Location:

Meeting Agenda

Public Works and Safety CommitteeStanding Committee Review

Monday, January 13, 20145:00 PM

Municipal Office Building701 N 7th StreetKansas City, Kansas 661015th Floor Conference Room

Name Absent

Commissioner Mike Kane, Chair gfedc

Commissioner Hal Walker gfedc

Commissioner Tarence Maddox gfedc

Commissioner Angela Markley gfedc

Commissioner Jane Philbrook gfedc

Jeff Bryant - BPU gfedc

. I Call to Order / Roll Call

. II Approval of standing committee minutes from December 16, 2013.

. III Committee Agenda

Synopsis:

Tracking #:

Item No. 1 - UPDATE: ROSEDALE TRANSIT ROUTE

Update on the new transit route in Rosedale that was approved by the commission during the 2014 budget process, by Emerick Cross, Transportation Director. For information only; no action required.

140008

. IV Outcomes

Synopsis:

Tracking #:

Item No. 1 - INFRASTRUCTURE GOALS

Infrastructure. Presentation and discussion on a list of projects that staff considers good candidates from which to select projects for federal transportation funding, submitted by Bill Heatherman, County Engineer.

140007

. V Adjourn

1

PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY STANDING COMMITTEE MINUTES

Monday, December 16, 2013

The meeting of the Public Works and Safety Standing Committee was held on Monday,

December 16, 2013, at 5:00 p.m., in the 6th Floor Human Resources Training Room of the

Municipal Office Building. The following members were present: Commissioner Kane,

Chairman; Commissioners Philbrook, Markley, Maddox (arrived at 5:05 p.m.), Walker, and BPU

Board Member Jeff Bryant.

Chairman Kane called the meeting to order. Roll call was taken and all members were present

as shown above.

Chairman Kane said I will note that a blue sheet has been distributed tonight adding two items

under our Committee Agenda. One is a request for budget revision for a bus route and other

item relates to Mark’s proposed policy on transit funding.

Approval of standing committee minutes for November 18, 2013. On motion of Commissioner

Markley, seconded by Commissioner Philbrook, the minutes were approved. Motion

carried unanimously.

Committee Agenda:

Item No. 1 – 130417 and 130418…INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENVIRONMENT GOALS

Synopsis:

a. Infrastructure. Presentation on the upcoming application round for federal

transportation funding administered by the Mid-America Regional Council, by Bill

Heatherman, County Engineer. Staff estimates the UG is in a good position to be

awarded $4-6M which would require local design and matching funds.

b. Environment. Review of the UG’s 2013 Stormwater Management Program and the

intent for 2014.

c. Public Safety. No discussion

2

.

Bob Roddy, Director of Public Works, said as an introduction when we brought these two

items forward for Standing Committee consideration we recognize these are basically the

Commissioner’s own goals. One of them falls under infrastructure and the other falls under

environment. If you look at your strategic goals, what these programs are, are in response to

what the Commissioner’s set out for us to do. The first one is on infrastructure and I’ll turn it

over to Bill Heatherman.

Bill Heatherman, County Engineer, said the first item has to do with how we get major federal

funding to the city and county for highway and transportation projects. The main federal

allocation process is actually programmed through the Mid-America Regional Council. Funds

that would otherwise go generally to the state of Kansas are segregated for the metropolitan

urban areas, those large enough to have a local planning organization. Those local planning

organizations create a process so that the way projects are selected and vetted meet the needs of

the local community and have more local participation and control. The way that actually works

is there are several large funding pots each of which Mid-America Regional Council has a policy

and program around. The largest one on transportation funding is called the Surface

Transportation Program, its acronym is STP. That’s worth knowing because that means lots of

money. Does it translate that way, but that’s what it means. Generally speaking, every two

years there’s a call for projects. Two years worth of funding is awarded and blessed and

approved. Then we go to work on the projects that we get making sure we can get them out the

door and through the KDOT process in time to use that money in the fiscal year that it was

allocated.

The next call for projects is going to come up in January with applications due in March. Final

project selection and award, I believe not, until July or so. It’s a fairly lengthy process. Staff at

Mid-America Regional Council do an awful lot of evaluation and vetting. There’s an actual

committee made up of representatives from the various cities that look over those scores, make

comments to them and then ultimately it goes to a large governing committee at Mid-America

Regional Council called the Total Transportation Policy Committee or TTPC. They make

3

official recommendation to the MARC Board. It’s a very lengthy project; it needs to be because

there’s a lot of money at stake. There’s a lot of equity, fairness and competitiveness in terms of

the goals. It’s a competition oriented process and it’s driven a lot by the 40 year transportation

master plan and what that master plans says is are goals and objectives.

We are bringing this to you tonight in part because we’ve heard loud and clear from the previous

goal setting session that Commissioner’s want more information and participation on how this

program runs and how we select projects to make applications on. I know in various individual

conversations I’m sometimes asked, so when did we apply for that? How did we get the money

for that? Is that one that’s getting federal funds? This is the process by which we go through

that.

This next call for projects is also a little unusual. There’s other funding pots that have been used

for certain types of projects; Congestion Mitigation Air Quality, which has been used for some

types - CMAC is its acronym. There’s also under the new Federal Highway Bill a new

composite program that brings a lot of the sidewalk trails, esthetics safe routes money all

together under the new acronym called TAP. For whatever reason, this is going to be a grand-

daddy application round. All three of those programs will have multiple years of funding all at

stake on basically the same timetable with the same deadline for us to make applications. It’s a

pretty significant effort that we will undertake right after the first of the year.

Commissioner Philbrook said do we have to have it in by March. Is that what you said? Mr.

Heatherman said the City has to turn its applications in by March. The exact dates haven’t been

announced yet, however, we ourselves will have to make our shortlist probably a couple of

months before then so we can actually put those applications together.

Mr. Roddy said as a caution there is criteria to all of these projects. This isn’t a Christmas tree

where we can submit anything. The number of applications we submit is usually three or four.

When you think of the projects we’ve done in the past that have basically been at least partially

funded; we are talking about Merriam, State Ave., probably Parallel, something of that level of

magnitude and some of the trails as well. Those are not the same dollar but you know as far as

4

the trail system, they are big dollars. The reason we brought this to the Commission we want

your input. If you think we should consider a road, we certainly will discuss it with you and see

if it’s appropriate. As Bill mentioned, this is part of our CMIP plan. These projects will be in

2016, 2017 and 2018. So we are a few years out on these. Chairman Kane asked and this is for

information only, correct? Mr. Heatherman said this is for information only tonight. Bob, I

believe our plan was to come back again in January after the call for projects is either announced

or closer to being announced and be able to report back on a few more specifics of what we’re

thinking. Commissioner Kane asked any other questions by Commissioners? Mr.

Heatherman said I’ll make one request, Mr. Kane, I think we did want to invite the

Commissioners if they have a specific set of questions or particular possible projects that they

think should be evaluated, to route those through Bob and myself so that we can make sure we’re

aware. Commissioner Philbrook said I know you guys are aware of Leavenworth Road. Mr.

Heatherman said yes and in fact the current project proposed on Leavenworth Road is funded

through both the STP program and the CMAC.

Action: For information only.

Item No. 2 – 130425…PROPOSED MARC POLICY ON TRANSIT FUNDING

Synopsis: Communication seeking direction and input regarding UG’s position on MARC’s

proposed policy on Transit Funding, submitted by Bill Heatherman, County

Engineer, and Emerick Cross, Director of Transit.

Mr. Heatherman said I’m going to ask our county surveyor Brent Thompson to come up here

with me. This is primarily an information item on a major program that we do run under our

stormwater. Brent is our county surveyor. He’s been on board for a little over a year. He did

not know that Stormwater Manager was in his job description but he’s taken that on. I have

several other members of our team that help us with the Stormwater Management Program;

Sarah Fjell, raise your hand. Sarah’s our Stormwater Engineer and we also have Bennish

Consultants who provides a lot of our help; Chris Burns, and then he has gentleman on his staff,

Clint Manderfield that has provided a lot of our work.

5

Highlights of Upcoming Issues & 2013 Progress

To the Public Works & Safety Standing Committee, Dec 2013

Brent Thompson, RLS – Stormwater Manager/County Surveyor

Bill Heatherman, P.E. – County Engineer

In your packet we have a couple of slides that you can follow along with on our presentation.

Part of the reason for bringing this to you tonight is we are finishing year one of the revised plan

that we’re under as a result of the consent decree. We’ve actually been under this program for

over ten years. Some of these individual elements have been under way for various lengths of

time. There’s no doubt that the consent decree drove us to upgrade the program and add some

elements and focus more intensively on other elements that were already in place.

The second slide in that handout is kind of a grainy photo of a cross section of a community.

What that basically is illustrating is that except for certain parts of our city, when water goes

down a pipe, stormwater, it’s going straight to a river or a creek. It’s not making any detours

6

along the way. You’ve heard a lot about our combined sewer system and that is about the

eastern third of the city, that’s different, that’s a system where both stormwater and sanitary go

into the same pipe. EPA has a lot of issues with that and it’s going to drive an awful lot of our

future in that portion of the city. In the remainder of the city those are separate systems and EPA

nationally cares about the quality of the water that goes through those separated pipes as well as

just the shear impact that any changes in the way runoff makes it to a creek; the impact that

might have on the stability of the creek, the amount of erosion and the impact that might have on

the aquatic life. We have a number of programs that are targeted for that type of a condition.

Pollutants of ConcernSedimentYard Waste- Leaves and Grass ClippingsOil and GasSanitary Sewer Cross Connections/Leaking SepticLawn Chemicals-Fertilizers and PesticidesPet WasteLitter and TrashIndustrial & Business Wastes/Chemicals

On the second page of the handout, this is just kind of a grab bag of the kind of pollutants of

concern that EPA draws our attention to. Sediment, most of you know that on construction sites

we have a lot of regulation; yard waste, leaves and clippings, well you think that’s natural and

why does it matter. In nature most of it breaks down in place on the forest floor, it doesn’t make

it in the big slug into the river; sanitary sewer cross connections, leaking septic tanks, that’s a

reality. You may think the water is clean but its not always; oils, gas residue from vehicles, and

residue from transportation, lawn chemicals, fertilizers and pesticides for the same reason. In

nature you don’t have that much of a load and you don’t have it that instantaneous. What

happens when that fertilizer gets in the water it makes the algae go crazy and then the algae die

and the fish can’t take it anymore. It’s a well known cycle and it actually does lead to fish kills

7

every year. Pet waste, litter and trash, and then industrial and business waste, and special

chemical handling – all of those are in the realm of what EPA considers to be issues of concern.

Education for Residents

We do Presentations & EventsPartnering with Others

One of the key things we do is an education program. Sarah has been out to Washington High

and other groups working with them. We have these no dumping waste to stream things that we

actually epoxy onto the storm sewer inlets so that when people are walking by they get a little

reminder. In fact I’ll hand that out. I’ll also hand these out. We cooperate with the Mid-

America Regional Council in a metro wide ongoing education program. Their latest tag line is,

“If it’s on the ground, it’s in our water”. We have brochures of these around in various places.

We’re willing to come to any road show you have in mind. If you think stormwater education

would be something you’d like to have at a community group, let us know. Chairman Kane

asked are you all promoting like rain gardens. Mr. Heatherman answered rain gardens and all

of that is part of this bigger picture.

8

Erosion ControlErosion & Sediment Controls

Increased OutreachTrainingInspectionsIntegration with Building Safety

.

Treatment Measures on New Construction

Erosion Control is a very tangible program. Brent has actually been working quite a bit on

upgrading its enforcement and outreach to the contracting community over this last year and that

will continue. Another aspect on new construction as of 2010; any new project coming through

the planning process if it’s over an acre of disturbance is actually required to put in things like

rain gardens or supersized on development. We call them bioretention cells. On a really large

residential subdivision it may be some special design to the detention ponds to get a wetland,

fore bay or other aspect to it. These are things that have to be built and endured and be operated

and maintained. I’m going to talk to you a little bit about what that means for us in 2014.

The last thing that’s not on your slide here but I wanted to mention, EPA expects us to walk the

talk. They have an entire program area called Good Housekeeping. It just basically says you as

9

a city are a pretty major business and you have an awful lot of operations. You need to show us

not only are you talking to businesses about what they need to do but that you’re doing it

yourself. We have specific programs with our street maintenance, with our parks and with our

general operations. In fact, I’m going to handout to you--tomorrow I think a little email blast is

going out to UG employees with some information on what they can do to help with stormwater.

I’ll pass those around.

New Items in 2014Industrial Program

Required by EPA to monitor 20 or so of our largest industries. Requires onsite visits/inspectionsOutreach meetings planned in JanuaryOrdinance to be proposed in Spring 2014Will Mirror Existing EPA/State Regulations

Enhanced Outreach and Inspections on Reports of Dumping

New Items in 2014Stormwater Inspector Hired end of 2013 – Increased Field Presence and Follow-upsInspections of Stormwater Outfalls ContinuingPrivate Owners Inspection Program – for owners of New-Development Stormwater Measures

Engineering Inspections Every 2 yearsRequired to Ensure Good OperationsEducation and Start-up Support Planned

10

We have several new items coming up in 2014 that I want to draw your attention to. We are

required to have an industrial program; a program where we take a direct hand in regulating the

activities and monitoring activities for certain large industries. We are working on the outline of

that program. We have to have an ordinance adopted by mid-spring. Our plan is to have an

outreach meeting in January with the industries that we think are involved.

There have been a number of questions based on some confusion and how the EPA wrote the

regulation as to how narrow or wide that net needs to be casted. We are casting that net narrowly

in conformance with what we believe the law says and at this point it looks like about a dozen

and a half industries who are already adhering to some other kind of state or federal regulation

and what we are really envisioning is us and an assistant in an extra set of eyes mode as opposed

to coming up with something that is all new and overly burdensome. This actually applies more

to the industries who are in the western two-thirds. Those areas that are actually in combined

sewer locations, due to a quirk in this law, we’re not directly required to take the same level of

oversight. This is a program that only larger cities are required to have and EPA has not

necessarily been as clear and consistent all the way across the board so we are learning this as we

go. This is a new program that we’re building up and this would be one area that you may get

some questions about as the next couple of months come up. Feel free to direct those my way.

We are also required to do some enhanced inspections of reports of dumping and getting the

word out on who you can call if you have a question. I believe right now our answer is Public

Works at 573-5700 and we will follow-up on reports of stormwater pollution. We are hiring an

inspector as of the end of this year.

The other big program that I want to draw your attention to; back when we talked about rain

gardens we said that EPA expects that we will make sure those are operated and maintained

appropriately over their life. Those are privately owned. They’ll either be owned by the

commercial owner of a development or in the case of a residential subdivision, by the homes

association.

11

We understand that there is a big step from officially being responsible for something and being

effective at it and although that ordinance has been on the books since 2010, its only just now

that we’re getting facilities that have been out there and in the ground and being operated long

enough for this to really come into focus.

In 2014 we’re going to be building the program whereby the city assist private owners in

fulfilling their responsibility. We intend to be available to them for education, for outreach and

hold their hand through the start up. Ultimately they are private facilities. They are private

responsibilities and our ordinance requires that every two years that a qualified person do an

inspection on those to make sure they’re being kept up to speed. By the end of this roll out

program that we’re discussing, we would intend to be in position where private owners can

uphold that responsibility. We will not do this in a vacuum and won’t do this without common

sense. If you want us to kind of keep you engaged as we go through this year, we’re more than

happy to do that. That’s something that’s coming and I’m sure it will involve some change.

Mr. Roddy said to break it down in its simplest form, every time someone puts in a detention

basin they are suppose to maintain it and they probably haven’t been maintaining it. This is

going to require them to go down and check to make sure the animals haven’t dug a hole through

it or that trees aren’t growing through it. You may hear from businesses complaining that we’re

exacting some torture on them. BPU Board Member Bryant asked if private homeowners put

in rain gardens, will they be subject on it. Mr. Heatherman answered yes. Typically what

happens in a subdivision is there’s something that more subdivision wide and the home

associations are usually tagged with that responsibility. BPU Board Member Bryant said I was

just saying like if I put one in my backyard, which I was planning on doing, because I have a

slope. Mr. Heatherman said voluntary ones would not be subject, it’s those mandated through

the development process.

BPU Board Member Bryant said the other question I had you said it’s only going to apply

mostly to the second thirds of our city going west. What about the new businesses that are

coming into Fairfax like in the RACER district? Are we going to apply that to them? I would

12

assume that after the whole issue is taken care of on this side with the sewers and everything that

this would be applicable to this area too.

Mr. Heatherman said let me distinguish between the industrial program and the new

development best management practices. The industrial program is a very specific type of

second set of eyes on regulatory in terms of people’s process. That’s the part that we’re drawing

the distinction between the western two-thirds of the city and the separate system and the eastern

one-third. For this new development BMPR ordinance applies that citywide. That’s really the

right way to do it when we consider the other obligations we have for the future of the combined

sewer system. Having said that, there are certain allowances in our code right now if an area had

been developed previously, it gives it credit for past footprint. The new development treatment

is really measured kind of from your incremental impact. What happens is in a district like

Fairfax, while the full weight of the ordinance does apply, the reality is that for many of the sites

they are already two-thirds covered in concrete. The incremental amount of water that they’re

treating for is less than if you’re out in Piper.

Chairman Kane said this is for information only. Any questions? Commissioner Philbrook

said not right now, but I’m sure I will later after it sinks in.

Action: Information only

Chairman Kane said moving on to our blue sheet.

Item No. 1 – 130427…COMMUNICATION: BUS ROUTE 101

Synopsis: Communication seeking approval for a 2014 budget revision to increase bus size

on State Avenue CONNEX Route #101, submitted by Emerick Cross, Director of

Transit.

Emerick Cross, Director of Transit, said I’m here tonight regarding the State Avenue

CONNEX Route 101. That route as you remember, the transit route, starts in Kansas City

Missouri at 10th and Main, runs along the viaduct into Kansas City Kansas down Minnesota, then

13

out State Ave. all the way to Village West Pkwy. In a nutshell, the 101 ridership has sharply

risen in the last year and as you know it’s the busiest route in the UG system. We have over

2,000 weekly boarding’s on that route and we had one day within the last few months where we

had 2,152 riders on that route.

Currently on the route we use a 30 foot Gillig Transit bus that has seating for 23 passengers.

With the development out in Village West and with the TIGER grant and the amenities and

enhancements we made up and down the State Avenue corridor, what we’ve done is working.

This is not a necessarily a bad thing. In my opinion it’s a good thing. We have a lot of riders

using this route. A lot of riders are using it to get to jobs out to Village West and back, to do

their shopping, to get their entertainment, because that’s what’s provided up and down the

corridor and certainly out in Village West. With that being said, these 30 foot Gillig buses with

passengers for 23 riders are overcrowded. This overcrowding is making the route unsafe at

times. It’s making it unsafe many times. As you know our ridership is up overall. We just

won an award for that 21% over the last two years, so it’s working. With that being said, it’s

overcrowding. When this happens people have to move on the bus and shuffle around. When

they pull up to these stops that don’t have time to wait for them and it’s causing the buses to run

late. A lot of times people are standing up over one another.

It’s working and why we’re here tonight we’re seeking a budge revision in the amount of

$47,000 for 2014 to contract with the ATA for bigger buses for all of our route 101 operating

days – Monday through Sunday. We use the bigger buses on Saturday; you may remember we

got that passed not long ago. With the $47,000 that will give us 40 foot buses with seating for 40

riders which is a substantial increase. With the development going up along the State Ave.

corridor, with our TIGER improvements, with the two transit centers, and the ridership

constantly increasing, this is going to be a natural fit and will give us room for expansion. It will

also provide a safer more comfortable ride for all of our transit riders.

Currently we’re using CMAC funds that Mr. Heatherman talked about earlier. We’re currently

using these CMAC federal funds that Condition Mitigation Air Quality that Mr. Heatherman

talked about. It’s an 80/20 match. We’re only paying 20% right now to run that. That runs

14

through January of 2015. The cost of $47,000 for one year of service for bigger buses is

minimal. However, I do want to make this point clear, we’re currently working closely with

Danny O’Connor here with the ATA. We’re currently working with the ATA and negotiating

with the FTA because we had these new MAP 21 rules come out that we currently use for

legislation for the transportation program. We’re trying to find out if we can use these funds in

the future beyond 2015 so we can keep that low cost.

As you folks all have been reminded by me many times in the last year, we’re losing a lot of

federal monies. We are certainly working to try to get those CMAC funds extended beyond that

date and that should keep the cost down significantly. I do want to make the point though if we

don’t and we provide this service, in January of 2015, if we don’t get the CMAC funds approved

for use that will increase to $233,856 per year. That’s a significant increase. Just want to make

sure that point is clear to the standing committee. Do you have any questions?

Commissioner Markley asked this money would just come out of the fund balance, correct.

Gary Ortiz, Asst. County Administrator; said yes if it hits 2014 it will have to be

reprogrammed when we reprogram.

Commissioner Philbrook said I’ve already heard complaints about people not being able to get

on the bus. Mr. Cross said I’m not going to say that this bus is full all the time, every time we

run it, no, but it’s certainly packed in the peak periods. People going to work in the mornings

and then when you’re coming home at night and as people have found out to use this for

transportation to jobs, like I said to Village West; and also importantly to shop, go to the dentist

out there, go to the chiropractor, go to a movie and take their family; those without vehicle

transportation this is a very important way for those people to live their lives.

Gordon Criswell, Assistant County Administrator, said you might give the committee some

estimate of start-up time and implementation time, if you have a ballpark sense. Mr. Cross said

that’s a great question. To be honest with you – Danny, you may want to speak to this a little bit

with the ATA contract and your employees over there.

15

Daniel O’Connor, Director of Planning for ATA, said we really appreciate our continued

partnership with the UG. You’re one of our ten communities that basically help put together the

regional system and we continue to see lots of transit use, lots of transit interest, good ridership

growth and a lot of that is coming from your community. Route 101 is our seventh. ATA

operates 60 routes and this is our seventh highest route for average ridership on our whole

system. When you think about our system – Troost is #1, Prospect #2, Main Street #3, State

Ave. is coming in at seventh. It’s a very important spine, it’s a part of the regional piece.

This is an adjustment that we would, if we had formal direction tonight, we could insure happens

with our next quarterly markup. With our labor union we change service on the quarter. We’re

entering into an agreement to basically start our next quarter where service would start January

5th. We can make this happen as soon as that if we knew tonight because we’re moving forward

with that bidding to work. If not, the next opportunity is April 1. We would recommend, based

upon what we’re seeing load wise, this is really critical especially with the grant. The grant is

something that Emerick been very good--I think a lot of your touches at Mid-America Regional

Council trying to help secure this additional CMAC funding, this has really helped support new

expansions and put the system together with that.

Tonight if we got clear direction we could get this in for January. The Sunday service, we might

have to wait until April to get that done, but it’s really the weekday where we’re seeing the

critical need. This route even in the last year we’re carrying about 1,950 a day, an average week

day on this route with small buses. That’s up even 10% off of last year. Last year we were

about 1,775 so this is really positive trend. It goes to the investments that your community has

made with the transit centers, the development out at Village West. This route connects Village

West, State Ave., the two transit centers, downtown, and downtown KCMO.

Chairman Kane said I will accept a motion for approval or disapproval.

Action: Commissioner Philbrook, seconded by Commissioner Markley, moved to

accept. Roll call was taken and there were six “Ayes,” Bryant, Philbrook,

Markley, Maddox, Walker, Kane.

16

Chairman Kane said before we move on to the next item we had a question from the audience

on what you were talking about a little while ago Bill. I didn’t see her raise her hand.

Mary Martin, 804 S. 89th, Kansas City, KS, said I had a question on the sewer. I live in the

rural area of Wyandotte County and we have no sewers. Our whole entire area has no sewers.

It’s part of that area that Wyandotte decided to incorporate with Edwardsville. It used to be

Edwardsville and now it is Wyandotte. No one in our area have sewers so I’m asking the

question, are you planning on putting sewers out in our area? Are we going to be included in this

new program that you’re concerned about or are we just going to go as business as usual? Mr.

Heatherman said first of all when we talk about sewers there are really two distinct systems and

we use the word sewer sometimes interchangeably. All areas of the city we’re required to look

at what happens with the rain water runoff. That’s true even if there’s not an actual pipe out

there. If there’s a ditch in the roadway, if there’s any kind of handling of the water which there

ultimately is through some kind of ditch or culvert, we’re required to have these programs in

place that involve education, monitoring pollution etc.

Now sanitary sewers which would be if you’re on septic system and you don’t have sanitary

sewers, that’s separate and there’s nothing about this program that’s really adding anything new

or making any basic changes in what kind of sanitary sewer you have. If you’d like to after this

meeting, we can look to see exactly where you are and maybe I can answer that question in more

detail. Ms. Martin asked so what you’re saying is we need to be digging ditches out in our area

if we don’t have one? Mr. Heatherman said I think I can talk to you after this meeting and find

out more about what you specially have and we can look into it.

Item No. 2 – 130425…PROPOSED MARC POLICY ON TRANSIT FUNDING

Synopsis: Communication seeking direction and input regarding UG’s position on MARC’s

proposed policy on Transit Funding, submitted by Bill Heatherman, County

Engineer, and Emerick Cross, Director of Transit.

17

Mr. Roddy said this is something that we’re looking for input from the Commissioners. It’s an

issue that was brought by the MARC Regional Council. What they’re requesting is to increase

the amount of money that basically goes to transportation. Right now a lot of the federal funds

go through MARC and much of it is allocated to road projects. What they’re trying to request is

a set amount of money that goes basically from road projects to transit. This is a proposal that

was submitted. It’s going to be under discussion in the month of January with MARC. There

are a number of meetings throughout January that they’re going to be discussing this. Ultimately

the staff is going to be over in meetings with MARC and we want to know what the

Commissioners direction is. What you really will be doing is probably spending less on roads

and probably more on transit. That may be a good decision but we want to get the input from the

Commissioners on this subject. I think Bill might have a comment or two on this or Emerick as

well.

Mr. Heatherman said Bob described the basic issue. It is being set right now as a non-binding

but basically would require anything less than 15% allocation that the programming committees

recommend be justified and be justified in part based on whether or not there were other eligible

project types. When we are at Mid-America Regional Council competing for funds we’re

basically competing on the Kansas side. The two state monies are kept separate. Whether or not

this would change, increase, decrease, or hold the same, the net amount of money the county got

would depend entirely on the mix of project applications we made. We certainly have plenty of

transit oriented work that could be done. We don’t necessarily have an analysis that said does

this get more or less money for Wyandotte County. It is a policy change that would bring more

attention to transit and we think it’s important enough that the commission give us input on that.

I’ll let Emerick talk about the transit implications.

Mr. Cross said we are losing a lot of federal money in transportation. We’ve talked about that

several times, that’s an old issue. To offset that cost I think there is kind of a general consensus

over there in the Regional Transit Coordinating Council that we need more money for transit,

transit operations, amenities capital and things like that. This I think is a small movement at this

time to shift those type monies from the STP programs over to transit related functions and

capital projects, investments, and things like that. I don’t think the number that’s being proposed

18

by the Regional Transportation Coordinating Council is significant, I just think this is more like

Bob and Bill said, a policy shift, a policy move on your part.

Commissioner Maddox said my question just really comes from the format that we have to

decide if we’re moving the money from roads to transportation. My question is where exactly

are some areas that may need funding and where would the funding go to if we decide to go that

way? My other concern is that there’s a lot of roads in the community that need to be paved and

re-fixed so the fact we’re going to, if we do decide to move money over, it’s really important that

it go to areas that are definitely greatly in need as well as keeping site on roads that need to be

fixed. Mr. Cross said I can tell you from a transportation perspective that we would only focus

on the most dense and highly used urban routes. That’s where the need is so we would definitely

use those funds. For example, route 107, we just did 101 our heaviest route, up State Ave. and

out to Village West. Route 107 runs basically from 7th Street here all the way down connects

into Rosedale and runs up to the KU Medical Center area. That’s probably our second highest

route and we’re looking at some investments along that corridor. These monies wouldn’t be

used necessarily for anything that’s not producing high ridership numbers. Commissioner

Maddox asked is that stations or buses. Mr. Cross said it could be all of that. From a

transportation perspective that’s the beauty of this. It depends upon which program, I don’t want

to get to technical, it comes out of, the eligible uses from that program that would could apply

those monies toward. Commissioner Philbrook said so you want to change it to this but what

are we changing it from. What has it been in the past? Mr. Heatherman said the Unified

Government staff is not proposing any change. This is basically a policy proposal that’s at the

Mid-America Regional Council level and it will ultimately be voted upon at the MARC level.

We have a couple of votes but there are many, many other votes from other jurisdictions.

What we’re asking tonight is, does this committee have any input that want to give to those who

are representing the UG’s view on this matter when MARC takes it up? It’s not a question of the

UG unilaterally changing its allocation. The way this is really going to work out is this

application funding round when it comes up Emerick and I are going to collaborate on how many

applications we’re going to throw in. They’re all going to be ranked at a metro level. If

Wyandotte County has projects one through six on the list, I can guarantee you we won’t get

19

projects one through six because they also do an equity look to make sure nobody is too far out

of line. It may ultimately come down to Emerick and I discussing what the UG’s; if they gave us

this one would we take that and vice versa. This is about a Mid-America Regional Council

decision. It’s not clear cut that it would change the balance of funding. We have an awful lot of

transit needs so it might simply make some of our applications more competitive.

Chairman Kane said I don’t want to see it change because we don’t know what they want to

change it to. I think this is the beginning of 15% this year, 20% next year and I think you guys

are already working together to make sure that our bases are covered. I don’t want some other

entity telling us how we’re going to do business. I think it’s smarter that you guys go over and

negotiate. Do what you’ve done because it has worked. There’s no sense in changing it unless

you guys give us guidance where it’s been extremely successful or we wouldn’t have all the

things we have going now.

Rob Richardson said the way the strategies are going it looks like they are focusing on urban

infrastructure and reconstruction maintenance and transit verses building a new interchange at

315th and nowhere south of here. We make all of our projects rank higher and that’s what

MARC staff has told me is they want all these urban projects to rank higher verses the very

suburban new roadway construction projects which gives all of our projects a higher rank and

then we can pick in that ranking and where we want to go.

I met with MARC staff all last week because I’m on the committee with Bill and that’s what they

told me. If they’re giving Bill the same information they’re giving me, that’s a question that will

make all of our projects rank higher. Then we would get to pick.

Mr. Heatherman said I would reiterate what Rob said. I wanted to hear what the committee

had to say first before putting too much interpretation on it. I do think at its core, this is part

about emphasizing the transportation goals to get more federal money into the already built areas

as opposed to having so much of it used for expansion and green field. The only caveat would

be that many of those jurisdictions that might otherwise want to use their green field money may

not necessarily view Unified Government’s needs on roads as high. It’s a giant crystal ball as to

20

whether the bottom line is going to change things for us. I do agree with Rob. I think overall it

would make more Wyandotte County projects rank higher but it would involve us committing to

spending our share of any local matches at that same level on transit in order to actually get those

projects.

Commissioner Markley said just from a general look at what MARC is doing I could see that

interpretation and how it’s sort of fitting into their larger goals. The nice thing for us is we do

have transit needs. We have ridership. Johnson County gets a lot of transit money. They have

some nice routes. They have fewer riders. I could see where our projects could get some

priority because we do have the ridership to merit it. I think it would help us rather than hurt us.

Commissioner Maddox said my only concern is that you move money from roads to transit.

You’ve got a lot of roads that need to be repaired. Then when you think about transit, what’s the

percentage of people that are using transit for jobs verses shopping? You’re going to move

money to transit to get on buses to go shopping verses roads for communities where people have

to drive daily. That’s the concern I’m bringing about. Is there an evaluation process over a two

to three year span as to if the money is resurfaced, how it was successful? Mr. Heatherman

said whichever way the policy goes we can report back to this committee on how the final

applications went. We can make that report about six to eight months from now when the final

rankings come. We can let you know if we think it actually played to the county strengths or

not. I think inevitably once a policy change is made it creates its own momentum.

Chairman Kane asked do you guys want to do it or not. You are doing it. It’s your baby so

it’s a yes or no question, pretty easy. Mr. Heatherman said I think that just like you all are not

necessarily clear yourselves on what the best outcome for us in the metro area is. I think it’s a

pretty open question. I think there’s going to be a lot of debate at MARC and I think just

knowing these different perspectives helps us. When we’re listening we’ll know whether things

were 100% one way or the other. I’m not sure I’m prepared tonight to tell you what staff

recommendation is. This is a fast moving item and we wanted to get it in front of you.

Mr. Roddy said let me give you three thoughts. One, we know that the transit funding is

decreasing not increasing. Two, we know we’ve invested in transit in recent years. We’ve seen

21

we’re having success in it. A few years ago the commissioners passed a Complete Streets which

basically wants us to look at all forms of transportation on our roads not just cars. Last item, you

know as far as how we fair in future application process, generally Bill has put in some dynamite

applications in recent years. We have two or three in the top five. We really get bounced out

because there is an issue of equitability in trying to distribute the money. Our applications would

have us walk away with more money. Those are three things to think about.

Chairman Kane asked are there any questions from the audience because we’re going to have

to go back to another item because I didn’t ask that on this particular item right here.

Shirley Ikerd, 804 S. 89th, Kansas City, KS, said I’m concerned because when I was on the

State Avenue Corridor Committee and I was on it as long as I could stand it. Reardon had

appointed me to the State Avenue Corridor when it first started. It got so that they were not

listening to anything that I said or Mark Nidiffer said from Local 1290. We decided that we

could not argue against the boys with all the money. We quit going to the meetings. They did

not put in any feeder lines. People still have to walk from 72nd and Kansas Ave. Off State

Avenue there are no feeder lines that go into bus 101. I see bus 101 at least six times a day. The

bus is not full all the time. Sometime I sit at the end of the line at Wal-Mart to see how many

people are on it. We do not need the increase and do all these things that need to be done. I’m

sure some of these gentlemen in here tonight remember me from it because I argued all the time.

We were not giving people that need to ride the bus anyway to ride it.

Chairman Kane said anything else on the MARC issue? Do you need a vote tonight? Mr.

Heatherman said I think if the committee felt that it could give a vote on a recommendation that

would help guide us but if you don’t feel like you’re at that consensus point, then the

conversation here is sufficient for us to report back in January. Chairman Kane said I don’t feel

comfortable telling you.

Commissioner Kane said I failed miserably in asking for the public comment when we were

talking about bus route 101. We have somebody that would like to talk about it? Would you

please come up to the table, say your name and address please.

22

Alvin Sykes, 1131 Central Ave., Kansas City, KS said actually I came here today for another

matter but I made a request for an increase in the 101 bus in particular due to an incident that

happened when I rode the bus. I was asked last week by the Mayor’s office to come and speak

but they didn’t tell me when so I’m not actually prepared with some of the matters but I would

want to share the experience that calls for this.

I am a rider of the bus for about 40 years. That’s my primary means of transportation. Normally

when I ride the bus the question I have is whether I’m going to get to my destination on time.

On this one particular day on a Sunday I got on the Minnesota bus 101 and before I got off the

bus the question to me was, am I going to die this day on this bus? It came about because as

soon as I got on the bus, the bus was completely packed all the way up to the yellow line which

is the federal line that says you can’t have people beyond that line. When I got on there was just

enough space for me to get on and not have to go further. After getting on the bus at 10th and

Minnesota the bus driver continued to pick up people along the route and that was making the

bus more crowded. People were getting upset in the bus talking about how crowded it was. It

got to one point where the bus driver said for people to get on, pay their money, get off, go

through the back and squeeze in the back. This caused people to be pushed forward beyond the

yellow line. To me it was pushing me forward and I took it to be pushing me forward in

violation of federal law. When I asked the driver about not picking up anymore people that it

was too packed, he said their orders are to pick up everybody period. He continued to do so. As

soon as we got to one point near the end going to Missouri, he pulled up to a woman who was in

a wheelchair. There was a loud audible amongst the people, how is she going to be able to get

on here? The bus driver told us that we had to get off the bus upfront, let her get on and then

they would proceed to go forward. At that point I had enough. I knew that would push us way

past the line so I told him I was not going to get off the bus. I was not going to move and be

forced to violate the federal law.

The short version of what happened was that after he called the supervisor to say someone was

refusing to move on the bus, I then got off to let the woman on because it had started raining and

she was about 80 years old. She came on the bus with her son. By then everybody is arguing on

23

the bus. People are sitting up saying why is this bus being…they keep packing everybody in like

sardines. Then a dispute developed between the son of the woman in the wheelchair and the

person standing next to me. The son thought he was talking about his mom. That developed into

an argument. What the man was really saying is that we need a bigger bus but the son took it

that he was blaming his mother. Chairman Kane said, sir, you have one minute. Mr. Sykes

said then a fight broke out on the bus between these two. It ended up with them kicking and

cracking the door to exit the bus. This cannot continue to happen.

The main thing that got me that day was the bus driver said it happens every Sunday. They are

constantly in violation of federal law every Sunday packing this bus. This needs to change. The

issue can be partially resolved by having a bigger bus so the people don’t have to go through this

and they can continue and look forward to getting home instead have to wonder whether they are

going to die that day.

Chairman Kane said we probably should have made a motion to fast track this as well.

Gordon Criswell, Asst. County Administrator, said that was what he was seeking clarification

on, yes. Commissioner Markley said can you renew the motion with the fast track addition.

Action: Commissioner Philbrook said I would like to accept this and fast track it so it

can be taken care of on the vote on Thursday at the full commission.

Commissioner Markley seconded the motion.

Commissioner Maddox said I’d like to also speak to the feeder lines. Ms. Ikerd who came up

here, she spoke about the feeder lines on 72nd street. I think that’s something we can revisit in

January when it comes to the question of moving monies from transit to roads. Just to put that

out there that I think the feeder lines are important as well but then I also think that the 101 bus

does get overcrowded because I get people contacting me about it as well.

Chairman Kane asked for roll call on the amendment.

24

Roll call was taken on the amendment and there were six “Ayes,” Bryant, Philbrook, Markley,

Maddox, Walker, Kane.

Meeting adjourned.

Chairman Kane adjourned the meeting at 5:55 pm.

cm