marin was pilot-tested in 2008 in three communities. The program has now been expanded into nine out of the ten cities and towns in the county.

INTRODUCTION

to Schools to Schood to reduce d to reduce

ame time instilling ame time instilling g a safer and cleaner er and cleaner

rough classroom education,rough classroom edmprovements, and other mprovements, and other

e the number of non-motoe the number of nonancy (carpool andancy (carpool an

• Twe

Agenda Item 11

2 | MARIN COUNTY SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS

ABOUT THIS REPORT

This evaluation report comes as SR2S celebrates its ten-year anniversary and, therefore, marks an ideal time to look back at the evolution of the program. The last evaluation of Marin’s SR2S program was completed in June 2008, and covered school years 2006–2008. As a result, this report will place particular attention to the past three years, while also looking at the overall history of the program (as far back as the data allows). It identifies new features that have been introduced since 2008, but will also examine those aspects of the program that continue to make it successful, as well as those that require improvement. Lastly, the report outlines a number of recommendations that are intended to improve the effectiveness of the SR2S program, setting it up for even greater success in future years.

Report Organization

This Evaluation Report is organized around seven chapters:

1) Program Overview. This section provides a brief history and overview of the Safe Routes to School program, at both the national and local level.

2) Education. This chapter describes components of SR2S classes, including those held in the classroom as well as those in the field. It discusses historic trends, as well as recent changes to the program curriculum.

3) Encouragement. This chapter discusses the encouragement component of SR2S, which includes events, such as iWalk, contests, SchoolPool, and Green Ways to School.

4) Engineering. The Engineering chapter describes the process by which jurisdictions identify and implement infrastructure improvements around schools.

5) Enforcement. Three main topics in this chapter include the role of law enforcement, crossing guards, and Street Smarts in enforcing safety around schools.

6) Funding. The funding chapter of the report examines SR2S’s funding sources, and ways in which TAM is building long-term financial sustainability for the program. It includes discussion of Measure A, Safe Pathways to School, and other grants received.

7) A Look to the Future. Lastly, the report looks to the future of Marin’s SR2S program, making recommendations for its continued success.

DRAFT

2S well as

s well as s well as

ses the s the 2S, which includes S, which include

SchoolPool, and GreenSchoolPool, and Gree

g chapter describes tg chapter describeentify and impentify and imp

schooschoo

Agenda Item 11


PROGRAM HISTORY

Pilot Program

The Marin County Safe Routes to Schools program began in 2000 when the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration funded the Marin County Bicycle Coalition (MCBC) and Walk Boston in Arlington, Massachusetts to develop a national model program. At the end of the two-year pilot program, the nine participating schools in Marin experienced a 17 percent increase in the number of children walking and biking to school, and a 24 percent decrease in the number of children arriving as the only child in a car.

Building on this success, the County of Marin adopted SR2S in 2003 through a grant provided by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. In November 2004, SR2S reached a major milestone when Marin voters passed Measure A. The 20-year half-cent transportation-related sales tax provided an ongoing revenue source for SR2S programs, as well as crossing guards and school access infrastructure projects. As a result of this new funding source, SR2S became a program of the Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) in 2005.

A National Model

Within a year of the launch of the pilot projects in Marin County and Arlington, Massachusetts, many similar efforts began throughout the country. Interest in a federally-funded national program grew, and in 2005 the SAFETEA-LU federal transportation bill provided $612 million for a new national Safe Routes to Schools program that provides benefits in all 50 states. Communities have used this funding to construct new bike lanes, pathways, and sidewalks, as well as to launch SR2S education and promotion campaigns in elementary and middle schools. As the first long-term sustainable program with a dedicated local funding source, Marin County continues to be a national leader with new and innovative programs.

PROGRAM OVERVIEW01

DRAFT

ols program began in ogram began in Traffic Safety AdministrationTraffic Safety Admin

le Coalition (MCBC) and Walle Coalition (MCBC) and Wusetts to develop a nationusetts to develop a nation

e two-year pilot proe two-year pilot pexperienced experienced

ing aing a

A Natio

Wit

Agenda Item 11


SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS IN MARIN COUNTY

Marin’s Safe Routes to Schools program integrates health, fitness, traffic relief, environmental awareness and safety under one program. It does this through a comprehensive approach that consists of four key components: Education, Encouragement, Engineering, and Enforcement. A fifth “E”—Evalu ation—is also an important tool used to strengthen existing programs and facilitate long-term goal setting. Evaluation of Marin’s program involves documenting trends through student surveys conducted in the fall and spring of

THE 5 E’S

Like other mature SR2S programs, Marin uses a planning framework known as the 5 E’s to ensure a successful program. The 5 E’s are as follows:

• Education. Classroom lessons teach children the skills necessary to navigate through busy streets and persuade them to be active participants in the program. Safe Routes instructors have developed the curriculum to include lessons on safety, health, and the environment. The most recent lesson plans can be found on the Safe Routes to Schools website (www.saferoutestoschools.org).

• Encouragement. Encouragement strategies, such as events, contests and promotional materials, encourage children and parents to try walking and biking to school. The program supports and coordinates volunteer organizers and provides schools with promotional and contest ma terials, prizes, and ongoing consultation.

• Engineering. The focus of the engineering component is on creating physical improvements to the infrastructure

near the school, reducing speeds and establishing safer crosswalks and pathways. The Program’s professional traffic en gineers assist schools in developing a plan to provide a safer environment for children to walk and bike to school.

• Enforcement. Police officers and other law enforce ment officials participate throughout the Safe Routes process to encourage safe travel through the com munity. Targeted enforcement of speed limits and other traffic laws around schools make the trip to school more predictable for students and allow them to interact with motorists and other travelers in the safest possible way. The program also includes enforcement enhancements and outreach to drivers through driver safety campaigns.

• Evaluation. Program participation is regularly monitored to determine the growth in student and parent participation. Most years, “before and after” travel surveys are taken to ascertain any change in travel mode to school over the course of the year.

each school year, as well as periodic parent surveys. The most recent student and parent survey results from spring 2011 are incorporated in this report.

In Marin, the five Es are integrated as part of Measure A, which is organized around four transportation-related strategies. As shown in Table 1, Strategy 4 addresses safe access to schools and is supported by three programs: Safe Routes to Schools, Crossing Guards, and Safe Pathways. Each of these programs is further discussed in this report.

2000 2002 20042001 2003 2005

Evolution of Safe Routes To School Program

League of American Bicyclists hold meeting to discuss a national SR2S program

AUG 2000MCBC develops SR2S program

JAN 2003Marin County adopts SR2S program

NOV 2004 Measure A

passes

NHTSA funds two pilot programs: Marin County & Arlington, MA

DRAFT

ost es to

).).

gies, such as gies, such as erials, encourage als, encourage

g and biking to school. and biking to scrdinates volunteer rdinates volunteer

ools with promotional and ools with promotional and ongoing consultation.ongoing consultat

ineering comineering com the in the in

dudupathwaypathw

eers assist schoeers asa safer environment fo safer enviro

ool. ool.

Enforcement.Enforcement. Police officercerofficials participate throofficials partiencourage safe traveouragenforcement of spenforcementschools make schools make students anstudents another tralso add

Agenda Item 11


2006 2008 20102007 2009 2011

Table 1: Strategy 4 of Measure A

Strategy #4: Reduce school related congestion and provide safer access to schools.

1. Safe Routes to Schools Ongoing funding to support this successful and popular program that promotes walking, biking, taking transit, or carpooling to school.

2. Crossing Guards Crossing guards at 70 intersections along major roads serving schools.

3. Provide capital funds for Safe Pathways To School projects

Safety improvements around Marin County schools in conjunction with the Safe Routes to Schools Program, including sidewalk improvements, safer crosswalks and crossings, bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements, and speed reduction measures.

SURVEYS

Regular input from Safe Routes to Schools participants is critical in determining the effectiveness of the program’s activities. As participants join each year or change their behavior, the program benefits from constant evaluation to stay current. In Marin County, staff evaluates SR2S through student and parent surveys.

Student Surveys

A key element of the SR2S program is quan titative measurement of the shift from single student drive alone trips to school, sometimes called “chauffeured trips,” to other modes, including biking, walking, carpooling, and transit. To measure how students travel to school, SR2S staff mem bers work with classroom teachers to administer “before” and “after” surveys at participating schools. The “before” survey is generally taken at the beginning of the semester in which Safe Routes education is offered and the “after” survey is

taken at the conclusion of the school year. This information is then sent to the National Center for Safe Routes to School, which compiles the data. Student surveys have been conducted every year since the fall of 2003.

Parent Surveys

Parents and guardians of students can provide valuable insight on the strengths and weaknesses of the programs. Parent questionnaires have been administered three times, in 2006, 2007, and 2011. This year, a total of 836 surveys were completed, representing 55 schools and almost 1,500 students. The survey was distributed at the schools and could be mailed back or completed online. A Spanish version of the survey was also provided in hardcopy and online.

June 2005TAM takes over SR2S

MAY 2006National Center for Safe Routes to Schools established

JULY 2005Congress establishes National Safe Routes to School program

AUG 2008Street Smarts launches in 3

communities: Corte Madera, Larkspur, Mill Valley

AUG 2009 Street Smarts

expands to other Marin communities

AUG 2010 Marin’s Safe

Routes to Schools turns 10 years old

OCT 2010Marin’s Safe Routes to School

program receives MTC Grand Award

NOV 2010Measure B passes, with

SR2S dollars included

DRAFT

e drive alone drive alo

ured trips,” to otherured trips,” to ooling, and transit. To ooling, and transit. To

hool, SR2S staff mem bers R2S staff mem bers o administer “before” and o administer “before

ng schools. The “before” survng schools. The “before” suginning of the semester iginning of the seme

d and the “after” sd and the “after”

clucluo the Nato the

mpiles the data. mpiles tucted every year since thucted every yea

Parent SPare urveysur

Parents and guardiansParents andinsight on the strensight oParent questiont quesin 2006, 200in 2006, 200were cowere costudc

Agenda Item 11


37

Figure 1: SR2S Participating Schools

(2010-2011)

0 21Miles

1. Bacich ES2. Bahia Vista ES3. Bel Aire ES4. Bolinas-Stinson5. Brookside Lower 6. Brookside Upper7. Cascade Canyon*8. Coleman ES9. Davidson Middle10. Del Mar ES11. Dixie School12. Drake High13. Edna Maguire ES14. Glenwood ES15. Hall Middle 16. Hamilton ES17. Hill Middle**18. Kent Middle 19. Laurel Dell ES20. Loma Verde ES21. Lu Sutton22. Lycee Francais*23. Lynwood24. Manor ES25. Marin Horizon*26. Marin Primary &

Middle*

27. Mary Silveira ES28. Mill Valley Middle 29. Miller Creek Middle30. Mount Tamalpais*31. Neil Cummins ES32. Old Mill ES33. Olive ES34. Our Lady of

Loretto*35. Park ES36. Pleasant Valley ES37. Rancho ES38. Redwood High39. Reed ES40. Ross School41. San Ramon ES42. Sinaloa Middle43. St Anselms*44. St Patrick*45. St. Rita*46. Strawberry Point47. Sun Valley ES48. Tam Valley49. Vallecito ES50. Venetia Valley51. Wade Thomas ES52. White Hill Middle

* Private school** Closing this year.

NORTH

4

7

11

27

49

5

8

9

48

30

2825

3235

46

3

10

39

13

22

3126

4415 38

118

40 192

14

51 43

1247

45

24

52

16

23

33

41

343642 21

1737

50

29

20

6

101

580

Mill Valley

Sausalito

Tiburon

Belvedere

Corte Madera

Larkspur

Ross

San Rafael

San Anselmo

Fairfax

Novato

101

Pacific Ocean

San Francisco Bay

San Pablo BayAARRARRADRAA

DRRDRDRDRRRRDRDRDRDRDRDRDDDDDDDDDARFFFAFAAAFFTFFFAFAAFAFFAFAFAAAAAFAFFFAFAAFAFAAAAAAFAFFAAAAFAFFFAFFAFAAFAFAFFFAFAFFAFAFFAFAFAFFAFAFAFFFFFAFAAFAAFFFFFAFAFAFAFFFAFAAFFFAFFFAFAFAFAFAFAFAFAFAFAFFAFFAAFAFAFAFAFAFAFAFAFAFAFFAFFAFFFFFFFFAFAAFFAFAFAAAAFAAFFFAAFAFAFAFAFAFAFAAFAFAFAFFAFAAFAFAFAFAFAFFT

AFFAFAFFFAFT

AAFFAFFFAFFAFAAFFFAFAFFAFAAFAFAFAAAAFAFFAFTFAFAFAFAFFAFAAAAFAFAFAFAFAAFAFAFAFAFAFFFFFAFAFTFTFTAFAARAAFFF

RARARARARARARARARARAAAARARARAAAARAARAAF

RARAARAAAARAAAAARARARARAAAARAARAAAAARAAAAAARAAAAARARARARARAARAARAAARARAAAAAAAAARARAAAARAARARARARARARAAAARAARARAAAARAF

RAAAAARAAFAAAFARAAAARARAAARARARAARAARARAAAAFAAAARAAARARARARARAAAAAAARAAARAAAARAAAAARAAARAAAARAAARAAAAARARAAAAAFAAARAAAAARAARARAAARARARAAAAAAARAARARAAAAAAAAAARAAAARARAAAAARAAAAARARAAAF

RAAAARAARAAAARARARARAAARARARAAARARAARAARAAAAAAARARAAAAAAAAAAAAAARAARAAARAAAAAARARARAAAARARARAAAAAARARAAAARAAAAAARARAAAFAAAAARARARAAAARAAARARARARARARARARARAARARAAARAARARARAAAARARARARARARAAAAARARARARAARAAAAAAARAARAAAAAAAAARARARAARARARAAAARARARARARARAAARARARARAAAARAAAAAFAARARARARAARARAAARAARARAARARARARARARARAAAARARARARARARAARAAARARRRRRARRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARARAAAAARRRRRRARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARAFFFAARAFAFAFAFAFAFFFFAFFFFFAFAFAFAFAFAAAARRRRARARARAAAARAAFF

RARARAAATTFTFTTTTFFFTTFTFTFTTFTTFTFFTFTFTTFFFTFTFTFFFTFTFTFTFFFFTFTTFTFTFTFFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFFTFTFTFTFTFTTFFTTFTFTTTTFFFTFTFTFTTFFFTFTFFTFTFTFTFTTFTFTFTFTFTFTFFTTFTTTTTTFTFTFTTTFTFTFTTFTFTTTFTFTTTTFTFTTTFTFTFTFTFTTFTFTTTTFFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTTTTTFTTTFTFTAFFT

RARARAFTFFAARARARARARRRAAFAAAFAFAFAFT

AFFTFFTFTFFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTAFFT

AAFAFFAAAFFFFFTTFFFFFAFTTT

AFTTTT

AAAAFATTFTFTTFTTTTTAFFFFAFT

AAATT

AATTTTFTFTAFAFAFAFAFAFTFFAFFFFFFFAAAAT

AAAAAAAAFAFAAAAAAAAAFT

AARAAAFFFFFFFFFFFAFAFFTFTFTAAFFFFFF

49

A5

A4RA1

RA43

RA2 AF47 FTTT

01

Roo

SSanSSSSSSSanaSSaaS

Agenda Item 11


��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

Figure 2: Number of Participating Schools in Marin’s SR2S (2004–2011) Figure 3: Number of Participating and Non-Participating Schools by Type

NOTE: Does not include alternative schools, such as continuing education or charter schools, or

private preschools.

Participating Schools

Shown in Figure 1, Marin’s Safe Routes to Schools program currently operates in 52 schools, representing ten school districts. Each year, new schools participate in the program while others temporarily discontinue activities, causing the total number of participating schools to remain consistent for the past years (see Figure 2). SR2S has been extremely effective in expanding into many of the county’s public elementary and middle schools. Seventy percent of the county’s public elementary schools are active in SR2S, and those that are not already bus a large portion of their student population, and thus do not have as great of a need for the program. Public middle schools are also well represented in the program, with 80 percent of the county’s schools participating in the program. High schools and private schools comprise the smallest portion of SR2S participating schools, with a 20 and 30 percent participation rate, respectively. Strategies to increase high school and private school participation are included as part of this report’s recommendations.

Schools participate in SR2S at different levels, based on the availability of staff and volunteers, as well as on the school’s willingness to incorporate Safe Routes to Schools lessons into their curriculums. Included in this report is a summary of the number of schools that participated in different aspects of the program for the past six years. A full list of SR2S activities completed at each school during the 2010-2011 school year is provided as an appendix.

DDDDDRAFT

ools in Marin’s SR2S (20ools in Marin’s SR2S

into nto y of the e

pects of SR2S activities SR2S activit

2011 school year is 2011 school ye

Agenda Item 11


MODE SHIFT SUMMARY

Student travel surveys are an important tool in measuring whether program goals are being met, and ensuring that resources are directed toward efforts that show the greatest likelihood of success. Although an attempt was made to collect accurate data from all 52 participating schools during the 2010-11 school year, mode shift calculations included in this report are based on the 32 schools that returned surveys for both fall and spring semesters. The results are sufficient for statistically relevant purposes.

Since the program’s inception, the county as a whole has experienced an average eight percent mode shift from single-student car trips to walking, bicycling, riding public transit, and carpooling to schools. Much of this shift occurred early in the program, with incremental gains in recent years. Three percent of those gains occurred in the past three years, as shown in Figure 4.

The real success of SR2S, however, is most evident when looking at mode shifts for individual schools. Figure 5 lists the top 15 schools with the greatest overall increase in green trips since joining SR2S. Three schools—Old Mill and Tam Valley elementary schools in Mill Valley and Bacich Elementary in Kentfield—have experienced an increase of more than 20 percent in green trips to and from school. In all, there are 20 schools that have seen an increase of more than ten percent. That represents over 60 percent of the schools sampled in 2011.

Schools with the best results often have been part of SR2S for several years, but more importantly, also have the most involvement from the whole school, including participation in contests and other activities. As shown in Figure 6, those schools that participated in at least two SR2S programs (i.e., classes, contests, Walk to School Days), saw an average increase of six percent in green trips. On the other hand, those schools that barely participated or not at all, showed a decrease in the number of green trips.

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� !"� �� #"�$� �$��

��

��

��

��#��

Figure 4: Mode Share (Fall 2008–Spring 2011)

Source: Fall 2008 & Spring 2011 Student Travel Surveys

DRAFT

20e are 20 e are 20

ten percent. ten percent. s sampled in 2011.sampled in 2011.

e been part of SR2S e been part of SR2Sntly, also have the most ntly, also have the most

ol, including participation ol, including participation own in Figure 6, thoown in Figure 6, t

SR2S programSR2S programan avean ave

FTFTTTTTTT��

urce: Fall 2008 & Spring 2011 Student Trarce: Fall 2008 & Spring 2011 Student Tra

Agenda Item 11


��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��

�%&��''�(��

�)**+,��*-�)��

��''��''�(��'��

�%)��(�*��*)�..*��

��&��%�)��

��%)�'��''��

��.�� ''��

�%��%..*&��

��&*)��

�''��'��

�.)�-!�))(��

��,.��

��"�"��

#�/��''�(��

�'��''��

��

��

��

��

��

��")��,��&��)�0�&��'*&�� &")��,��&��)��&�.)�1,�

NOTE: Some schools were omitted because of incomplete survey data for Spring 2011.

Source: Student Surveys

Figure 5: Schools with the Highest Overall Increase in Green Trips since Joining SR2S

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Figure 6: Percentage Change of Green Trips by School Participation in SR2S

Programs (Fall 2010–Spring 2011)

NOTE: Programs include classes, contests, and Walk to School Days. Sample does not include

Ross School, which was under construction during the school year.

Source: Fall 2010 & Spring 2011 Student Travel Surveys

DRDRDDDDDRAFAFTFFTFTFTFTFTFTFT�

��

��

rvey data for Spring 2011.a for Spring 2011.

�

��

Figure 6: Percentage Change of Gigure 6: Percentage Change of G

Programs (Fall 2010Programs (Fall 2010–Spring

Agenda Item 11


Consultants

• Management• Infrastructure• Street Smarts• SchoolPool

MCBC• Program Implementation• Education & Encouragement• Outreach & Partnering

Alta Planning + Design• Transportation Planning• GIS Mapping

Table 2: Task Forces

School District Task Force Schools Represented

1. Dixie Dixie, Mary Silveira, Miller Creek, Vallecito

2. Kentfield Bacich, Kent

3. Mill Valley Edna Maguire, Mill Valley Middle School, Old Mill,

Park, Strawberry, Tam Valley

4. Novato Hamilton, Loma Verde, Lu Sutton, Lynwood, Olive,

Pleasant Valley, Rancho, San Jose Middle, San

Ramon

5. Ross Valley Manor School, Brookside Upper, Brookside Lower,

Wade Thomas, Cascade Canyon, St. Anselms,

White Hill

6. San Rafael Bahia Vista, Coleman, Davidson Middle,

Glenwood, Laurel Dell, Sun Valley, Venetia Valley

7. Twin Cities (Corte

Madera, Larkspur,

Greenbrae)

Hall Middle School, Lycée Français, Marin Primary

and Middle, Neil Cummins, St. Patricks

8. West Marin Bolinas-Sinton, Lagunitas, West Marin

SR2S TEAM

The Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM) administers Marin’s SR2S program with the help of several consultants, as well as school and community representatives. Parisi Associates provides overall program management, and is supported by the Marin County Bicycle Coalition and Alta Planning & Design.

Task Forces and Travel Plans

In addition, each school district is offered a facilitated Task Force that brings together parent leaders, elected officials and staff from the local jurisdiction, traffic engineers, school district representatives, law enforcement, and neighborhood leaders. As shown in Table 2, there are currently eight Task Forces, representing 43 schools.

Task Forces are responsible for working with the SR2S staff to design and implement a program that addresses the unique needs of their school district. These are often summarized as part of a school’s Travel Plan, which includes the following components:

• Baseline information about a school’s SR2S programs and mode share

• Proposed engineering plans, traffic safety plans, and encouragement and education plans

• Evaluation methods

• Implementation matrix

Schools

Schools

SR2S Task

Forces

Jurisdictions

• County of Marin• Belvedere• Corte Madera• Fairfax• Larkspur• Mill Valley• Novato• Ross• San Anselmo• San Rafael• Sausalito• Tiburon

Marin’s SR2S Team DRAFTFTAFTFTTTFTFT

Glen

orte orte

rkspur, rkspur,

rae)rae)

Hall Midd

and Middle, Nand

West Marin Bolinas-West Marin Bolinas-

DRDRDD

Agenda Item 11


According to the most recent parent survey, the number one reason parents reduced the number of times they drove their child to school was their child’s increased awareness of environmental issues (see Figure 7). It is clear that education can have a big impact on the choices people make when it comes to transportation. By linking the Safe Routes to Schools message to classroom work, the program’s curriculum is able to highlight the importance of making greener choices, and ultimately influence the behavior of both students and parents.

As shown in Table 3, the SR2S curriculum varies and is flexible in its format, from in-classroom activities to bike skills workshops. Led by trained instructors, course work is typically offered at the 2nd grade, 4th grade, middle, and high school levels, and is often tailored to meet classroom needs. Recent additions to the program include the Bicycle Blender, Be Safe Be Strong presentation, and Drive Your Bike. A description of these and all programs are included as part of the appendix.

One hundred Drake High students get ready for a bike

field trip to the movies

EDUCATION02

DRAFT

number numbermes they drove mes they dro

ased awareness of ased awareness of is clear that education r that education

ces people make when it ces people make whking the Safe Routes to Schoking the Safe Routes to Sc

he program’s curriculum he program’s curricuaking greener choaking greener ch

both studeboth stude

As showits fo

Agenda Item 11


Table 3: SR2S Education Program

Title Grade

Classroom Teaching

Safety Art all grades

Stop Look and Listen 2

Helmet Safety & Crash Analysis 4

The Traffic Safety Game Show 4

Assemblies

Pedal Power K-5

Middle School Assembly middle school

Presentations

Bicycle Blender middle and high school

Bringing Science to Life middle and high school

My Public Transportation System middle and high school

What do I Stand for? middle and high school

Technology & Culture high school

Be Safe Be Strong parents

Field Training

Walk Around the Block 2

Bike Skills:

Wheels in Motion (formerly Bike Rodeo) 4

Drive your Bike1 middle school

Bike Commute 101 high school

Bicycle Field Trip middle and high school

Riding with Youth2 2-8 (with parents)

Other

Family Mouse K-2

Faith and Fantasia 1-3

Greenhouse in a Bottle 5-6

1Drive Your Bike is comprised of two parts: classroom and an outdoor class.

2Workshops were taken over by Walk Bike Marin this year.

Historic Trends

The number of schools participating in different SR2S education classes has fluctuated throughout the program’s history. Figures 8 and 9 look at the number of schools participating in Safe Routes to Schools classroom and field training programs for the past six years. Of the in-classroom curriculum, Stop Look and Listen, Helmet Safety, and Traffic Safety comprise SR2S’s core classes, and as a result, are used most heavily by schools.

Safety Art, which is held in preparation of events, such as contests, Walk and Roll to School Days, and International Walk to School Day, saw a big increase this past year, most likely due to the increased promotion by SR2S staff. School presentations have seen a steady climb recently, whereas participation in assemblies has been dropping. While school assemblies are quite popular when first introduced, participation decreases as the number of schools that have seen it increase. This suggests that new, or revised, assembly presentations need to be developed in the near future.

With the exception of Riding with Youth, all the field workshops have seen an overall increase in participation. This was the case for Wheels in Motion, despite the fact that some of the classes were rained out two years in a row. Drive Your Bike/Bike Commute 101 and the field trips, in particular, have seen big gains in the past two years. This shows that recent efforts to target middle and high school students have been largely successful, strengthening SR2S’s teen program.

(left) Taking turns on the

Bicycle Blender

(right) All-school rodeo at

Vallecito School

DRAFT

DRAARARARARARD

ool

schoolschool

le and high schoolle and high school

2-8 (with parents)(with parents)

K-2K-

1-31-3

5-65-6

outdoor classoutdoor class

n first inn firstschools that haschool

r revised, assembly prerevised, asseped in the near future.ped in the near future

With the exception of Riding wth the exception of Riding whave seen an overall incree seen an ocase for Wheels in MotWheeclasses were rainedclasses were raineBike Commute ke Commutebig gains inbig to targeto tsuccsucc

Agenda Item 11


Figure 8: Number of Schools Participating in SR2S CLASSROOM Training

(Fall 2005-Spring 2011)

Figure 7: If you have reduced the number of times you drove your child to school, which of the following have influenced this change?

Figure 9: Number of Schools Participating in SR2S FIELD Training

(Fall 2005-Spring 2011)

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� #� ��$��

��#��#$�$ �� $�� "��#�� #$"$"�

��!�$"�� #��#$�� !$��$$�#��$��#��#��$ �"��

��!�$"�� $��$��"��$"� ��#��#��#��

��#�� #��#$�� !$��#��#��#��$ �"�� "��

��#�� $��"��$"� ��#��#��#��

��!�$"��#$�$ �� #�"$� #�� !#��"�� "�

��!�$"��#$�$ � �� #�� # #$��" !#�� "�

��#�� $��#�� # #$��#��#$�$ � ��#�� "�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� !� �!��"� �"��

��

�

��

��

��

�� !�"��#��

Source: 2011 Parent Survey, Question #5

DRAF

ticipating in SR2S CLASSROOM Traticipating in SR2S CLASSROOM

AAFT

AFT

A�%�

DDDDDDD�DDD

Agenda Item 11


KEEPING IT FRESH

Since its inception, the Safe Routes to Schools curriculum has continuously evolved and expanded along the way. The past three years have been no different, with the introduction of the following new programs:

• Drive Your Bike! (middle schools). Launched in the fall of 2008, Drive Your Bike teaches traffic laws and proper cycling techniques through a game show as well as an outdoor class. The class is offered at two levels, as well as an optional field trip that puts the skills to use.

• Be Safe Be Strong. This 30-minute presentation addresses the people that children may encounter on their way to school, from strangers to bullies. By introducing some of the concepts from KidPower, RadKids and KidWise, SR2S staff provides parents with some basic tools, resources, and hands-on activities that address this important topic.

• Bicycle Blender (middle and high schools). SR2S purchased a Bike Blender during the spring of 2008, and it has been making appearances at local middle and high schools ever since. The blender attaches to the back of a regular bicycle, which can then be put on a stationary stand so that students can cycle in place and blend their own juices. The Bicycle Blender simultaneously teaches students about good nutrition and physical activity.

As part of SR2S’s ever-expanding teen program, Drive Your Bike and the Bike Blender have both been big hits. Be Safe Be Strong, on the other hand, has been minimally used despite schools showing interest in the program. With parents being busier than ever, this presentation may see more use in the future if integrated into existing parent activities, such as open houses or PTA meetings.

BUILDING ON SUCCESSES

Based on past participation rates, as well as the parent surveys, it is clear that Safe Routes to Schools classroom activities are both popular and effective. In 2011-2012 the program will offer the same classes, but with updated content. SR2S staff is currently revamping the curriculum in order to:

• Add more interactive activities, and introduce science-based exercises about transportation and the environment that meet grade-appropriate standards.

• Shift focus to safety concepts (i.e., being predictable and visible) rather than specific actions (i.e., wearing bright clothing or riding the right direction in traffic).

• Explore the possibility of having schoolteachers administer some of the program curriculum, and in doing so, further increase the use of SR2S material.

These efforts will go a long way to inject new life into existing classes, but it is also evident that other aspects of the education

Missions: Sustainable Science Project

“Hall’s carbon footprint is larger than can be sustained without a significant negative impact on the environment over time,” says Ms. Rebecca Newborn, a science teacher at Hall Middle School in Larkspur. Ms. Newborn is teaching the idea of civic action in her 6th grade classes. She created a project that has her students research a selected issue (e.g., lunch waste, water, energy, paper recycling, transportation, starting a seed library). The students then created a plan of action, a set of goals, the outline for a campaign, and a presentation to be considered by Mr. Daniel Norbutas, the principal at Hall.

Teens Go Green, a SR2S program, worked closely with the students who chose to focus on transportation. According to one of the students, Kyra, “We found interesting information that we didn’t know before. For example, that green transportation can be healthy and it can also really impact

the environment if people bike and walk to school.” The goal of the group is to decrease the number of people who drive in private cars to and from school by 15 percent by the end of the school year. “We are planning to do it by educating people about how bad the situation is and letting them know what they can do to help it,” says Charlotte, another student in the group.

Ms. Newborn’s students create an action plan to reduce their carbon footprint

DRAFT

dents

eractive aceractiabout transportatabout tran

rade-appropriate standarade-appropriat

hift focus to safety conceptshift focus to safety concepvisible) rather than specifivisible) ratherclothing or riding the rlothing or

• Explore the poss• Explore the psome of the psome of the pincrease tincrease t

These Theclacla

ce Pro

n can be sustainn the env

en

Agenda Item 11


program could use updating. School assemblies, such as Pedal Power, have historically been very popular. In fact, they rank as one of the top five most effective SR2S activities, according to parents surveyed. School assemblies are often school-wide, one-time events, and recent numbers demonstrate that it is time to revise them.

Presentations, which are mainly geared to middle and high school students, have also seen an overall drop since 2006. For the coming school year, SR2S staff is aiming to increase the number of presentations by emphasizing the interdisciplinary nature of transportation. So far, presentations have been adapted for science, English, and social science classes. Staff is also considering repackaging My Public Transportation System as a video presentation.

As for the field workshop, Riding with Youth, low participation numbers are due to poor weather conditions in recent years. However, it is important to continue to offer bike classes that involve the entire family. Children who ride their bicycle to school often come from families who ride together.

Other less popular components of the SR2S curriculum, such as Family Mouse, Greenhouse in a Bottle, and the Faith and Fantasia book, will continue to be offered, but not promoted. If resources allow, staff would like to translate Faith and Fantasia, a book that emphasizes safe driving, into Spanish to increase its use.

White Hill Field Trip: Cycling for Pizza While Cycling

Smart for Safety

In the spring of 2010, 20 White Hill Middle School students were treated to a biking field trip and pizza party in downtown Fairfax. The field trip was designed to provide hands-on instruction regarding the rules of the road and to increase student awareness of some local safety con cerns. Students first attended the Drive Your Bike interactive class, where they learned about riding visibly and predictably. The field trip, led by Safe Routes to Schools professional instruc-tors, took students on a popular bike route to and from school. Students were taught specifics about how to safely navigate the streets, particu larly during winter months.

INVOLVING TEENS

Safe Routes to Schools has historically been targeted at elementary school students. In 2007, Teens Go Green was developed as a way to bring the program to middle and high schools. Since then, the program has continued to grow through participation in extracurricular bike clubs, morning walk and roll events and contests, bike field trips, and inspiration from smoothies made on the Bike Blender. In the 2010-11 school year, SR2S was expanded to Sinaloa Middle School in Novato and Del Mar Middle School in Tiburon, bringing to 11 the current number of middle and high schools participating in SR2S.

Despite this, however, SR2S struggles to reach teens, particularly at the high school level. As one way to address this, SR2S staff is exploring similar teen programs outside Marin County, particularly Sonoma County’s “Cool Schools” program, which links climate protection and sustainability education to high school students. One project in particular, “eCO2mmute” is an award-winning student commute project that encourages alternative modes of transportation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. SR2S staff is hoping to adapt the program to a Marin high school in the near future.

Another strategy to be implemented next year is a shift of focus away from student clubs. Instead, SR2S staff will work with existing environmental, or other similarly minded, groups in order to promote SR2S activities and classes. By working with established clubs, SR2S staff will be able to focus its limited resources on those activities that will be the most effective.

White Hill field trip

DRAFT

d d moted. If d. If

nd Fantasia, a, ish to increase its ish to increase its

cling for Pizza Whi

Middle Scpiz

xploringxploriarticularly Sonoarticula

links climate protectiolinks climate pgh school students. One projgh school students. On

an award-winning student an award-winning studentalternative modes of traalternative memissions. SR2S staffmissionhigh school in thschoo

Another stAnother saway frexis

Agenda Item 11



DRAFT


Agenda Item 11


ENCOURAGEMENT

Contests and events give children the opportunity to try something new. They generate excitement and participation among students, parents, teachers and public officials. Events such as Walk and Bike to School Days allow the whole community to come together to celebrate a healthier lifestyle, safer community, and cleaner environment. Contests such as Go for the Green challenge students to walk and bike more to win prizes and other recognition.

Based on the results of both the student and parent surveys, the encouragement programs clearly have a big impact on the number of “green” trips to school. Almost all schools that showed an increase in the number of green trips during the 2010-11 school year were schools that participated in regular Walk to School Days and contests as well. The opposite also held true. Schools that chose not to participate in SR2S events showed a decrease in green trips.

Listed in Table 4, these special events are offered to the entire school popula tion, regardless of grade level, and can be tailored to different levels of ability. New to Safe Routes to Schools is the launching of the Green Ways to School campaign in 2009. This campaign, as well as other new features of the encouragement program, is further described in the following sections.

03

Table 4: SR2S Encouragement Program

Title

Events

International Walk to School Day

Walk & Roll to School Days

Contests

Go for the Green

Teens Go Green/ReThink Your Commute

Frequent Rider Miles Contest

Golden Sneaker Award

Pollution Punch Card

Other

SchoolPool

Green Ways to School Challenge

DRAFT

ty to try ty to trynd participation nd participat

ublic officials.blic officials.ol Days allow the whole allow the whole

elebrate a healthier lifestyle,elebrate a healthier environment. Contests such environment. Contests suc

udents to walk and bike mudents to walk and b

nt and nt and

AAATable 4

Agenda Item 11


�#��

�#��

�#��

�#��

�#��

�#��

�#��

�#��

�#�

�#��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��!� ��"��

!��

#%�

%�

%�

$%%�

$$%�

&#%�

' %�

'&%�

''%�

��$��

��

� ��

��

��

��

��!��

��!��"��

#��$��

(�

%�

&(�

&%�

'(�

'%�

((�

(%�

)(�

)%�

(%)(*� (*)(+� (+)(,� (,)(�� (�)&(� &()&&�

��

�

��

��

Figure 10: Number of Schools Participating in SR2S Encouragement

Programs (Fall 2005-Spring 2011)



NOTE: The majority of respondents (75%) were parents of elementary-age children. This likely

explains the low response rate for the two teen programs— Teens Go Green Days and ReThink

Your Commute.

Figure 11: Did you or your child(ren) participate in any of these programs

during the past school year?

Figure 12: How effective (on a scale of 1-5) are the following programs at

encouraging students to walk, bike, carpool and take transit to school?

Historic Trends

As show in Figure 10, encouragement events are an integral part of Marin’s SR2S program. Participation in International Walk to School Day, held the first Wednesday each October, as well as the spring contests, have both seen an overall increase of over 20 percent in the past six years. This was the case despite the unusually wet weather that affected the spring contests this past year.

With an almost 150 percent increase, regular Walk and Roll to School Days have seen a dramatic rise in participation. Beginning in the fall of 2009, SR2S staff asked all schools to establish a regular Walk and Roll to School Day, starting at least monthly, in the hopes of making everyday walking and biking to school the norm. As a result, Wade Thomas Elementary School in San Anselmo, and Rancho and San Ramon Elementary schools in Novato among others, have initiated regular Walk and Roll to School Days. According to parent surveys, these events are the number one most popular and effective SR2S program (see Figures 11 and 12).

Parents cite the Green Ways to School Challenge, Go for the Green contest, and SchoolPool as other highly effective programs (see Figure 12). These can be attributed to the new Green Ways to School campaign, which had a big impact on student participation.

DDD��-

AFTFTFTFTFTT��

ate in any of these programs ate in any of these progra

w t on

Agenda Item 11


LAUNCHING GREEN WAYS TO SCHOOL

The biggest change of the past three years is the launching of the Green Ways to School campaign, which was partially funded by a grant from the Marin Community Foundation’s (MCF) Climate Change Initiative. Since receiving the MCF grant in the fall of 2009, the number of green trips to and from school in the county increased from 48 to 52 percent, translating to difference of 525 green trips. Furthermore, those schools that participated in the Green Ways campaign showed an even greater increase of six percent average for all schools (from 46 to 52 percent) in green trips since 2009. Of these, half of the schools individually generated increases of 6 percent or more with a quarter showing increases in excess of ten percent. Officially launched in January 2010, the campaign consists of three main components: SchoolPool, Go for the Green contests, and the Green Ways to School Challenge.

SchoolPool Trip-Matching

SchoolPool is a resource that facilitates carpooling, walking and biking to schools within local neighborhoods. In the fall of 2009, the MCF grant allowed the program to launch an online trip-matching system where parents can register at no charge to find com panions for carpooling, walking, and biking to school together, or for bus buddies. As of June 2011, SchoolPoolMarin.org had 985 registrants, representing 67 schools.

Source: 2011 Parent Survey, Questions #2 and #3.

Figure 13: How do your child(ren) travel TO/FROM school in a typical week?

For the 2010-11 school year, the program has been further expanded to include the following new features:

• After-School Trip Sharing. Due to their involvement in various after-school activities, students are more likely to be driven from school than to school. As a result, SchoolPool trip-sharing now offers families the ability to find others to carpool, walk, bike, or take transit together to other destinations besides home. This helps parents find and organize SchoolPools for after school to their many activities, like sports, rehearsals, classes, and after-care programs.

• Parents’ Commute Option. Parents, as well as school employees, can join the effort by going to the website to find commute partners to their work via 511 Rideshare. When they register there for a carpool or bus buddy match, the school their child attends (in the case of parents) or where they work (in the case of school employees) receives credit toward the Green Ways to School Challenge.

WHAT IS A GREEN TRIP?

A green trip is when a student walks, bikes, carpools, or takes the bus to school.

DRAFT

and une 2011, 1,

enting 67 enting 6

el TO/FROM school in a typ

egisegisol their chilol the

e they work (in thee they woedit toward the Green Wedit toward the

WHHATAT I IS

A greeA greetak

Agenda Item 11


Drake Teens Organize Car Free Day

On May 20, 2011, Drake High School in San Anselmo held its first “No Cars On Campus Day.” Organized by the Green Routes Club, the event’s goal was to make a statement about the power of walking and biking. Usually filled with 120 cars, the main parking lot was closed off to cars, and students and staff were encouraged to walk or bike to school. Satellite parking was offered to those who lived long distances from school, yet students were seen commuting together by bike and skateboard from as far away as San Geronimo Valley.

During lunch, students watched the innovative Human Powered Vehicles created by Drake’s Engineering students as they raced and maneuvered around courses, and enjoyed various activities including milkshakes made with the Bicycle Blender.

According to Anna Garfink, Co-President of the Green Routes Club, the goal was to get 10 percent of the student and staff

who normally drive, to walk or bike to school, and much more than that was achieved. “If every school had one day a year like this, the positive effect on the environment would be significant,” said Assistant Principal Eric Saibel.

Students at Drake are planning on repeating the event, and they have also inspired other students to hold a similar “No Cars on Campus Day” at their school.

• Green Ways to School Pledge. If a SchoolPool match is not needed, families can take the Pledge to walk, bike, carpool, or use transit whenever possible and receive credit in the Challenge.

• Incentives. A variety of incentives were offered this year, including a $500 cash prize (donated by Kaiser Permanente) to the school with the highest number of SchoolPool trip-matching registrations entered by October 15, 2010. In addition, the first 500 parents who signed up for SchoolPool received a $5 Jamba Juice card, and those who reported their trips through an email questionnaire receive a coupon from Peets Coffee.

While the number of families registering on SchoolPool is increasing every year, the program is still in its early stages, and is not without its challenges. According to the most recent survey, 75 percent of those who registered for SchoolPool did not receive a trip match. Addressing the first issue will likely involve increased marketing—whether it is through posters, emails, or presentations—to raise awareness and participation in the program. The more registrants, the higher the likelihood of there being a trip match for any given neighborhood.

Secondly, as illustrated in the parent survey, parents’ number one requirement before allowing their child to carpool with others is familiarity with the driver. In order to overcome this hurdle, SR2S is working with Bacich Elementary School in Kentfield to introduce neighborhood captains to its SchoolPool program. Captains will be responsible for reaching out to neighbors and facilitating SchoolPools to and from the school.

By using SchoolPool as a tool, the neighborhood captains will be able to bring interested neighbors together, in the hopes of removing one of the key barriers to carpooling. If successful, this approach may be expanded to other schools in the county.

DRAFT

ee Da

hool in San Anselmoganized by the

ke a stateled

Agenda Item 11


New Contests

As part of the Green Ways to School campaign, new competitions were created to further engage students and encourage them to find a green way to school. Each challenge is geared toward specific age levels:

• Go for the Green (elementary schools). The Go for the Green challenge provides each classroom with a colorful poster of a tree. Everyday at roll call, each student who has arrived at school via a green trip—walking, biking, carpool or bus—puts a leaf on the tree. The class with the most leaves (as a percentage of the class) at the end of the contest will be awarded a Green Ways to School certificate and $100. Awards are presented during Earth Day week.

• Teens Go Green (middle schools). The Teens Go Green challenge (also known as ReThink your Commute) aims to elimi nate the one-student-per-motor-vehicle school trip to school. This past year, middle school students who walked, biked, traveled by bus or carpooled had the opportunity to enter a raffle and win a new iPod nano. The classroom in each school that accumulates the most green trips will be rewarded with a trophy created out of bike parts by other middle school students, and a cash prize, which can be used toward a class party.

• Teens Go Green (high schools). The high school challenge is based on students creating their own teams to win points. The team with the highest score is awarded a cash prize of $100 at the end of the challenge.

In 2011, 27 elementary schools and four middle schools participated in Go for the Green and ReThink your Co2mmute. Despite having heavy rain for the first two weeks, the schools recorded almost 97,000 green trips during the four-week contest period, equivalent to a reduction of 40 tons of CO2. As shown in these results, as well as the parent surveys, Go for the Green has become SR2S’s primary contest to encourage green trips to school. Past contests, such as Pollution Punch Card and Frequent Rider Miles, will continue to be offered for those schools that prefer a slightly different format.


Lastly, the Green Ways to School Challenge is a year-long contest that provides awards of $500 to $2,000 for the schools that increase their green trips the most by the end of a given school year. Prizes are made possible by program funding provided by the Marin Community Foundation. Schools will be measured through in-class student tally surveys, information gleaned from the school poolmarin.org website, and participation in Green Ways classroom and team competitions in spring.

(left) Loma Verde students with the Traffic Transformer (aka SR2S instructor Frances

Barbour) and Novato Councilwomen Pat Eklund on International Walk to School Day 2010

(right) White Hill Middle School Green Ways to School trophy

DRAFT

used use

ool challenge ol challenge ms to win points.ms to win points.

ded a cash prize of ded a cash priz

FTeir geir g

Prizes are mPrizesby the Marin Comby the M

ured through in-class stuured through in-eaned from the school poolmeaned from the school p

participation in Green Wayparticipation in Green Wayin spring. in spring.

Agenda Item 11


USING TECHNOLOGY

The 2010 –11 school year saw a big increase in the use of technology. Besides the enhancements to the SchoolPool website, Safe Routes to Schools launched a redesigned website and tested SaveAGallon.org’s bar code scanning system as part of its ReThink Your Commute contest:

• New Website. SR2S debuted its redesigned website at www.saferoutestoschools.org. Features like “At Your School” and “Teens Go Green” allow parents and students to read about SR2S activities at their school. The website also provides access to a variety of data, as well as marketing and educational materials.

• Save A Gallon. Students at Miller Creek tested a new bar code scanning system during its ReThink Your Commute contest in spring 2011. Through a website called www.saveagallon.org, students logged their trips using bar code tags that could be fitted on their backpacks or notebooks. A scanner on-site logged their entries twice a week for four weeks. Only bike, walking, and carpool trips were recorded (a quarter of the school already arrives on the school bus). As a result, Miller Creek outperformed all other middle schools, more than doubling participation in school contests.

So far, the website and the bar code system have been well received. As it moves forward, SR2S will continue to use available technology to enhance its programs. Future plans for the website include developing a secure area for school leaders to communicate, while the scanning system will be implemented in middle and high schools before expanding to the elementary level. Even though the scanning system currently requires a volunteer, it promises to streamline SR2S contests held throughout the county, while increasing the accuracy of travel mode data.

Advanced Technology Meets Teens Go Green

Teens Go Green, in collaboration with Save a Gallon (www.saveagallon.org) launched a pilot program at Miller Creek Middle School in Novato as part of the ReThink Your Commute contest. Students were given lessons on the connection between Transportation and the Environment and then registered on-line and received shoe-shaped barcode cards during science class. When students walked, biked, or carpooled to school on contest days, they scanned their card and automatically found out how much CO2 they saved and became eligible for valuable prizes. The science class with the highest amount of CO2 saved, received cash for a party and their teacher received a gift card for book passage. With the participation rate of 43 percent, during the four-week challenge, Miller Creek students saved the emission of approximately 1,060 lbs of CO2.

DRAFT

ts Teens Go Green

with Save a Gallongram at Mille

Think

Agenda Item 11


Marin County Safe Routes to Schools Website

Launched in 2011, the new SR2S website for Marin County has created a centralized location for all things related to the program. The site provides a wealth of information on Safe Routes to Schools, including general resources, educational materials, data, and news.

In addition, each school district has its own page, where students and parents can get updates on events happening at their school. Similarly, a dedicated teens page provides information on activities for middle and high school students.

Agenda Item 11



DRAFT


Agenda Item 11


ENGINEERING

The Safe Routes to Schools program recognizes that, while education and encouragement can change behavior, the lack of adequate walking and biking paths to school, along with challenging intersections, is one of the primary barriers preventing parents from allowing their children to walk and bike to school.

The Engineering component of SR2S works to remove these barriers by assisting communities in identifying access issues and solutions. This process, further described below, includes a

walk audit and the creation of concept plans, which eventually become part of a school’s overall Travel Plan. Often the basis for grant proposals, these plans are a critical part of SR2S, which has been extremely successful in funding infrastructure improvements across the county. To date, over 100 SR2S projects totaling over $17 million have been constructed or are currently under design. This section describes some of these key projects, as well as the engineering and implementation process.

04

DRAFT

that, while that, whbehavior, the behavior, the

s to school, along s to school, along of the primary barriers primary barriers

their children to walk and their children to wa

SR2S works to removSR2S works to remn identifying an identifying a

cribed cribed

walk aubecf

Agenda Item 11


SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR LYNWOOD SCHOOL

RECOMMENDED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS

10/31/07

Sunset P

arkw

ay

Lynwood Drive

South Novato Boulevard

Recommendations:

Construct 6-foot curb extensions at north and east corners of Lynwood Drive and Sunset Parkway

Construct an island refuge in median of Sunset Parkway

Restripe crosswalks with high visibility ladder design

This plan reduces crosswalk length from one 100 foot crosswalk to two 14 foot crosswalks.

A

A

A

B

B

C C

BEFORE AFTER

Intersection of Lynwood and Sunset showing

current conditions.

Intersection of Lynwood & Sunset, showing

proposed crossing improvements

Intersection of Sunset and South Novato, showing

pedestrians crossing South Novato

LYNWOOD DRIVE AND SUNSET PARKWAY CROSSING SUNSET PARKWAY AND S. NOVATO BOULEVARD

Consider installation of protected left-turn arrows for Sunset Parkway

Install leading pedestrian signals at crosswalks

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Recommendations:

D

E

D

E

Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)Walk sign turns on before motor vehicles are given green light.

The Evolution of a Project

In March 2008, Caltrans awarded almost $600,000 in California Safe Routes to School funding to improve access to three schools in Novato—Lynwood, Olive, and San Ramon Elementary schools. This project was unique in its ability to package a range of capital improvement projects into one grant proposal. Using this project as an example, the following graphic illustrates the steps in implementing a successful SR2S engineering plan.

DEVELOPING CONCEPT PLANS

The SR2S engineering team works closely with each of the participating Task Forces to identify engineering projects that can improve walking and biking to school. This process consists of the following steps:

• A “walkabout” is conducted with the engineering team, school Task Force, as well as representatives from the local public works and law enforcement departments

• The walk audit identifies operational and physical obstacles within the school study area, prioritized by the local public works department and Task Force

• The engineering team, working hand-in-hand with the local public works department, develops draft conceptual plans for the highest prioritized locations, illustrating improvement options

• The plans are presented to the school Task Force for feedback

Although long-range options are discussed, the concept plans also focus on short-term measures that can be implemented within one or two years. Often, these improvements are relatively low cost and can be implemented with local funds. In other cases, projects need to rely on outside funds, including grant funding from State or Federal programs. In addition, TAM’s Safe Pathways program is a key source of funding to schools that have completed SR2S Travel Plans. (For more information on Safe Pathways and other funding sources, see the chapter on Funding.)

A walk audit is conducted with the engineering team and representatives from the school, public works department, and law enforcement

The engineering team develops

draft conceptual plans, illustrating

improvement options

Seek funding from various sources (e.g., TAM’s Safe Pathways) & implement improvements

DDRAFT

DRlmost $600,000 inng to improv

ood, O

Agenda Item 11


��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

!�� " ��"��

#�� $��"��%�

&�� '��

#��(��

)��"��

)��"��"��

&�(��'��"��

*��

�� "��

&�� "�� "��

+�� '�'�� '��

+��


Figure 14: On a scale of 1-5, how important are the following factors at allowing your child(ren) to walk or bike to school?

San Ramon Way’s intersections with San Benito Way and San Juan Court were narrowed to slow motor vehicle traffic speeds and improve pedestrian crosswalks.

At Lynwood School, high-visibility crosswalks, pedestrian refuge islands, and curb extensions were placed at Lynwood Drive and Sunset Parkway, and traffic signal changes were made to enhance student safety when crossing South Novato Boulevard at Sunset Parkway.

Near Olive and San Ramon schools, traffic calming measures

were implemented along Olive Avenue and San Ramon Way.

On Olive Avenue, traffic lanes were narrowed, bike lanes

widened, and pedestrian crossing enhancements implemented.

DRA

DRRAFAFT

AFT

AFT

AFA��

��

��

��

schoow

Agenda Item 11


ACHIEVING RESULTS

As mentioned, SR2S has been increasingly successful in implementing engineering projects throughout the county. Representing over 95 projects, Figure 15 identifies all schools that have completed infrastructure improvements through the SR2S program. The engineering projects vary widely in scope and cost, such as:

• School area signing

• Pavement markings

• New bicycle lanes

• High visibility crosswalks

• Traffic calming features

• Intersection curb extensions and ramps

Leveraging Opportunities in Fairfax

Since the start of Marin’s SR2S, the Town of Fairfax has shown how thoughtful planning and a willingness to be flexible can go a long way in achieving results. Early on, the Fairfax SR2S Task Force developed a long-range vision for a segment of Sir Francis Drake Boulevard that would improve pedestrian and bicycle access along the busy corridor. With concept plans in hand, Fairfax was able to successfully implement its proposed projects, which were funded by a variety of sources, including Caltrans’ SR2S and Hazard Elimination Safety programs, as well as TAM Measure A funds. Totaling over $650,000 in construction costs and built over five years, these projects included:

• A new sidewalk along Sir Francis Drake Boulevard between Marin Drive and Olema Road

• Traffic calming measures at the intersection of Marin Drive and Sir Francis Drake Blvd

• A pedestrian and bicycle bridge over the creek at Marin Drive

• High-visibility crosswalk, safety lighting, warning signs, and pavement markings across the intersection of Sir Francis Drake Boulevard and Marin Road-Oak Tree Lane

• High-visibility crosswalk and additional school warning lights on Sir Francis Drake Boulevard

• Signage and bike lane striping on Glen Drive

The Town’s ability to be creative with its planning and funding was another key to its success. Stimulus funding was recently provided to repave Sir Francis Drake Boulevard between June Court and Shadow Creek Court. The Town’s public works director realized that as part of the project the roadway could be marked differently. The Town consulted with the SR2S traffic engineer to devise a pavement marking plan that provided wide designative bicycle lanes separated by buffer zones, while slightly narrowing vehicular travel lanes. The new plan was immediately implemented, greatly improving bicycle access to and from White Hill Middle School. In addition, new school area signing and high-visibility crosswalks were installed.

A pedestrian and bicycle bridge being installed across the creek at Marin Drive in Fairfax.

• Pedestrian refuge islands

• New traffic controls

• Multi-use pathways

• New sidewalks

• Pedestrian bridge

Much of this success is due to the collaborative work of the Task Forces with local jurisdictions. Engineering plans need to be developed and implemented with the support of both community members and city officials. It is particularly important that public works staff, together with the SR2S engineering team, work collaboratively with Task Forces to address their concerns. Without consistent public works involvement, Task Forces lose confidence in the ability to improve walking and bicycling infrastructure and safety.

FT

DRAFT

n

gment of ve pedestrian

With concept ssfully impleme

funded by a variety of S and Hazard Elimination Measure A funds. To

and built over fi

ererForces loForce

ng and bicyclingng and b

Agenda Item 11


Big Success with Small Projects: Mill Valley

With over $2 million in funded projects, Mill Valley has been one of the most successful jurisdictions in Marin when it comes to implementation. Much of this credit can be given to the Mill Valley SR2S Task Force, which is comprised not only of school leaders, but also representatives from Public Works, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, and the County. As a City Council member, Stephanie Moulton-Peters (a former Old Mill School team leader herself ) has also provided strong leadership in her role as chair of the Task Force. This ability to work collaboratively, while also having a representative on the City Council, has made this Task Force particularly effective.

By often focusing on low-cost solutions, Mill Valley’s SR2S team has been able to be flexible when it comes to funding. Small projects, such as new school areas signing and pavement markings at Park Elementary and crosswalk enhancements at Edna Maguire and Mill Valley Middle schools, were implemented through the City general fund. This allowed higher cost projects, such as the multi-use pathway on Camino Alto and the intersection improvements in front of Tam High, to be funded through other sources, such as Federal grants or Measure A.

The following is a sampling of the SR2S projects that have been completed in Mill Valley:

• Construction of a multi-use pathway along Camino Alto, connecting the Mill Valley Community Center with the Mill Valley Middle School.

• Removal and replacement of a narrow sidewalk and installation of a refurbished bus shel ter at Miller Avenue and Gomez, in front of Tamalpais High School.

• Installation of three permanent vehicle speed feedback signs.

• Installation of a concrete bulb-out that enlarges the side-walk area at Edna Maguire School to reduce the street-crossing distance and make pedes trians more visible to drivers on Lomita Avenue. Also modification of the median in front of the school driveway.

• At Old Mill School, concrete bulb-outs on Lovell Avenue at Old Mill Avenue, at Lovell Avenue & Summit, and at Throckmorton & Old Mill Avenue.

(top) Driver speed feedback sign on Camino Alto

(center) Multi-use pathway along Camino Alto

(bottom) Bulb-outs on Lovell Avenue at Old Mill Avenue

DRAF

ents,

ects that ha

ong Camino Alto, ommunity Center w

t of a narrow sidew

Tbus shel ter at M

s High Sc

Agenda Item 11


Agenda Item 11


Figure 15: Recent SR2S Infrastructure Improvements

Agenda Item 11



DRAFT


Agenda Item 11


ENFORCEMENT

Besides weather, speeding cars and challenging intersections are the top two reasons parents prohibit their children from walking or biking to school (see Figure 16). Even with pathway improvements, parents are reluctant to allow their children to walk or bike to school if they must deal with fast traffic or cross a busy street. Undoubtedly, local police departments play a critical role in addressing these concerns. Marin’s Safe Routes to Schools program is fortunate to have the support of police officers, who are often active participants on school Task Forces. SR2S’s Enforcement component is also supported by two key programs: the Crossing Guard Program and Street Smarts, which was introduced 2008. These programs, along with the role of law enforcement in SR2S, is further described below.

LAW ENFORCEMENT

The enforcement program relies heavily on the participation of the police department to ensure drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians all obey the rules of the road. Local police officers often participate on Task Forces, which may also include representatives from the Marin County Sheriff and California Highway Patrol, when appropriate.

Police officers use a combination of enforcement and education measures to raise safety awareness around schools, including citations, radar trailers, and educational pamphlets. In Ross Valley, for instance, the police department stations officers at intersections with frequent traffic violations during arrival and

05

(left) Street Smarts signage

(right) A crossing guard at Sir Francis Drake Boulevard

DRAFT

intersections intersecr children from r children fro

6). Even with pathway . Even with pathway o allow their children to w their children to

deal with fast traffic or crosdeal with fast trafficcal police departments play cal police departments plae concerns. Marin’s Safe Re concerns. Marin’s S

o have the supporo have the suppopants on schpants on sch

uppupp

LAWA E

The

Agenda Item 11

Safe Routes Partners with Novato Police

The Novato Police Department is partnering with Safe Routes to Schools to offer classes and blacktop drills to students at Novato Schools. The Novato Police Department received a grant from the Office of Traffic Safety to present safety classes at Novato schools, provide helmets, enforce helmet laws and put on Bicycle Rodeos at Novato Schools. SR2S provides classes in pedestrian and bicycle safety for 2nd, 4th, and 6th graders and teamed up with the Novato Police to enhance these classes with the materials created by the OTS grants. Students at Hill and Sinaloa middle schools received the 6th grade Drive That Bike classes for the first time as a result of the grant.

Bike skills class


dismissal times as part of targeted enforcement efforts. Many jurisdictions provide similar police presence at schools during both the morning and afternoon school commute periods. In addition, speed feedback radar trailers are often rotated to problem areas.

Besides traditional enforcement measures, police departments also provide support in pedestrian and bicycle safety training at schools. In 2003, Corte Madera received a California Office of Traffic Safety grant that included providing helmets to students at Neil Cummins School. SR2S offered special after school bicycle skills training in conjunction with the helmet giveaways. A similar grant was received by Novato police this past school year, who worked closely with SR2S instructors and provided bicycle and helmet safety instruction and inspections.

One of the future goals of SR2S is to ensure that law enforcement develop a rotational schedule to monitor all schools, as well as seek additional ways in which they can contribute to SR2S. This may include increased enforcement during special SR2S events, such as International Walk to School Day, crossing guard training, or other educational efforts.

CROSSING GUARDS

TAM’s Crossing Guard Program is a valuable local safety effort. While some schools have attempted to implement volunteer crossing guard programs, experience has suggested that this is not a viable long-term strategy, as volunteers are not always reliable on a day-to-day basis. Other Bay Area counties, including Dublin, San Francisco, and Santa Clara, have realized that to reduce liability concerns, and to ensure that there are well-trained crossing guards with back-ups for every critical intersection, they must contract with a professional company.

Marin has done exactly that through its Crossing Guard program. The program, which is in its sixth year, deploys trained school crossing guards at over 75 locations throughout Marin County. Crossing guard locations are requested by the school districts, police departments, and public works directors. Each location is evaluated based on criteria developed by TAM’s Technical Advisory Committee with input from Marin public works directors.

The program continued summer school service in 2010 to over 10 locations. All existing sites as well as several additional locations recommended by local public works directors were evaluated during the Spring of 2010. As a result, crossing guards were stationed at over 20 new sites beginning in the fall of 2010. By making school trips safer, a key barrier to promoting walking and biking is eliminated, lessening the need for students to be driven to school.

DRAFT

to Po

ering withto

partmenpartmuated based onuated b

Advisory Committee witAdvisory Commirectors.irecto

he program continued summe program continued summover 10 locations. All exist10 locatiolocations recommends recoevaluated during tevaluated duringguards were stauards were sof 2010. By of 2walkingwastudtud

Agenda Item 11

Identifying “Hot Spots”

A Street Smarts committee comprised of city managers, public works officials, planning staff, and police department representatives from each participating jurisdiction, meet regularly to provide input and guidance to the program. As of its first tasks, the committee identified the top five traffic-safety issues of concern in Marin:

• Speeding

• Stopping violations (e.g. running stop signs and red lights)

• Right-of-way violations by drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists

• Distracted driving

• Bicycling violations and bicyclist safety

The committee then located “hot spots” in their jurisdictions where the targeted behaviors often occur. These locations were determined with the assistance of each jurisdiction’s staff, as well as appropriate background information, such as collision reports, citation reports, speed survey data, feedback from Safe Routes to School Task Forces, and citizen complaints. In order to raise awareness of these behaviors, banners, lawn signs, posters, brochures, and safety flyers are deployed at these “hot spots.”



(top) Street Smarts committee meeting

(bottom) Identified hot spots in the Town of Corte Madera

)�-� )�-��,-�

��-�

',-� '�-� '�-�'�-� '�-� ')-�

'�-�

��-��-�

)-� )-� )-�'-�

�-�

�-�

��-�

��-�

'�-�

'�-�

��-�

��-�

)�-�

)�-�

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��!��

��

��

"��

��

��

��

�

Figure 16: What concerns limit your child’s ability to walk and bike to school?

��

23435678

�9

:;

�<

=��

��

>3?3@A367

BC

2�D

D

�64:;

3E8

765

8

D85<

995

9FG8

:6G9

C6@@63?

�373��

H8F3

8359<7<88G�;3A?

3F

>3=@9

4

�@?

43

F353

�:;

9

I9@9

JF584;

6@@

35

843

�648

�7;

�34K

94

26L

@8=

>3?

3@�M

67G3

9;

3<

E

N343;

3FO3F6G3

�6@@

�9@:

9?

K

N3H73@6G9

23@?

D9K6F

��648

�:3

:63

N3

F��

@8?

8FG8

8359<

:48

7G

246F:8

�D9=

3@

�6K

463F

�364P68<

�@8L3F584

�@��

3?

6F9

C3@FHG

35843

�58@�2

48765

69

N9F943

�6:E94=

C87G<

345

3H48

@

D9K6F

49

P8

34E

Q3E53@8

�3

@:@H

G;3

�3=P68<

>HFF8@

�83G;84

�63F8

NG3

FG9F

C6F5<345

�@G3

23

@9?

3

D3F:;

�5679F

�3@G6?948

65;6@@

�6@@�648

HA6F8

C94FH?

9F9F3

C6@@

9<

�F583P94

�H8F3�M67G3NG8

G79F

246P

3G8

84

3RF9@63

N8

?6F

9@8

�9F

7G6GH

G69F

�F

G9F8

GG8

�93:;

�9F5

N3F5=

9<84

43

:8

>36FG84

294G9@3

�;3FF8@

2@8373FG

M849

F3

234E

�3<F

H@3

�;6:E373<

�@H8�D9:E

6K84G=

C6@5S@9<84

234EP68<�8F79F

�KKG658�23773R8

B6P

8F

24876569

�9HF:6@�

�48

7G

>9=9F

�34F84

M67

G3

844=

655

@8

N6?

9F�D

3F:;

�3@6S94F63

JA@3

F5

�H

653

B3P3T9

�;H4:

;

��

9<

84

�6@@

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

<=��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

23@?

��

��

�<

=��

��

��

D85<995

��

C6@@

9<

�� !�"�#$%"!$

>3=@94��648

-).)/0

1234+'23/,

NA885

D6R;G�9S�C3=�M69@3G69F7��28587G463F7��:=:@67G7��546P847�

NG9A�N6RF��>43SS6:�N6RF3@�M69@3G69F7

�6:=:@8�M69@3G69F7��=:@67G�N3S8G=

�67G43:G85��46P6FR

�6G=�6?6G

AFT

nt diction, m

to the programd the top five traffic-

running stop signs

rs, pedes

T

Agenda Item 11


STREET SMARTS MARIN

Originally developed by the City of San Jose, Street Smarts is a public education campaign designed to change driver, pedestrian, and bicyclist behavior in order to make streets safer and friendlier. The program works on many levels through outdoor media (e.g. banners, signs, and posters), as well as community outreach (e.g. brochures, presentations, and press coverage).

Street Smarts Marin was first pilot-tested in the fall of 2008 in three communities: Corte Madera, Larkspur, and Mill Valley. The pilot program was well received; feedback collected from citizens and city/town staff was overwhelmingly positive. As a result, the program was expanded in the fall of 2009 to include five additional jurisdictions : Tiburon, Belvedere, Ross, San Anselmo, and Fairfax. In 2011, the program has been expanded into Novato and Sausalito.

��

��

��

Source: Street Smarts Marin Survey, 2009 Source: Street Smarts Marin Survey, 2009

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Figure 17: How effective do you think the Street Smarts campaign is (or will

be) in encouraging positive change in your attitudes and behaviors while

driving, bicycling and walking?

Figure 18: Would you like the Street Smarts campaign brought to your

community again?

DRAFT

DDDmarts campaign is (or will campaign is (or will

itudes and behaviors while itudes and behaviors w

FigFig

Agenda Item 11


www.StreetSmartsMarin.org www.StreetSmartsMarin.org

For more information about Street Smarts Marin, the traffic safety education program from the Transportation Authority of Marin, go to: StreetSmartsMarin.org.

Developed by City of San Jose, Department of Transportation with the Oregon Department of Transportation; portions copyrighted by ODOT and permission granted in advance to reproduce in whole or in part for free, educational uses.

Transportation Authority of Marin

AT 25 MPH YOU WOULD STOP HERE.

Driving five miles over the speed limit may not seem

like a very big deal, until you harm or kill a child who

unexpectedly runs in front of your car. It doesn’t matter

how good of a driver you are. The faster you go, the

longer it takes to stop your moving car. Speeding is

hazardous to our children’s health.

AT 30 MPH YOU WOULD STOP HERE.

After hitting the first

two children and

increasing their

chance of major injury,

such as broken bones,

severe cuts, uncon-

sciousness, or perma-

nent disability, by 60%.

BUT ARE YOU A GOOD STOPPER?

WHERE WOULD YOU STOP?

EVERYONE KNOWS YOU ARE A REALLY

GOOD DRIVER.

SAFE DRIVINGIS GOOD FOR EVERYONE!

BUT ARE YOU A GOOD STOPPER?

WHERE WOULD YOU STOP?

EVERYONE KNOWS YOU ARE A REALLY

GOOD DRIVER.

SAFE DRIVINGIS GOOD FOR EVERYONE!

“Get Street Smart! Did You Know?” educational presentation

Vertical lightpost banner

Lawn sign Educational brochure

Street Smarts Media

The Street Smarts Marin program currently includes several elements:

• Banners and Signs. Horizontal and vertical banners, signs, and posters that include key messages targeted at the top five “bad behaviors.” Special banners are also available for schools.

• Brochures. Mainly distributed at schools, the brochures highlight safe as well as unsafe driving practices, stopping distances at various travel speeds, information for children, and safety data relevant to Marin County’s communities.

• Community Outreach. A 50-slide presentation titled “Get Street Smart! Did You Know?” was developed for communicating with schools, neighborhoods, civic and business groups, and others. The presentation is designed to raise awareness, change attitudes, and improve driving, pedestrian, and bicycling behaviors.

• Neighborhood Kits. Available to participating communities, these kits include background information about Street Smarts Marin, an assortment of lawn signs, the “Get Street Smart! Did You Know” presentation, educational brochures, and fliers developed and contributed by AAA including “Safe Walking Tips,” “Getting Children to School Safely,” etc.

• Website. Part of TAM’s overall website, the Street Smarts Marin site includes general program information, as well as downloadable materials.

• Press Coverage. The Street Smarts program is promoted through local paper coverage, newsletters, and email updates. DR

AFTVe

ion signs, gns,

ion, and a d

king Tips,” king Tips,” tc.tc.

website, the Street Smarts the Street Smarts program information, as welprogram information

ls.ls.

eet Smarts program is eet Smarts programe, newsletters, ae, newsletters,

Agenda Item 11



DRAFT


Agenda Item 11


When Measure A passed in November 2004, Marin County became the first jurisdiction in the country to provide long-term funding for its Safe Routes to Schools programs. Since then, it has been extremely successful in leveraging this money. The investment made in SR2S programming has resulted in five times that amount going to infrastructure projects. Furthermore, SR2S’s capital improvement program, Safe Pathways to School, has been particularly vital in providing a “local match” source that is used to gain additional state and federal funding.

FUNDING

The ability to leverage its existing programming and infrastructure dollars, SR2S staff has been able to continue expanding its innovative programming, as well as implement a wide range of infrastructure projects across the county.

06

Students test out the new crosswalk and sidewalk at Sun Valley School.

DRAFT

in County in Couno provide long-o provide lon

ls programs. Since s programs. Since in leveraging this money. eraging this money.

gramming has resulted gramming has resultg to infrastructure projects. g to infrastructure projects

mprovement program, Safmprovement programrticularly vital in prrticularly vital in p

ain additioain additio

The abiinfra

Agenda Item 11


MEASURE A

With its half-cent sales tax, Measure A is expected to generate $331 million (2004 dollars) over a 20-year period (through FY 2025). As shown in Table 5, approximately $36.5 million, or 11 percent, is allocated to school access programs. Of this, nearly $11 million will be used to support many of SR2S’s Education and Encouragement programs, such as classroom activities and special community events. The remaining $25 million is split between two complementary programs—the Crossing Guard program and Safe Pathways to School Projects.

Safe Pathways to School

Safe Pathways is TAM’s capital funding program, which is projected to provide $11.6 million over 20 years for engineering, environmen tal clearance, and construction of pathway and sidewalk improvements. Identified in school Travel Plans, Safe Pathways projects are selected based on the following performance criteria:

�� Completes a gap in the bicycle and pedestrian system along a major school route

�� Maximizes daily use by students and others

�� Relieves an identified safety or congestion problem along a major school route

�� Attracts matching funds

�� Respects geographic equity

Although Safe Pathways projects target improvements around schools, they benefit the entire community, creating a safe network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, enhancing safety and reducing local congestion.

Table 5: Measure A Funding Allocation for Strategy #4

Strategy #4 Reduce school related congestion and provide safer access to

schools. % Est. 20-year revenue

1. Safe Routes to Schools 3.3% $10.94 M

2. Crossing Guards 4.2% $13.93 M

3. Provide capital funds for Safe Pathways To School projects 3.5% $11.61 M

TOTAL 11% $36.48 M

Source: Marin County Transportation Sales Tax Expenditure Plan, Approved Final Plan, May 6, 2004

To date, the Safe Pathways to School program has funded over $3.8 million in infrastructure projects. Its first funding cycle in 2007 provided $1.77 million for 12 projects in the county. All of these projects have been completed or near completion. During its second cycle in 2010, over $2 million in Measure A funds were allocated to 13 new Safe Pathway projects. A list of these, along with all funded infrastructure projects, can be found in the appendix.

MEASURE B

In addition to Measure A, Marin voters passed Measure B in November 2010, creating another revenue source for SR2S programs. Measure B authorizes a ten-dollar increase in motor vehicle registration fees for the exclusive purpose of funding local transportation projects and programs. A portion of the funds is dedicated to School Safety and Congestion Reduction, which includes the following objectives:

• Maintain and expand the School Crossing Guard program

• Provide matching funds for Safe Routes to School programs

• Enhance/expand programs designed to reduce congestion and improve safety around schools, including Street Smarts and SchoolPool programs

DRAFT

ong a

get improvements around get improvements arounmmunity, creating a safe mmunity, creating a

cilities, enhancing sacilities, enhancing

n projen projted to School Sted to

des the following objdes the follow

aintain and expand the Schoaintain and expand the S

PrProvide matching funds fovide matc

• Enhance/expand pnce/eand improve saand improve sand SchoolPand SchoolP

Agenda Item 11


Funding Sources

Infrastructure projects developed through Marin’s SR2S program have been funded through a variety of sources:

• Federal SRTS

• State SR2S

• Transportation Enhancement

• Bicycle Transportation Account (Caltrans)

• TAM Safe Pathways

• Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Pathways

• MTC Safe Routes

• Marin Community Foundation

• Kaiser Permanente

• Local TFCA (TAM)

• Transportation for Livable Communities (MTC)

• Bicycle Facilities Program (BAAQMD)

• Regional TFCA (BAAQMD)

• Agency general funds

• Office of Traffic Safety

• HSIP (Caltrans)

• School districts

��$��"��

��

��

��

�$��

��$�� !��"��

��

��!�$��!��"��

LEVERAGING OF FUNDS

One of the unique features of Marin’s Safe Routes to Schools is its grant assistance program, which provides support to cities, towns and the county in developing and submitting grant applications. Primarily aimed toward infrastructure projects, the grants have ranged from as little as $5,000 for crosswalk enhancements to as much as $900,000 for more comprehensive improvements. Combined, this level of as sistance has resulted in Marin County being awarded over $13 million in outside funding since the program began in 2000.

Infrastructure Grants

In order to increase the impact of local funds, Safe Pathway projects are expected to attract matching grants from other sources. As shown in Figure 19, SR2S has been extremely effective in leveraging Measure A’s “seed money.” Safe Pathways to School currently makes up 30 percent of the total infrastructure funding for Safe Routes projects.

Over the past three years, the SR2S engineering team has assisted local jurisdictions in preparing several successful grant applications, totaling $3.7 million in infrastructure improvements:

• Traffic calming and pathway improvements in the vicinity of Marin Horizon School in Mill Valley ($900,000, Caltrans Safe Routes to School, Cycle 7)

• Traffic calming and crosswalk improvements at Coleman School in San Rafael ($274,000, Caltrans Safe Routes to School, Cycle 7)

• Improvements to the Sir Francis Drake Boulevard/Lagunitas Road intersection in Ross via traffic calming treatments, pedestrian improvements, and upgraded traffic and pedestrian signals ($442,900, Highway Safety Improvement Program, Cycle 3)

• Access improvements to Mill Valley Middle and Tam High schools through a multiuse pathway on Camino Alto, intersection curb extensions on Camino Alto/Miller Ave, and pedestrian crossing treatment on Miller Ave/Almonte Blvd. ($565,290, Federal Safe Routes to School, 2nd Cycle)

• A variety of safety projects serving five schools—Park Elementary, Tam High, Edna Maguire Elementary, Mill Valley Middle School, and Old Mill Elementary School ($363,000, Caltrans Safe Routes to School, Cycle 9)

NOTE: Reflects total project costs (i.e., grants and matching funds).

Figure 19: Infrastructure Funding (2001-2011)

DRAFT

Funding SourFund

InfrastructuInfrastrucprogramprogra

•

he vicinity of y of , Caltrans Safe , Caltrans

ovements at Coleman ments at Coleman Caltrans Safe Routes to Schooaltrans Safe Rout

ancis Drake Boulevard/Lancis Drake Boulevaraffic calming trearaffic calming tre

pgraded trapgraded traay Safay Saf

FTTE: Reflects total project costs (i.e., grants aE: Reflects total project costs (i.

Agenda Item 11


• Pedestrian and bicyclist safety improvements near Lower Brookside, Upper Brookside, and Wade Thomas elementary schools ($619,200, Federal Safe Routes to School, 3rd Cycle)

• Infrastructure improvements along Lindaro Street, near Davidson Middle School ($565,000, Federal Safe Routes to School, 3rd Cycle)

Other Grants

Most of the outside grants have been directed toward infrastructure projects, simply due to the higher availability of capital funds. Despite that, SR2S staff has recently been successful in acquiring additional funding for programming as well.

As part of its Climate Change initiative, the Marin Community Foundation (MCF) awarded the Transportation Authority of Marin a $175,000 grant in 2009. Renewed again in 2010, the grant was used to further develop SchoolPool, as well as expand the teen program. The grant’s goal is to shift at least 800 students to greener modes of transportation, keeping 420 tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere.

As a result of the MCF grant, SR2S was also able to secure additional dollars toward the Green Ways to School campaign. Jamba Juice and Peets Coffee donated approximately $5,000 worth of coupon cards that were used as program incentives. Many local businesses also donated coupons for the teen program. In addition, Kaiser Permanente pledged $500 toward the Green Ways to School awards, and some schools used PTA funds to increase the cash prizes.

More recently, Marin’s SR2S program was the recipient of a $383,000 grant from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). As part of its Climate Initiatives Program, the grant will go toward promoting Green Ways to School through social media. SR2S staff will work with several partners, including Cool the Earth and MCF, on the following five tasks under the grant:

• Enhancement of existing technology tools (funded from another source)

• Development of marketing technology tools

• Development of on-site organizing tools

• A pilot program for testing effectiveness of new tools

• Evaluation of programs’ success

SECURING CONSISTENT FUNDING

It is clear that Marin has benefited from the coordinated efforts of the Safe Routes to Schools staff and local jurisdictions to create a safer biking and walking environment. Seeing results on the ground is critical to the ongoing support of parents and schools, and this cannot happen without consistent funding.

While Measure A has established a sustainable funding source for SR2S, it only makes up a small portion of the total amount that goes into planning and implementing its programs. The challenge moving forward will be maintaining the high level of outside financial support that SR2S currently enjoys. This will involve seeking other long-term sources, as well as continuing to apply for various one-time grants offered at the state and local level.

DRAFT

aign. $5,000 $5,00

incentives. incentives. or the teen or the

edged $500 toward ed $500 toward ome schools used PTA ome schools used

m was the recipient of m was the recipientn Transportationn Transportatio

nitiatives nitiatives ysys

Agenda Item 11


A LOOK TO THE FUTURE

Throughout its history, the Marin County Safe Routes to Schools program has consistently proven its effectiveness in reducing the number of children who are driven alone to school and in increasing the amount of students walking, bicycling, taking the bus or participating in a carpool.

Schools that have been with the program the longest have experienced dramatic results. As one of the first schools to join SR2S in 2000, Edna Maguire Elementary School in Mill Valley has seen an overall 14 percent decrease in the number of students who are driven alone. Joining in 2002, Bacich Elementary in Kentfield has seen a 19 percent decrease, while Old Mill Elementary in Mill Valley, which joined in 2003, has seen an impressive 34 percent decrease. This change in travel behavior has far reaching benefits for the community, from reducing congestion and increasing safety, to promoting a healthy lifestyle and a more sustainable future.

In order to strengthen the relevance and long-term impacts of SR2S, the program is constantly evolving and developing new ideas. The past three years has seen updated classroom offerings, new contests, new partnerships, the innovative use of technology, implementation of low-cost engineering tools, and new and increased funding sources. These developments have been key in allowing SR2S to expand its reach while at the same time strengthen its core elements.

With a well-established program like Marin’s, however, the focus going forward will be one of maintenance rather than expansion. Keeping in mind the three key elements of success (see box), the following recommendations are intended to improve the effectiveness of the existing program, so that it can continue to be a leader for years to come.

07

DRAFT

outes to Schools outes to Schools ness in reducing ness in reduc

one to school and in ne to school and inlking, bicycling, taking bicycling, taking

ol. ol.

the program the longest hathe program the longest has one of the first schos one of the first sc

ntary School inntary School inthe nuthe nu

In ordeof S

Agenda Item 11


RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are intended to improve both the effectiveness and the long-term sustainability of Marin’s Safe Routes to Schools program.

Develop a Strategic Plan

While Travel Plans guide specific goals and strategies at the school and district level, an overall Strategic Plan would establish the overarching vision for Safe Routes to Schools at countywide. In order for Marin’s SR2S program to reach its next level of maturity, it will be essential to create a roadmap of where it is headed and how it will get there. The Strategic Plan would provide a decision-making framework, setting goals, prioritizing programs, and allocating resources within a set timeframe.

Working in tandem with Measure A’s 20-Year Strategic Plan, the SR2S Strategic Plan would also help coordinate efforts between SR2S staff, funding agencies, local elected officials, school district leadership, and regional agencies, such as MTC. As changes to revenues and policies occur at the county level, the SR2S plan would be similarly updated.

Lastly, a countywide strategic plan would give SR2S further leverage when seeking funding. By identifying program and budget needs in a strategic plan, SR2S can actively secure grants for the most vital components of the program.

Establish Institutional Support

The varying degrees to which schools participate in Safe Routes programs depends largely on not only the availability of staff and volunteers, but also on the school’s willingness to incorporate SR2S lessons and activities into their existing curriculum. The institutionalization of SR2S at multiple levels—County, City, and school district—will ensure consistent participation among SR2S schools, while establishing it as one of the county’s top priorities. The institutionalization process would:

• Consider the opportunities and risks of requiring participation in Task Force meetings once or twice a year to discuss mutual issues on relieving congestion around schools and creating safety measures.

• Explore options for law enforcement to develop a rotational schedule to monitor all schools, as well as other ways in which law enforcement can contribute to SR2S.

• Explore opportunities, as well as cost implications, of ensuring school district and school participation in SR2S programs. Options include:

– Creating a standing committee and Safe Routes liaison from each school

– Encouraging green travel choices to school, especially through contests and events

– Promoting SchoolPool via e-blasts and/or newsletter announcements, as well as recruiting neighborhood captains

– Requiring classroom lessons on traffic safety

KEY ELEMENTS OF A SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM

When it comes to showing tangible results, participating SR2S schools have achieved various levels of success. Those that have experienced the most dramatic results—whether it has been through a high increase in green trips or a large number of infrastructure projects—often have three key features in common:

• A strong vision. Having a long-term vision in place allows schools to more effectively implement their goals as they relate to each of the four E’s—Education, Encouragement, Engineering, and Enforcement. It is those schools that have a clear vision for their future that are also able to more successfully seek out grants.

• Active school participation. Based on the survey results, it is evident that those schools that experience the most reduction in car trips are also those that are fully

engaged in the five “E’s.” Schools that do not participate in classroom education activities, or at least one of the all-school events, do not do as well as those that do. Involving the whole school reinforces the lessons taught at specific grade levels and continues the teaching process. Lastly, a successful program cannot be achieved without a team of active school leaders and volunteers, who dedicate their time to be part of School Task Forces and other SR2S activities.

• Strong local support. An effective SR2S program requires a team approach that involves not only schools, but also support from City, Town, and County representatives and elected officials. Enforcement programs cannot be administered without the cooperation of local police departments, just as engineering projects cannot be implemented without the help of public works engineers.

DRCESSCESSFUL PROGOGRA

esults, participesults, particips of sus of suDRAFT

m and ecure ecure

gram. gram.

ns for law ns for o monitor all scho monito

aw enforcement can cow enforceme

xplore opportunities, as welxplore opportunities, as wensuring school district anensuring school district anprograms. Options inclprograms. O

– CrCreating a staeatinfrom each sm eac

– Encour – Encouthro

–

Agenda Item 11


Identify and Prioritize Infrastructure Needs for Schools

in Unincorporated Marin

The County of Marin is responsible for participating in Safe Routes to Schools Task Forces that focus on schools in unincorporated areas of Marin County, and when requested, for investigating all locations along the school routes and recommending appropriate traffic control measures. The County’s Public Works Department has been extremely busy managing diverse projects throughout the county, including the $25 million Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Project (NTPP), which is focused on important pedestrian and bicycle improvements, and in delivering a number of school travel infrastructure projects. Because of these increased demands, the department presently has limited resources to respond effectively to SR2S-related requests.

It is recommended that TAM support the County by assisting the Public Works Department in identifying and prioritizing potential needs based on criteria including, but not limited to, safety considerations, number of students affected, and Task Force input. The potential needs would be reviewed with the Task Forces by the County. TAM would work with the County to identify potential funding sources for future implementation, as appropriate.

Safety and maintenance issues, when brought to the County’s attention, would continue to be immediately addressed by the County.

Expand to Other Schools

The Safe Routes to Schools program has historically been targeted toward younger students and as a result, elementary schools make up 32 of the 52 schools currently participating in SR2S. Marin’s SR2S has made great strides in reaching older students, who usually express reluctance in participating in events that are considered for young children. Nevertheless, SR2S continues to struggle to reach high schools, with only 20 percent of the county’s schools participating in SR2S programs.

Going forward, SR2S staff will be developing a new model for middle and high schools focused more on education and leadership training. Furthermore, SR2S should continue to take advantage of technologies available today, integrating its programs with web-based tools and social media. The use of bar code scanning at Miller Creek Middle School in San Rafael demonstrated the impact that technology can have on generating interest and excitement with SR2S events. Efforts toward expanding the program to other schools should

continue, as older children often act as role models for younger students.

It is important to note that teen programs often requre more staffing resources. Adequate funding will need to be maintained in order to successfully expand into the higher grades.

For schools that have a large, dispersed student population, such as private schools or those located in rural areas, biking and walking are often not an option. For these schools, efforts should focus on carpooling, transit, and other alternatives to single-student car trips, such as remote drop-off and pick-up. As SchoolPool continues to mature, it will become an invaluable tool for these parents looking to coordinate trips to and from school.

Offer New Tools

Throughout its history, Safe Routes to Schools has continuously evolved, developing new and innovative tools to further the effectiveness of its programs. Web-based tools, in particular, have been successful in attracting enthusiasm from students. SR2S staff should continue to look for opportunities to expand upon these tools, such as adding interactive features on its website and upgrading the barcode scanning machines. SR2S staff can also take advantage of social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, to promote its classes and events to both students and parents.

As it looks to expand SchoolPool, staff should use social media and other means to market the program and increase users. In addition, staff should explore the development of Neighborhood Guides, which would not only include organizing tools, but also suggested route maps for biking and walking. Many school and jurisdictions have requested walking and bicycling school route maps. Prototypical route maps will be prepared in 2011–2012, and it is recommended that school route maps be prepared countywide by 2013–2014.

Neighborhood Guides, as well as other technological enhancements, will be developed as part of the recently awarded MTC Creative Grant.

DRAFT

toion, as on, as

o the County’s o the County’s y addressed by the y addressed b

ogram has historically been ogram has historically beenents and as a result, elements and as a result,

ools currently parools currently pastrides in strides in

inin

w Toolsw Tools

ughout its history, Safe Roughout its history,evolved, developing new andevolved, developing new aeffectiveness of its prograeffectiveness of its prograhave been successful have beenSR2S staff should c2S staffupon these tooupon these twebsite anwebsite anstaff caand

Agenda Item 11


Participate in a Regional Clearinghouse

The longer SR2S is in place, the more challenging it becomes to keep its classes and events fresh and interesting. To maximize achievement it must continue to service existing schools as children work their way through the system, while at the same time, adding new schools. This requires ongoing development and updating as it reinforces and builds upon knowledge from year to year.

To help with this effort, Marin’s SR2S staff should seek to work with other jurisdictions in the region that have similar programs in place, including Alameda, San Francisco, Sonoma, and Santa Clara among others. Some of these jurisdictions are implementing innovative programs that could be successful in Marin as well. Similarly, as one of the oldest programs in the country, Marin has a wealth of experience it can offer to others as well.

This regional “clearinghouse,” or consortium, would gather the region’s SR2S leaders on an annual or semiannual basis. It would provide a format for transferring knowledge among jurisdictions, building a stronger SR2S program on both the local and regional level.

Continually Evaluate the Program

Survey tools support accurate and reliable program analysis and evaluation to reassure the program and its participants, advisors, and funding groups that resources are being used effectively. Through its student surveys, the program has successfully standardized and centralized data collection and analysis to track changes in mode share, and must continue to do so as the program grows more inclusive.

In a well-established program like Marin’s, however, reductions in driving alone must also be matched by ongoing and continual changes in travel modes. Goals and expectations must be reassessed and modified to fit the realities of a mature program. Evalua tion techniques and survey tools should be designed to reflect the length of time schools have participated in the program, tracking mode shift retention among participants as they move up through the school sys tem.

SR2S has seen numerous successes and challenges throughout its history. In recent years, new enhancements, such as Green Ways to School, have been very successful boosting results. This report recommends that staff continue to review and evaluate individual programs, and that findings be used to improve current programs and develop new ones.

Establish Sustainable Funding

Safe Routes to Schools must be able to fund the programs it seeks to implement in order to maintain its level of success. By establishing a dedicated funding stream, Measure A has, and will continue to be, critical to the long-term success of SR2S. Nevertheless, these funds currently make up only a portion of the amount used to successfully operate and expand SR2S programs.

SR2S’s grant assistance program has been extremely effective in obtaining funds for a variety of both infrastructure projects and programming. Staff should continue to seek out opportunities for funding, including other long-term sources. A truly sustainable program can only be achieved by having a variety of consistent funding sources.

Expand Street Smarts

As of 2011, Street Smarts has been implemented in nine out of 11 jurisdictions in the county. Future goals include expanding the program into San Rafael and unincorporated parts of Marin County.

Furthermore, additional educational tools should be explored. To date, Street Smarts Marin has primarily utilized outdoor media, such as banners, signs and brochures to modify driver, pedestrian, and bicyclist behavior. While this has proven to be effective, further community outreach can increase the success of Marin’s Street Smarts program. Outreach within the high schools to address issues such as distracted driving, can increase traffic safety awareness in both students and parents. Similarly, presentations at community groups, such as neighborhood associations and senior centers, can expand Street Smarts’ reach.DRAFT

analysis analysis participants, participants,

are being used e being used he program has program has

zed data collection and zed data collection anshare, and must continue toshare, and must continue tonclusive. nclusiv

s, however, rs, however, rgoingoin

t Smartst Sma

, Street Smarts has been, Street Smarts sdictions in the county. Futusdictions in the county.

program into San Rafael anprogram into San Rafael anCounty.unty.

Furthermore, additionFurthermore, aTo date, Street SmTo date, Street Smmedia, such asmedia, such apedestrian,pedbe effecbe esuccsucc

Agenda Item 11

MARIN COUNTY

SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS

APPENDIXDRAFT

03 NOVEMBER 2011

��

Agenda Item 11

STUDENT TALLY SURVEY FORM

��

Agenda Item 11

Agenda Item 11

2011 PARENT SURVEY

��

Agenda Item 11

Marin Safe Routes to School Parent Survey | Spring ‘11

Page 1 of 2

1. Please tell us about your child(ren) and the school(s) they attend.

Child 1 Child 2 (if applicable) Child 3 (if applicable)

Male Female

Male Female

Male Female

School School School

Grade Grade Grade

Does this school have a SR2S program?

Yes No Don’t know


Yes No Don’t know


Yes No Don’t know

What is the approximate distance from

your home to the school?

¼ mile or less ¼ - ½ mile ½ - 1 mile 1 – 2 miles Over 2 miles







2. How does your child travel TO school in a typical week? [If more than one child, mark appropriate box(es) with #1, #2, etc.]

Every

day

3-4

Days

1-2

Days Occasionally

Walks

Bikes

Driven

Skateboard/ Scooter

Carpools

Bus

Part Way*

* Driven part way and then walks

3. How does your child(ren) travel FROM school in a

typical week?

Every

day

3-4

Days

1-2

Days Occasionally

Walks

Bikes

Driven

Skateboard/ Scooter

Carpools

Bus

Part Way*

* Driven part way and then walks

4. Have you reduced the number of times you drive your

child(ren) to school since participating in the Safe

Routes to School program?

Yes, we switched to biking Yes we switched to walking Yes, we switched to carpool Yes, we switched to transit or school bus No, we already biked, walked, carpooled or rode transit to school No, we still drive to school. Skip to #7

5. If you have reduced the number of times you drove

your child to school, which of the following have

influenced this change? (check all that apply)

Children are more aware of the environment and want to make “greener” choices Children are more aware of heath aspects of biking and walking Children are more confident about biking and walking to school safely Children want to compete for prizes in contests Adults are more confident about letting their children bike and walk to school Adults are more aware of the health aspects of biking and walking Adults want to make more environmentally sound choices Adults want to relieve congestion around schools Infrastructure projects have been completed that make choices safer None of the above

��

��

y

��

�� OM scOM sc�

Have you reduced the numHave you reduced th

child(ren) to school sincchild(ren) to school sin

Routes to School proRoutes to

Yes, we switYeYes we sYes wYes, wYes, wYeYe

Agenda Item 11

Marin Safe Routes to School Parent Survey | Spring ‘11

Page 2 of 2

6. Did you or your child(ren) participate in any of these

programs during the past school year? (check all that

apply)

Safe Routes Classroom Lessons Bicycle Rodeo Go for the Green Contest ReThink Your Commute Walk and Roll to School Days Teens to Green Days Art projects (signs and sculptures) SchoolPool – walking, biking or carpooling with other families Other__________________________

7. How effective are the following programs at

encouraging students to walk, bike, carpool and take

transit to school?

Not Very

Safe Routes Classroom Lessons 1 2 3 4 5Walkabouts to identify barriers near the school

1 2 3 4 5

School Assemblies about Safe Routes

1 2 3 4 5

Bicycle Rodeo 1 2 3 4 5Go for the Green Contest 1 2 3 4 5Rethink your commute 1 2 3 4 5Walk and Roll to School Days 1 2 3 4 5Teens Go Green Days 1 2 3 4 5SchoolPool – walking, biking or carpooling with other families

1 2 3 4 5

Green Ways to School Challenge 1 2 3 4 5Other__________________________ 1 2 3 4 5

8. What concerns limit your child’s ability to walk and

bike to school? (check all that apply)

Too far Too steep Running late/tardiness Driving is easier for parent Weather Too much to carry Speeding cars Lack of sidewalks Lack of bikeways Dangerous intersections Stranger danger Bullies Scary dogs Lack of safe bike parking Child is too young Child won’t follow safety rules Other____________________________

9. How important are following factors at allowing your

child(ren) to walk or bike to school?

Least Most

Accompanied by other children 1 2 3 4 5Accompanied by other parents 1 2 3 4 5Crossing guards were at dangerous intersections

1 2 3 4 5

Police enforcement was increased 1 2 3 4 5Safety training were provided to students

1 2 3 4 5

Sidewalks and paths were improved 1 2 3 4 5Intersections were improved 1 2 3 4 5Cars slowed down 1 2 3 4 5Secure bike storage were available 1 2 3 4 5Routes maps were provided 1 2 3 4 5Park and walk locations were available (could walk part way)

1 2 3 4 5

Your child was older 1 2 3 4 5I would never allow my child to walk or bike to school

1 2 3 4 5

Other_____________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 10. How likely are you to allow your child(ren) to carpool

under the following circumstances?

Not Very

You were familiar with the driver 1 2 3 4 5You could find other parents who lived close by

1 2 3 4 5

Someone else organized it 1 2 3 4 5Other_____________________________ 1 2 3 4 5

11. Are you interested in participating in any of the

following Safe Routes to School tasks? (check all that

apply):

Help with events and contests Organize a SchoolPool (walk, bike, and/or carpool together) Help identify traffic safety issues

12. If you checked any of the above please provide your

name and phone and/or email

Name________________________________________________

Phone_______________________________________________

Email________________________________________________

Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire!

��

��5

4 55

��3 4 53 4

��3

��4

��1 2 3 4 52 3 4 5

��1

��3��hhild’s ability to walk and ild’s ability to walk and

hat apply)hat ap

��t way

as olderas old

�ever allow

��scho

er_____________________er________________

10.0. How likely are you toHow likely

under the followiunder t

��You were famYou could finYou could finclose byclose by

��OtheO

Agenda Item 11

EDUCATION AND ENCOURAGEMENT

PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS

��

Agenda Item 11

Marin County Safe Routes to School

2011 Program Evaluation

Education & Encouragement Program Descriptions

EDUCATION

CLASSROOM TEACHING

Safety Art (all grades) This class prepares children for International Walk to School Day or for a school’s individual promotion of

“Walk & Roll to School” days/event. The lesson reviews the four most fantastic reasons to walk and ride

and the six simple steps to staying safe. Children make picket style signs to carry and large banners to

place at staging areas and in front of schools. Making these signs gets kids excited about the event and

equips them with a device that makes them more visible in traffic.

Stop Look and Listen (2nd grade)

Stop Look and Listen is a lesson addressing the behavior that statistically causes the greatest number of

injuries for child pedestrians: failure to stop at the street's edge and look for traffic. The lesson uses direct

instruction, the National Safety Council’s DVD, “Step into Safety with ASIMO,” modeling and

practice. Children will learn the life-long lesson of stopping at every edge, looking left, right, then left again (all the way over the shoulder), listening for cars and only crossing if it's clear. The class also covers

crossing streets with parked cars, crossing at intersections, an overview of traffic lights and signals, and

how to communicate with motorists.

Helmet Safety & Crash Analysis (4th grade)

A demonstration-based lesson that teaches the importance of wearing a helmet and proper helmet fit

(why, how & when to wear a helmet). The lesson uses the “egg drop” method of showing the

effectiveness of a helmet and the short video, “Travis' Story” to illustrate the grave consequences of brain

damage. This testimonial by another young person impresses children with the risks taken if they don't

wear a properly fitting helmet. We also discuss what causes crashes, and have students discuss their

own experiences to find out who crashed, why, and (if time permits) how they could prevent such a crash

from happening again.

The Traffic Safety Game Show (4th grade) Because crashes with automobiles typically are the most injurious, SR2S staff dedicates an entire class

period to how to avoid those most common to youths when either walking or biking. The instructors use a

demonstration mat with toy cars/cyclists/pedestrians to enact the various traffic scenarios, as well as

other props. The students are arranged in small groups around the demonstration mat, and utilize their

critical thinking skills to try to answer 12 safety questions and compare answers. Students learn the

importance of being visible, predictable, alert, and properly prepared.

ASSEMBLIES

Pedal Power Assembly (K-4) The Pedal Power assembly features a song written by famed children’s songster Tim Cain with colorful

characters like the Traffic Monster and the Traffic Transformer. Students from the school are given parts

to play and learn the song ahead of time. The story builds on the Cool the Earth Assembly, but can also

stand alone and will be offered to all schools. It will show how children can change the environment and

themselves by walking and biking to school. The assembly was offered to schools as a launch for the

spring contests and will be offered again to promote International Walk to School Day.

Middle School Assembly (middle schools)

Safe Routes to Schools worked with student clubs at several middle schools to develop a skit that

dramatizes the benefits of walking and biking to school. Students from the club play roles exploring why

walking and biking is great for the environment and their health, while addressing barriers that keep kids

��

ly ly

ook forook fo t

ith ASIMO,” mith AS

ery edge, looking lery edge, lossing if it's clear.ssing if it's clear The c

, an overview of traffic lig, an overview of traffic

importance of wearing a importance of wea

son uses the “egg drop” mn uses the “egg drop

eo, “Travis' Story” to illustavis' Story” to illust

ung person impresses chng person impresses ch

o discuss what causes cro discuss what cau

��ashed, why, and (if time ashed, why, and (if tim

Show Show ((4th grade)4th gradeutomobiles typically are thutomobiles typically ar

those most common to ythose most common to �h toy cars/cyclists/pedh toy cars/cyclists/

are arranged in are arranged

o answer 12o answer 12�edictaedicta

Agenda Item 11




from doing it. Schools used the assembly to launch their contests to encourage more walking and biking

to school.

PRESENTATIONS

Bicycle Blender (middle and high schools)

The blender attaches to the back of a regular bicycle, which can then be put on a stationary stand so that

students can cycle in place and blend their own juices. The Bicycle Blender simultaneously teaches students about good nutrition and physical activity.

Bringing Science to Life (middle & high school)

Re-thinking Our Transportation Choices teaches students about the carbon cycle, energy conversion, and

global climate change. Students learn that fuel from automobiles is the primary cause of a world-wide

shift away from a balanced ecosystem. Marin County's green house emissions are discussed and

students reflect on the impact of their own transportation choices and how they can adapt behaviors to

support sustainable transportation.

My Public Transportation System (middle & high school)

This presentation provides students an opportunity to safely grow in their independence and self reliance

by learning how to efficiently use another form of Green Transportation – the BUS. In one class, students

will learn the benefits of taking the bus, and the knowledge necessary to become skilled and confident in using public transportation. Upon request, Transportation of Marin (TAM) will provide a bus on campus for

hands-on learning, including how to load on and off a bike.

What do I stand for? (middle & high school)

The Values Clarification Activity invites students to explore their beliefs, values, and their willingness to

take action with transportation and the environment as the central theme. The purpose of the activity is to

empower students to consciously make a difference in their world by being aware of their own views.

They actively hear the perspectives of others, discuss positive role models, and take a proactive stand for

their beliefs. Facilitators encourage a safe environment for students to explore their personal values and

the choices they make.

Technology & Culture (high school)

A Case Study on Transportation educates students on the interdependence of nature and culture through historical examples of how transportation evolved. The purpose of the class is to build awareness of

students' personal choices and how they determine the future of transportation. With a PowerPoint

presentation and class discussion, students build awareness of how transportation technology and culture

are interrelated and it encourages students to make mindful decisions about their transportation choices

based upon their personal and community values.

Be Safe Be Strong (parents)

How do you help your child deal with the people they may encounter on their way to school, from

strangers to bullies. This � hour workshop introduces some of the skills that are provided from expert

workshops through KidPower, RadKids and KidWise. This Safe Routes to Schools workshop will give a

taste of what parents can learn to better prepare their kids for being out in the world.

FIELD TRAINING

Walk Around the Block (2nd grade) Walk Around the Block is a skill building follow-up of street crossing situations and the lessons learned in

Stop! Look! Listen! Under supervision of adults, students will practice a safe mid-block crossing (with

parked cars), learn about edges such as blind driveways/pathways, and practice safely crossing at

��

how thhow

y grow in their independey grow in their indep

Transportation Transporta – the BUSe BU

edge necessary to becomdge necessary to becomtation of Marin (TAM) willn of Marin

off a bike.

l)

udents to explore their bo explore their b

environment as the centenvironment as th

ake a difference in their wake a difference in t

es of others, discuss poses of others, discuss po

rage a safe environment e a safe environment

ee ((high shig chool)ol)

sportation educates stusportation educates stuow transportation eow transportation

and how theand how the

sion, stusion, stu

eses

Agenda Item 11




intersections and crosswalks. Students will observe drivers’ behavior and demonstrate their eye

contact/communication skills with drivers.

Wheels in Motion (4th grade)

This class offers children an opportunity to practice and apply the lessons learned in the Helmet Safety

and Traffic safety classes, such as the importance of stopping at every edge, looking for/communicating

with traffic, traffic laws and remaining in control, at all times when riding a bike. This is achieved through a

series of bike handling drills and the simulation of traffic situations. Each session begins with a safety

check of the bicycles and the helmet. Four stations give students the opportunity to practice a variety of

specific bike handling skills and procedures for operating a bike safely and legally in traffic.

Drive your Bike! (middle school) Level One: Drive Your Bike teaches students "smart cycling" and defensive riding to become safe,

confident, and independent bikers on streets. The two classes include a fun and interactive PowerPoint

GAMESHOW that teaches safety measures and the laws for sharing the road with motorists and an

outdoor class with bikes to reinforce maneuvers and proficiency to safely operate their device on the

street. An optional, Instructor-led Field Trip where skills are put to use, may be arranged after school

upon request.

Level Two: Drive Your Bike is an advance course on "Drivers Education" where students will learn vehicle

traffic codes and best practices for driving their bikes predictably and safely to avoid collisions. The two

classes include interactive discussions on riding responsibly and visibly, and includes how to confidently

and legally "take the lane" for making turns, and an outdoor advance class with bikes to practice the skills necessary for safely maneuvering in traffic. An optional, Instructor-led Field Trip where skills are put to

use, may be arranged after school upon request.

Bike Commute 101 (high school) This hour long class, offered to 9th grade students, examines the changing role of bicycles in our society

and prepares students to join the growing green transportation movement. Our engaging presentation

includes the health and environmental benefits of cycling, a guide to successful riding, and fresh insight

into traffic laws. Students are challenged to imagine and draw their communities using bicycle

transportation. At the end of the class, students set a personal goal for biking and organize riding groups.

Bicycle Field Trip (middle and high schools) Safe Routes to Schools will help you plan a Bicycle Field Trip. Choose the location and staff will help

students get there without spending a dime on gas. Program includes trip planning with teachers and students, logistical assistance, safety instruction and trained instructors to accompany the students on the

trip.

Riding with Youth (parents) The Safe Routes to Schools program developed a presentation for parents to learn how to ride safely with

their kids. A Riding with Youth class runs for three hours and teaches the skills necessary for parents who

are new to riding and want to take their children to school.

OTHER

Family Mouse Behind the Wheel (grades K-2) This book is a fable with an environmental message. When the forest creatures vote to develop their

home in the name of progress they wind up in gridlock. They learn their lesson though, and abandon their

automobiles in favor of preserving their forest home in its natural state.

Faith and Fantasia (grades 1-3) This comical children’s book features Faith, a second grader who is driven to school with her brothers.

Her mother claims to be concerned for Faith’s safety, but her driving says otherwise. Faith’s alter ego,

��

e roe ro

afely opeafely

use, may be ause, m

ers Education" where stuers Education" where

edictably and safely to avedictably and safely to av

onsibly and visibly, and isibly and vis

n outdoor advance class or advaoptional, Instructoroptional, Instructor-led Fie

est.

rade students, examines rade students, exa

growing green transportatgrowing green transpo

mental benefits of cyclingental benefits of cycling

challenged to imagine annged to imagine an

of the class, students set of the class, stude

�iddle and high schools)iddle and high schools) will help you plan a will help you pla

spending a dimspending a di�e, safety ie, safety i

Agenda Item 11




Fantasia continually saves the day as Faith’s mother runs stop signs and has near misses with

pedestrians. The book concludes with a quiz to be given by the child to the parent. This tongue in cheek

story is meant to awaken parents to their own driving behavior.

Greenhouse in a Bottle (grades 5 and 6) Greenhouse in a Bottle is a hands-on science project or can be set up as a demonstration. Students work

in teams to simulate the earth's environment; doing a comparison and contrast of a pre and post-

greenhouse atmosphere. After the class sets up the experiment, while waiting for the results, we have an

opportunity to discuss how cars and non-renewable energy affects the environment.

ENCOURAGEMENT

EVENTS

International Walk to School Day

Held the first Wednesday in October, this annual event has been taking place each year in the fall in order to raise awareness of the need for walkable communities, promote clean air, and to encourage

children to be more active.

Walk & Roll to School Days

Walk and Roll to School Days are a weekly or monthly event that encourages students to walk and bike

to school through rewards and outreach. This event is the main activity that instills the Safe Routes to

Schools program as part of the culture of your school. During a Walk and Roll to School Day, volunteers

host a greeting table with food and/or rewards for students that walk and bike to school. Special Walking

School Buses or Bike Trains can also be organized as a way to encourage groups of students to travel

together. The set-up and regularity of the event’s occurrence varies according to the school and the

availability of volunteers.

CONTESTS

Go for the Green

A Marin County school-wide travel challenge to motivate students to increase their “green trips” to school.

A green trip is when a student walks, bikes, carpool or takes the bus to school. Safe Routes to School will

honor and award cash prizes to one classroom in each school which reports the highest number of green

trips during the contest period.

Teens Go Green/ReThink Your Commute

The Teens Go Green challenge (also known as ReThink your Commute) is a contest geared toward

middle and high school students. Like Go for the Green, it aims to eliminate the one-student-per-motor-

vehicle school trip to school.

Frequent Rider Miles Contest

The Frequent Rider Miles contest was originally conceived by GO GERONIMO in the San Geronimo

Valley in central Marin County, and adapted by the Marin SR2S program. Children are issued tally cards

to win points for walking, biking, carpooling and busing. The contest is set up to run for six weeks starting

at the beginning of April. However, each school can organize the contest for any length of time that they

feel is appropriate.

Golden Sneaker Award

The Golden Sneaker Award contest is a competition between homeroom classes that rewards the class

with the greatest number of students who walk, bike, carpool or ride the bus to school in a given month.

��een taking place each yeen taking place

itiesities, promote clean air, ean a

monthly event that encourmonthly event that e

event is the main activityvent is the main activ

our school. During a Walhool. During a Wal

wards for students that wwards for students that w

be organized as a way tbe organized as a

of the event’s occurrencof the event’s occurre

wide travel challengwide travel challe

ent walks, bikent walks, bik

to one cto one c

Agenda Item 11




The class keeps track of how often its students commute by these modes at the end of each week, and

calculates the totals per commute mode at the end of the month. The class with the most participation

overall (regardless of the mode breakdown) wins the Golden Sneaker Award and gets to display their

award throughout the month.

Pollution Punch Card

The Pollution Punch Card rewards students when they walk or bike to school. The card features the

pollution gremlin that blocks out the view of Mount Tam. When he is “punched out,” the air is clear. The

card is designed to be hooked onto a student’s backpack. The students get their cards punched on

random, unannounced days. In addition, volunteers will also punch cards on weekly Walk and Roll to School Days. Every time a student gets all six gremlins punched, they receive a reward and they get their

name entered into a raffle to win valuable prizes. At the end of the contest, a drawing is held to select the

prizewinners.

OTHER

SchoolPool

SchoolPool Marin is an online trip matching program for parents who want to share in the duties of getting

children to and from school through walking, biking, riding the bus, or carpooling. To use the program,

families check the SchoolPool Neighborhood map, identify the neighborhood number they are in, and check the appropriate school directory listing to see which families are located in that neighborhood who

are interested in walking, biking and carpooling to school.


The Green Ways to School Challenge is a yearlong contest that provides awards of $500 to $2,000 for

the schools that increase their green trips the most by the end of a given school year. Prizes are provided

by program funding provided by the Marin Community Foundation. Schools are measured through in-

class student tally surveys, information gleaned from the schoolpoolmarin.org website, and participation

in Green Ways classroom and team competitions in spring.

��ts who want to share ts who want to

he bus, or carpooling. he bus, or carpoolin To

fy the neighborhood numfy the neighborhood numhich families are locaich families a ted ii

chool.

earlong contest that ong contest tha provprov

the most by the end of ast by the end of a

arin Community Foundatiarin Community Fo

on gleaned from the schoon gleaned from the

am competitions in springam competitions in sprin

Agenda Item 11

TAM SR2S PROGRAM TASKS COMPLETED

THROUGH SPRING 2011

��

Agenda Item 11

TAM SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROGRAM TASKS COMPLETED THROUGH 6-30-11

CT FT CT CT FT FT TM CT CT CT CT FT CT FT EV TM SP CN WK

Participants 2010-11 Grades Enroll. SL&L WB HS TS WIM Bike skills Clubs S.Art Assem Earth FamM

Riding

w/

Youth

presentati

on to

classes

bike

field

trips IWALK W2SD SP

spring

contests WA TF

General (Not School Specific)

Bolinas K-8 103 X X

Dixie

Dixie K-5 401 70 20 60 55 401 X X X

Vallecito K-5 400 70 63 85 60 X X

Mary Silviera K-5 614 40 64 65 65 55 X

Miller Creek Middle 384 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 345 X 20 90 X X X X

Kentfield X

Bacich K-4 600 20 X X X X X

Kent Middle 482 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a X 20 X X X X X

Lagunitas K-8 288 X

Larkspur

Neil Cummins K-5 728 80 88 150 150 150 X X X

Hall Middle 1270 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 125 X 20 X X 18 X X X

Redwood High School High 1455 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 85 X 120 50 X X

Mill Valley X

Edna K-5 458 85 58 65 65 20 X X X X

Tam Valley K-5 461 65 93 78 78 42 X X X X

MV Middle Middle 738 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 175 20 X X X X

Old Mill K-5 318 60 37 78 50 56 58 X X X X

Tam High High 1127 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a X

Park K-5 358 60 60 50 50 60 15 X X

Strawberry K-5 350 66 57 50 55 60 60 X X X X

Novato X

Hamilton K-5 547 44 84 70 70 70 X X X

Loma Verde K-5 415 104 20 60 50 55 25 X X X X

Lu Sutton K-5 447 60 60 60 85 20 X X X

Lynwood K-5 369 45 45 X X X

Pleasant Valley K-5 407 80 80 56 56 75 X X X

Rancho K-5 494 45 60 105 75 55 100 X X X X

Hill Middle 559 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 96

Olive K-5 375 100 100 75 20 X X

Sinaloa K-8 245 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 220

San Jose Middle Middle 450 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 28 X

San Ramon K-5 440 64 65 75 75 60 20 X X X X

Reed

Reed K-2 454 n/a n/a n/a X

Bel Aire 3,4,5 413 n/a n/a 150 150 150 X

Del Mar Middle 370 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a X 20 X X

Ross K-8 400 41 21 44 25 24 X X

Ross Valley X

Brookside L K-2 310 100 40 n/a n/a n/a 310 100 X X X X

Brookside U 3,4,5 357 72 128 128 130 X X X X X

Manor K-5 369 87 100 100 100 60 X X X X

Wade Thomas K-5 374 38 38 47 47 56 40 374 60 X X X X

White Hill 8-Jun 574 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 450 X 10 X 25 X X X X

Drake High 1049 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a X 10 X 100 X X

Sausalito K-8 300

San Rafael

Bahia Vista K-5 508 80 80 75 55 100 X

Venetia Valley K-8 736 X X X X

Glenwood K-5 404 20 30 45 75 50

Laurel Del K-5 196 66 60 X X

Coleman K-5 365 60 60 60 60 65 25 300 X X X

Sun Valley K-5 448 40 63 80 80 75 X X

Davidson Middle School Middle 928 300 X 9 X 20 X X X

San Rafael High Schools High 1040 1040

Shoreline

West Marin 2-8 131

Private

St. Rita K-8 151 20

St. Patrick K-8 234 30 30 30 30 30

St. Marks k-8 38

Cascade Canyon K-8 55 12 22 10 12 X X

Marin Horizon K-8 284 X

Mt Tamalpais K-12 240 X

Marin Primary K-8 235 X

Lycee Francais K-5 168 X X X

St Anselms K-8 370 X X X

Marin Academy K-8 X X 35

Our Lady of Loretto K-8 24 21 21 22 29 X X

14206 1736 1565 1932 1835 2033 3003 0 472 984 0 0 160 238 248

Key:

X - Completed This Month

X- Previously Completed

Education:

Encouragement:

SL&L - Stop Look and Listen; WB - Walk Around the Block; HS - Helmet Safety; Jeop - Jeopardy; Rodeo - Bicycle Rodeo; OTB - On the Bike (Middle School), Clubs - EcoVelocity Clubs; S. Art - Safety Art; Yikes - Assembly; W2SD - Parade Prep; Earth - Earth

Day Classes; Fam M - Family Management; NR - Neighborhood Rides

Iwalk - International Walk to School Day, W2SD - Ongoing Walk to School Days; SP - SchoolPool; W&BA - Walk and Bike Across America; FRM - Frequent Rider Miles Contest

��2020

20

0

20

n/a

150

n/a X 2020

25 2425 24

a n/a n/aa n/a n/a

128 128 130128 128 130

100 100100 6060

47 47 5647 47 56

n/a n/a n/a n/a 450 Xn/a n/a n/a 450 X

n/a n/a n/a n/aa n/a XX

80 80 75 5580 80 75 100100

20 30 45 75 5075 50

666

6060 �60 60 606

40 63 80 8040 63 80 8

Agenda Item 11

INVENTORY OF RECENT SR2S RELATED

INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS

��

Agenda Item 11

Inventory of Recent Safe Routes to School Related Infrastructure Improvements Transportation Authority of Marin

October 11, 2010 -- DRAFT Page 1 of 19

CORTE MADERA

Funded Projects

School(s) and Description Funding Source Cost Construction Remarks

Allaire, Marin Country Day, Marin Montessori, Neil Cummins, San

Clemente: School area signing and pavement markings for all five schools; curb extensions for pathway serving Neil Cummins (Lakeside Dr.)

Caltrans SR2S 6th

Cycle (2005/06) $116,000 2009

Neil Cummins: High visibility school and pedestrian crosswalks and intersection improvements (Pixley Ave./Redwood Ave., Mohawk Ave.)

TAM Safe Pathways 1st Cycle (2007)

$80,000 2009

Marin County Day, Marin Montessori, Lycee Francais La Perouse:

Multi-use pathway (Paradise Drive between Westward Drive and Upland Circle)

TAM Safe Pathways 2nd Cycle (2010)

$244,000 Awarded by TAM in September 2010

Planned Projects

School(s) and Description Remarks

Potential Projects


Neil Cummins: Speed table/pedestrian crossing (Redwood Ave./Montecito Dr.)

San Clemente: Intersection improvements (Paradise Dr./Golden Hind Passage)

All schools: Sidewalk improvements (various locations)

All schools: Vehicle speed feedback signs (various locations)

All schools: Walking and bicycling route maps

All schools: See Travel Plans



FAIRFAX

Funded Projects


Manor, St. Rita, White Hill: Pedestrian bridge (Marin Rd.), sidewalk installation (Sir Francis Drake Blvd.)

Caltrans SR2S 3rd Cycle (2002/03)

$478,500 2007

Manor: Pedestrian crossing beacon and high visibility crosswalk (Sir Francis Drake Blvd./Oak Tree Ln.)

HES (2005/06) $132,300 2008

Manor: Sidewalk and curb ramps (Oak Manor Dr.) TAM Safe Pathways 1st Cycle (2007)

$54,500 Town in process of negotiating easement (4/2010)

White Hill: High visibility school crosswalk, pavement marking and signing, bike lane marking (Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Glen Dr.)


$48,000 2010

Planned Projects


Potential Projects


White Hill: Multi-use pathway connection (Baywood Canyon to school)

Deer Park: Sidewalks (Porteous Ave. between Bolinas Rd. and school)

Cascade Canyon, Deer Park: Pedestrian crossing beacon (Sir Francis Drake Blvd./Mitchell Dr.)

Deer Park, Oak Manor, Cascade Canyon: Pedestrian crossing beacons (upgrade to provide consistent devices along Sir Francis Drake Blvd.)

All schools: School area signing and pavement markings

All schools: Traffic calming (Dominga Ave. and Creek Rd.)

All schools: Potential mitigation measures for school siting




��

ed Infrastructure Improvementsfrastructure Improvements

��ol(s) an ��edestrian bridge (Marin Rd.), sidewedestrian bridge (Marin Rd.), s)) �d high visibility crosswd high visibility cross��r Dr.) r Dr.) �

Agenda Item 11



LARKSPUR

Funded Projects


Hall, Redwood: Multi-use pathway (Magnolia Ave. at Doherty Dr.) TDA $220,000 2008

Hall, Redwood: Multi-use pathway connection (William Ave. at Sandra Marker Trail)

Caltrans SR2S 7th

Cycle (2006/07 & 2007/08)

$329,700 Construction contract to be awarded Summer 2010

Hall, Redwood: Multi-use pathway (between Doherty Dr. and Hetherwood Park)


$149,760 2010

Hall, Redwood: High visibility school crosswalk and curb ramps (Doherty Dr. at Piper Park

City General Fund $10,000 2009

Hall, Redwood: School area traffic controls, signing and pavement markings (Doherty Drive and other streets)


$128,750 Construction contract to be awarded Fall 2010

Hall, Redwood: Multi-use pathway resurfacing (Ward St. to William Ave.)


St. Patricks: School area signing and pavement markings City General Fund $10,000 2009

Marin Primary and Middle: School area signing and pavement markings (Magnolia Ave.)

NTPP $25,000 Construction contract to be awarded Summer 2010

Planned Projects


Marin Primary and Middle: Multi-use pathway connection (via Larkspur-Corte Madera pathway)

Marin Primary and Middle: Multi-use pathway connection (via Centennial Park)



Potential Projects


Hall, Redwood: Multi-use pathway connection (Ward St. to Doherty Dr.)

Hall, Redwood, Marin Primary and Middle: Pedestrian crossing treatments (Magnolia Ave. at Madrone Ave. and at Baltimore Ave.)

Hall, Redwood: Pedestrian crossing treatments (Magnolia Ave. at Bon Air Rd.)

Marin Primary and Middle: School area signing and pavement markings




��


��School(s) and Desc

��thway connection thway c (Ward St. to Doherty Dr.)St. to Doherty Dr.)��ary and Middle:ary and Pedestrian crossing tren cro�treatments (Magtreatmen nolia Aveolia Av��a signing and pava signing and pav�arious locarious loc��

Agenda Item 11



MILL VALLEY

Funded Projects


Edna Maquire, Mill Valley Middle: Multi-use pathway (Camino Alto), vehicle speed feedback signs (Camino Alto, Lomita Dr.), multi-use pathway connection (Mill Valley-Sausalito pathway to Edna Maquire)

Caltrans SR2S 2nd

Cycle (2001/02 $381,040 2003

Edna Maquire, Mill Valley Middle: Signalized crosswalk enhancements (East Blithedale Ave./Lomita Dr.)


Mill Valley Middle, Tam High: Multi-use pathway (Camino Alto), intersection curb extensions (Camino Alto/Miller Ave.), pedestrian crossing treatment (Miller Ave./Almonte Blvd.)

Federal SRTS 2nd

Cycle (2010/2011) $565,290 Construction planned for

Summer 2011

Tam High: School crosswalk relocation, high visibility marking, railing installation (Miller Ave./Camino Alto)


Mill Valley Middle: Intersection traffic calming, high visibility crosswalks, all-way stop sign control (US 101/Seminary Dr.)


Tam High: Intersection traffic calming, separation of drop-off/pick-up from walking and bicycling paths (Miller Ave. near Camino Alto)


$250,000 2009

Edna Maquire, Old Mill: Intersection curb extensions and curb ramps, traffic island modifications, high-visibility school crosswalks and signing, sidewalk installation (Lomita Dr., Throckmorton Ave., Lovell Ave.)


$73,040 2009

Edna Maquire, Old Mill, Tam High: Intersection curb extensions and curb ramps, sidewalk improvements (Throckmorton Ave., Lovell Ave., Miller Ave. at Camino Alto, Miller Ave. at Almonte Blvd.)


Park: School area signing and pavement markings City General Fund $10,000 2009

Edna Maquire: Sidewalk, intersection curb extensions, high visibility crosswalks (Lomita Dr. between East Blithedale Ave. and Lomita Dr.)

Federal Jobs Bill $150,000 Construction planned for Summer 2010. Approximately $150,000 of total $700,000 project school-related.

Mill Valley Middle: Multi-use pathway, bicycle lanes (Sycamore Ave.) Transportation Enhancements

$400,000 Design to commence Summer 2010

Edna Maguire, Mill Valley Middle, Old Mill, Park, Tam High:

Replace obsolete school area traffic controls (Edna Maguire, Mill Valley Middle, Tam High); extend curb, widen sidewalk, install high-visibility crosswalk and provide LPI phase at East Blithedale/Elm (Park); install vehicle speed feedback signs (Tam High); install pedestrian crossing


$312,000 Awarded by TAM in September 2010. Grant application for Caltrans Cycle 9 also submitted.



beacon at Miller/Almonte (Mill Valley Middle, Tam High)

Planned Projects


Edna Maquire: Multi-use pathway connection (Lomita Dr. to Mill Valley-Sausalito pathway)

Greenwood: School area signing and pavement markings

Potential Projects


Park: Sidewalk and high visibility school crosswalks (Buena Vista Avenue)

Park, Mill Valley Middle, Tam High: Traffic calming, crosswalk enhancements, bike route improvements (Sycamore Park and Tam Park neighborhoods)

Old Mill: Steps, lanes and path improvements; sidewalk gap closures (various routes)

Mill Valley Middle, Tam High: Pedestrian and bicycle improvements (Miller Avenue)




��p��00,000 00,000 Desi

2010��$312,000 $31 Awarde

2010CaC��


Middle, Tam High) Middle, Tam H

��ool(s) and Des��way connection (Loway conn mita Dr. to MillDr. to�d pavement markings d pavement markings ��

Agenda Item 11



NOVATO

Funded Projects


Hamilton, Hill Middle, Lu Sutton, Lynwood, Olive, Pleasant Valley,

Rancho: School area signing and pavement markings for all seven schools; multi-use pathway serving Pleasant Valley (Vineyard Rd.)

Caltrans SR2S 6th

Cycle (2005/06) $138,002 2007 Includes $30,002 in additional

enhancements (pathway improvements) funded by City (grant cost of $108,000)

San Ramon, San Marin High: Multi-use pathway (Novato Blvd.) City Measure A $94,250 2007

Lynwood, Olive, San Ramon: Curb extensions, pedestrian refuge islands, bicycle lanes, high visibility school crosswalks, pedestrian signal, traffic calming features (various streets)

Caltrans SR2S 7th

Cycle (2006/07 & 2007/08)

$660,000 2009

Rancho: Traffic control, high visibility school crosswalk, curb ramps (Adams St./Johnson St.)


Hill Middle: Sidewalk, curb, gutter, ADA ramps, and additional pavement for Class II bike lanes (along Indian Valley Road and at corner of Indian Valley Road and Hill Road)


$269,000 Awarded by TAM in September 2010. Grant application for Caltrans Cycle 9 also submitted.

Planned Projects


Lu Sutton: Intersection improvements and traffic calming (Center Rd.)

Loma Verde: Multi-use pathway (Ignacio Blvd. to Calle de la Mesa), intersection improvements (Ignacio Blvd./Fairway Dr.), sidewalk (school entrance)

Rancho: Intersection traffic calming (Adams St./Johnson St. and Cambridge St./Johnson St.)

Hill Middle: Sidewalk gap closures and intersection enhancements (various locations)

Lynwood: Pedestrian and bicycle circulation improvements (school parking lot) Majority of project on school property

Olive: Sidewalk gap closures (Peach St. and Plum St.)

Olive: Pedestrian and bicycle circulation improvements (school parking lot) Majority of project on school property

Novato Charter: Intersection pedestrian enhancements (Main Gate Rd.)

Novato Charter: Pedestrian crossing improvements (Hamilton Pkwy./SMART)



Potential Projects


Novato High: Pedestrian circulation improvements (Arthur St., Cambridge St.)

San Marin High: Pedestrian circulation improvements (San Marin Dr.)

Novato High, San Marin High: School area signing and pavement markings



All schools: See Travel Plans ��Major

property��

��

��



��ulation improvements ulation (Arthur St., Cambridgrthur St., Cambridg��circulation improvements (San Marin Dcirculation improvements (San M�School area signing and pavemeSchool area signing and pave�igns (various locations)igns (various locations��maps maps ��

Agenda Item 11



ROSS

Funded Projects


Ross: Pedestrian walkway and roadway narrowing (Laurel Grove) Town General Fund $15,000 2006

Ross: Pedestrian pathway (Shady Ln.) TAM Safe Pathways 1st Cycle (2007)

$311,207 2009 Includes $65,000 in additional enhancements (special surface treatement) funded by Town (grant cost of $246,207)

Ross: School crosswalk, pathway connecting ramp (Shady Ln./Ames Ave.)

Town General Fund $20,000 2010

Ross: Pedestrian and traffic control enhancements (Shady Ln./Lagunitas Rd., Shady Ln./Locust Ave.)

Town General Fund $5,000 To be constructed Summer 2010

Ross: Intersection traffic calming, pedestrian treatments, high visibility crosswalks, updated pedestrian signals (Sir Francis Drake Blvd./Lagunitas Rd.)

HSIP (2010) $553,000 Construction to be awarded Fall 2010

Ross: Pedestrian pathway (Sir Francis Drake Blvd. between Lagunitas Rd. and Bolinas Ave.)

NTPP $200,000 To be constructed Summer 2010

Branson, Ross, St. Anselm, Wade Thomas (San Anselmo): Pedestrian refuge islands, curb extensions and ramps, signs, pavement markings (Bolinas Avenue)


$337,000 Awarded by TAM in September 2010.

Planned Projects




Potential Projects


Ross, Branson: Traffic calming, pedestrian and bicycle enhancements (Bolinas Ave.)

Ross: High visibility crosswalks and curb ramps (various locations along Shady Ln. and near Common)

Branson: Sidewalk gap closures, sidewalk and crosswalk connections (Fernhill Ave. and various streets)

Ross, Branson: School area signing and pavement markings

Ross, Branson: Vehicle speed feedback signs (various locations)

Ross: Walking and bicycling route maps

Ross: See Travel Plans ��



��ng, pedestrian and bicycle enhancements (Bng, pedestrian and bicycle enhancements (B��ks andks and curb ramps (various locations alo curb ramps (various locat�sidewalk and crosswalk sidewalk and crosswalk connectconn�nd pavement markings nd pavement markings��gns (various logns (various lo��

Agenda Item 11



SAN ANSELMO

Funded Projects


Brookside: Sidewalks, curb ramps, high visibility crosswalks, bike lanes (Butterfield Rd., Brookside Dr.)

Caltrans SR2S 4th

Cycle (2003/04) $442,800 2006

Brookside: Traffic calming (Berkeley Ave.) Town General Fund, LID

$75,000 2007

Brookside: Sidewalks, curb ramps, high visibility school crosswalks (Brookside; Butterfield Rd.)


$236,000 Scheduled for construction Summer 2010. Will include approximately $76,000 in additional enhancements funded by Town (grant cost of $160,000).

St. Anselms, Wade Thomas: Intersection traffic calming, high visibility crosswalks, curb ramps, pedestrian traffic signals (St. Anselms, Wade Thomas: Red Hill Ave./Sequoia Dr., Sir Francis Drake Blvd./Ross Ave.)


$90,000 Scheduled for construction Summer 2010

Wade Thomas, St. Anselms: Sidewalks curb ramps, high visibility curb ramps, traffic calming, crosswalk enhancements (Richmond Rd., Mariposa Ave., Ross Ave.)

Federal SRTS 2nd

Cycle (2010/2011) $342,375 Scheduled for construction bids

in Summer 2010

Wade Thomas: Intersection reconfiguration/traffic calming (Red Hill/Greenfield/Hillsdale)



Planned Projects


Wade Thomas: Intersection traffic calming, pedestrian enhancements (Sir Francis Drake Blvd./Sequoia Dr.)



Potential Projects


Brookside: Traffic calming (Sir Francis Drake Blvd. between Butterfield Rd. and San Francisco Blvd.)

Brookside: Traffic calming (The Alameda)

Brookside: Pedestrian enhancements (Brookmead Pl. in vicinity of school access) Portion of project on school property

Brookside: Traffic calming, pedestrian and bicycle enhancements (Butterfield Rd. in vicinity of school access)

Wade Thomas: Traffic calming, pedestrian and bicycle enhancements (Bolinas Ave.)

Wade Thomas: Pedestrian and bicycle enhancements, traffic calming (Greenfield Ave.)

Brookside, Wade Thomas: School area signing and pavement markings

Brookside, Wade Thomas: Vehicle speed feedback signs (various locations)

Brookside, Wade Thomas: Walking and bicycling route maps

Brookside, Wade Thomas: See Travel Plans

��



��Sir Francis Drake Blvd. between ButteSir Francis Drake Blvd. between rfield rfield ��The Alameda) The Alam �nts (Brookmead Pl. in vicinity onts (Brookmead Pl. in vicini�nd bicycle enhancnd bicycle enhanc��and bicycland bicycl��

Agenda Item 11



SAN RAFAEL

Funded Projects


Vallecito: Pathway connector to school (from Nova Albion through school parking lot)

School district $20,000 2006

Bahia Vista, Vallecito: Intersection curb extensions, raised crosswalk, high visibility school crosswalks, signage (Bahia Vista); curb extensions, high visibility school crosswalk, vehicle speed feedback signs (Vallecito)

Caltrans SR2S 5th

Cycle (2004/05) $327,800 2007

San Rafael High: Sidewalk, curb ramps, school high visibility crosswalks, vehicle speed feedback signs (Mission Ave.)

Caltrans SR2S 6th

Cycle (2005/06) $177,000 2008

Laurel Dell: Sidewalk, curb ramps, school crosswalk enhancements TAM Safe Pathways 1st Cycle (2007)

$250,000 Plan to construct by end of 2010

Sun Valley: Sidewalk, curb ramps, school high visibility crosswalk, school crosswalk signage (Happy Ln.)

Federal SRTS 1st Cycle (2006/07 & 2007/08)

$362,179 Construction scheduled for Summer 2010

Coleman: Mid-block curb extensions, raised crosswalk, high visibility school crosswalk, school area signing and pavement markings (Belle Ave.)

Caltrans SR2S 8th

Cycle (2008/09) $303,900 Design to commence in Fall

2010

San Rafael High: Intersection safety enhancements, sidewalks (Third St./Union St.)

City General Funds $300,000 2010 Approximately $300,000 of total $1,200,000 project school-related

Bahia Vista: Intersection curb extensions, curb ramps, crosswalks (Canal St. at Larkspur St., Novato St., Fairfax St., Sonoma St.)

Lifeline Transportation Program

$317,766 Construction scheduled for Summer 2010

Planned Projects


Sun Valley: Sidewalk, traffic calming (River Oaks Rd., 5th Ave. at River Oaks Rd.)

Davidson Middle: Lindaro St. school area signing and pavement markings

Davidson Middle: Traffic calming (Lindaro St./Woodland Ave.)

Davidson Middle: Sidewalk and access management (Lindaro St.)



Potential Projects


Bahia Vista: Sidewalk improvements (various streets)

Laurel Dell, Marin Academy, Davidson: School area signing and pavement markings

All schools: 15 mph speed zone evaluations

All schools: School crossing evaluations


All schools: See Travel Plans ��

��ed Infrastructure Improvementsfrastructure Improvements


��vements (various streets) vements (various streets) ��, Davidson:, Davids School area signing and pagning�valuationsvaluation��ns ns �maps maps ��

Agenda Item 11



SAUSALITO

Funded Projects


Bayside, Willow Creek: Sidewalk improvements (Wateree St.), curb ramps (Buchanan/Wateree and Tomales/Wateree), school area traffic controls



Marin, New Village: Pedestrian pathways (Ebbtide Avenue to school parking lot, Ebbtide Avenue to playing field)



Planned Projects


Potential Projects


Bayside, Willow Creek: Sidewalk improvements (Nevada St.)

Bayside, Willow Creek: Intersection pedestrian enhancements (Nevada St./Buchanan Dr.)

Bayside, Willow Creek: Pedestrian crossing enhancements (Bridgeway/Nevada St.)

Marin School: Pedestrian crossing enhancements (Bridgeway/Coloma St.)

Marin School: Pedestrian path (Coloma St.)






TIBURON

Funded Projects


Bel Aire: High visibility school crosswalk enhancements (Cecilia Way) Town General Fund $5,000 2008

Del Mar Middle: Multi-use pathway connection (Hwy. 131 to Tiburon Linear Park)

Town General Fund $170,000 2009

Del Mar Middle: School high visibility crosswalks, school crosswalk signage, curb ramps (various streets)

Federal SRTS 1st

Cycle (2006/07 & 2007/08)

$352,165 2010

All schools: Steps, lanes and paths improvements (Jefferson Dr., Racoon Ln., Cayford Dr.)

NTPP $350,000 Scheduled for 2011 construction

Planned Projects


Bel Aire: School crosswalk and traffic signal enhancements (Hwy. 131/Trestle Glen Blvd.)

Potential Projects


Bel Aire: Multi-use pathway (Bay Trail gap between Blackie’s Pasture and Greenwood Bay Dr.)

Reed: Multi-modal enhancements (Hwy. 131 at Lyford Dr.)

Reed: Multi-use pathway (Mar W St. to Beach Rd.)

All schools: Steps, lanes and paths improvements (various routes)





��ed Infrastructure Improvementsfrastructure Improvements

��ol(s) an ��crosswalk enhancemencrosswa ts (Cecilia W(Cec�y connectiy connec on (Hwy. 131 to 131 t��sswalks, schosswalks, scho�

Agenda Item 11



COUNTY OF MARIN

Funded Projects


Venetia Valley: Multi-use pathway reconstruction and resurfacing, curb ramps, school crosswalks (N. San Pedro Rd.)

TDA $118,332 2005

Bacich: Traffic calming (McAllister Ave.) County Funds $5,000 2006

Bacich, Kent Middle: Curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps (Bacich; Wolfe Grade from Sir Francis Drake Blvd. to D St.); pedestrian crossing beacons (Kent Middle: College Ave.); pedestrian access improvements (Bacich: McAllister Ave.)

Caltrans SR2S 4th

Cycle (2003/04) $534,690 2006 College Ave. crossing beacon

completed. Wolfe Grade and McAllister improvements not constructed and funds returned; costs exceeded County grant estimate.

Manor: Crosswalk, curb ramps, pedestrian beacon (Oak Manor Dr.) County Funds $25,000 2007 County right-of-way

Strawberry: Traffic calming, school crosswalks and signing, traffic lane narrowing, vehicle speed feedback signs (Strawberry Dr.)

County Funds $25,000 2007

Lagunitas: Pedestrian circulation enhancements including edgelines and bollards (Lagunitas School Rd.)


Miller Creek: Bicycle lanes (Las Gallinas Ave.) County Funds $20,000 2008

Tam Valley: School high visibility crosswalks, advance and school crosswalk signing and pavement markings (Shoreline Highway at Pine Hill Rd. and at Tennessee Rd.)

Caltrans Discretionary

$15,000 2009 Project on State right-of-way. Project scoped and requested by TAM.

Loma Verde: Curb ramps, vehicle speed feedback signs (Alameda de la Loma, school entrance)


Tam Valley: Pavement marking for traffic control (Bell Ln.) County Funds $10,000 2009

Dixie: Bicycle lanes (Lucas Valley Road) and sidewalks and curb ramps (Lucas Valley Road at Huckleberry Rd.)


Dixie: School area signing and pavement markings, parking restrictions (Idylberry Rd.)


Mary Silviera: Intersection curb extensions, school high visibility crosswalks (Las Gallinas Ave./Blackstone Dr.)


$285,000 Construction scheduled for Summer 2010. Cost estimate $42,000 higher than County grant estimate of $243,342.

Tamalpais Valley: Sidewalk, curb ramps, school high visibility crosswalks (Marin Ave., Belle Ln.)

Federal SRTS 1st Cycle (2006/07 &

$715,390 Construction scheduled for late Summer 2010



2007/08)

Marin Horizon: Curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, signing, pavement markings (Evergreen Ave., Melrose Ave.)

Caltrans SR2S 8th

Cycle (2009/10) $1,100,600 County currently working

through environmental and funding issues. Current cost estimate is approximately $400,000 higher than County grant estimate. Rescoping may be required.

Strawberry: Sidewalk and ADA curb ramps (Strawberry Drive to Ricardo Lane)


$484,000? Awarded by TAM in September 2010. Grant application for Caltrans Cycle 9 also submitted.

Venetia Valley: Sidewalk improvements and crosswalk improvements at school driveways (North San Pedro Road)



Edna Maguire: Sidewalk improvements, high visibility crosswalk and curb ramps (Lomita Avenue east of Greenfield Court to Shell Road)



Tomales: Sidewalk improvements (First Street at John Street) TAM Safe Pathways 2nd Cycle (2010)


Lagunitas, San Geronimo: Pedestrian crosswalk enhancements, sidewalk installation, traffic calming (Sir Francis Drake Blvd. at Meadow Way/Lagunitas School Rd.)



Miller Creek: Sidewalk curb extensions (Las Gallinas Avenue to school driveway)



Planned Projects


Dixie: School area signing and pavement markings, school crosswalk enhancement and relocation (Idylberry Rd. and school area) To be coordinated with street repaving

Mary Silviera: Multi-use pathway reconstruction (Heathstone Drive to school). Majority of project on school property

Miller Creek: Multi-use pathway and bridge (on school property) Project on school property

Miller Creek: Driveway reconfiguration, access enhancements, bicycle pathway (on school property) Majority of project on school property

Strawberry: Traffic access improvements, pedestrian and bicycle enhancements in parking lot Project on school property

��

2020

2009 200

��00 2009 00 ��$285,000 $285,000 ConstrSummer$42,00grangr��S 1stS 1st

06/07 &/07 & $715,390 390 ��

��


2007

��walk, curb ramps, signing, pavement walk, curb ramps, signing, pavemen

rose Ave.)rose AvC

��mps (Strawberrymps (Strawberry�

Agenda Item 11



Potential Projects


Tomales: Sidewalks, curb ramps and crosswalks (Dillon Beach Rd.)

Miller Creek: Traffic calming, pedestrian and bicycle circulation enhancements (Las Gallinas Ave.) Under study in NTPP planning project #2608 (Miller Creek/Las Gallinas – Marinwood)


��

Agenda Item 11