HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransit Governance o� p � O �A
ti � U tr1
� 4646 Dakota Street SE �
`��vxsso� Prior Lake, MN 55372
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP REPORT
MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 7, 2013
AGENDA # 2
PREPARED BY: JANE KANSIER, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
PRESENTED BY: JANE KANSIER
DISCUSSION: Introduction
At the February 25, 2013, City Council workshop, the Council directed
staff to review the various options for transit governance with the Transit
Review Board (TRB), and to bring the TRB's recommendation back to the
City Council for discussion. Councilmember McGuire serves as the City
Council representative on the TRB, and has participated in these
discussions.
Hi StON
Since at least 1975, the City of Prior Lake has been part of the
Metropolitan Transit Taxing District. Even though the tax was included as
part of the property tax, the only available bus service to Prior Lake was a
single, daily express bus to downtown Minneapolis. This service was
operated by the Metro Transit Commission (MTC). In 1984, the
Minnesota Legislature adopted MN Statute 473.338, allowing the City to
"opt-out" of the MTC system, and apply our contribution to the transit tax
to our own system. In the early 1990's, the City joined the newly formed
Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA).
In 2001, the City chose to opt out of MVTA and create its own service, the
Laker Lines. All funds contributed by property owners in the City of Prior
Lake were deposited in the City's dedicated transit fund. Shortly
thereafter, the Legislature removed the transit tax and authorized funding
of the transit system through the Minnesota Vehicle Sales Tax (MVST).
The Transit Review Board (TRB) was formed in 2004 through a Joint
Powers Agreement with Scott County, the City of Shakopee, the City of
Savage and other Scott County communities. It functions as a policy
board for transit planning in Scott County. As part of that agreement, the
City of Prior Lake is a full partner in BlueXpress and has provided funding
for the Southbridge Crossings Transit Station, the Eagle Creek Transit
Station, and the new Marschall Road Transit Station.
One of the first tasks completed by the Transit Review Board (TRB) was
the creation of the Unified Transit Management Plan (UTMP). The
purpose of the UTMP was to study existing services available within Scott
County, get feedback from transit users and transit stakeholders on
service needs, and to recommend an action plan that identifies how Scott
County entities could partner to improve the delivery of transit services
and infrastructure over the next 15 years. The UTMP was officially
adopted by the Scott County communities in 2005.
As a result of the UTMP, in 2007, the cities of Prior Lake and Shakopee,
along with Scott County, partnered to operate the BlueXpress commuter
. service to downtown Minneapolis. Today, BlueXpress provides 10
morning, 10 evening, 2 midday and 8 reverse trips, and averages about
750 riders per day of which about 225 are from Prior Lake.
A more complete explanation of Prior Lake transit and transit funding is
included in the attached "Transit Information" document.
Current Circumstances
In the last 6 years, the TRB has accomplished many of the original service
goals set forth in the UTMP. The UTMP does note that "in the longer
term, the question of service governance will need to be revisited." So
such action now is consistent with this plan.
By way of review, there are some good reasons to consider transition from
today's transit governance format:
• A few years ago, the Legislative Auditor's Office looked at the
metropolitan region transit systems. Many of the observations
were positive, but two were negative: 1) duplication of
administration costs; and 2) the relationship between the opt-outs
and the Metropolitan Council.
• Some legislators and Metropolitan Council staff would just as soon
see opt-out providers go away and be amalgamated into the
metropolitan-wide system.
• Our own projections show that if we continue using the same
funding sources and projected ridership increases, we will run out
of money in approximately five years. At that time, we will have to
decide if we want to curtail system growth or utilize local revenues
to support transit.
In a February work session, the City Council directed that we talk to other
opt out transit providers. Over the summer, the TRB invited
representatives from Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA),
Southwest Transit (SWT) and Metropolitan Council/Metro Transit to
discuss the possibility of combining Prior Lake and Shakopee with their
service. A summary of these discussions is included in the attached
memorandum from Michael Leek.
At its July 31, 2013, meeting, the TRB voted to recommend further
exploration of a merger/consolidation with MVTA (see attached TRB
minutes).
ISSUES: The staff is seeking direction from the City Council on a number of
questions:
1. Does the council want us to further pursue membership in MVTA for
transit governance purposes?
There are both positive and negative impacts to becoming a part of the
MVTA joint powers agreement. On the plus side, becoming a part of
the larger organization creates greater efficiencies in transit
administration and operations, resulting in lower costs per passenger.
Page 2
The City would have a seat on the 9 member MVTA Board, along with
Shakopee, Savage and Scott County. On the minus side, joining
MVTA would result in a loss of local identity and local autonomy in
transit operations. There would also be a budget impact of .
approximately $113,000 that is currently funded from the transit
account. Finally, we will not have unilateral control of the transit
system. If we want to provide a shuttle for Lakefront Days, for
example, we would have to do so at our own cost or convince MVTA
that this is beneficial. Our transit service could also be cut or fail to
grow because the resources are required in other areas.
2. If this is the direction the City Council feels is best, are these the key
issues which need to be addressed and are the staff positions
articulated below in accordance with the council's desires?
• What is the timeframe for this implementation? We have
charged expenses to this program over time. If the changeover
were to occur immediately, we would have to find another source
of funding for about $113,000. The staff recommends negotiating
a timeframe that would allow the City to gradually transition the
costs into the City's general budget.
• What should become of the existina transit reserves? The
staff recommends working with MVTA to allow the City to retain a
portion of the Transit Fund Reserve for special transit-related
projects or events, and for the costs of transitioning transit budget
expenditures to the general budget.
• How do we ensure service remains at the existinq levels, and
that MVTA incorporates the existinq Service and Operations
Plan which illustrates how the BlueXpress service will ,
expand in the future, into MVTA's existinq and lonq ranqe '
Ip ans? The staff recommends including MVTA Board adoption of
our existing plan as part of our negotiations.
• How do we ensure the two existinq CMAQ qrants for new
buses awarded to BlueXpress are used to expand this
service? The staff recommends working with the Metropolitan
Council and the Transportation Advisory Board to ascertain
whether these grants can be assigned to MVTA in the event Prior
Lake and Shakopee become members of the MVTA.
• What are the implications on the existinq operational and
maintenance contracts? The staff recommends the City, along
with the City of Shakopee and Scott County, begin reviewing all of
our contracts and make any legal issues are addressed and
resolved prior to a transition.
3. Does the Council believe the staff should approach Shakopee to
determine if they agree that the above are the key issues and ,
positions which we discuss with the MVTA?
It is important the two cities agree on these matters before discussions
begin. We do not want to leave any opportunity for misunderstanding
or worse divide and conquer. Staff believes that this is the appropriate
next step.
Page 3
;OF YRIp�•�,.
r �. l o
+; u 9 t
r
` 1
i
���NNESO
- � Transit Information
H ISTORY
Since at least 1975, the City of Prior Lake has been part of the Metropolitan Transit
Taxing District. Even though the tax was included as part of the property tax, the only
available bus service to Prior Lake was a single, daily express bus to downtown
Minneapolis. This service was operated by the Metro Transit Commission (MTC). In
1984, the Minnesota Legislature adopted MN Statute 473.338, allowing the City to "opt-
out" of the MTC system, and apply our contribution to the transit tax to our own
system. At that time, the City joined the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA).
Over the years, the MVTA service did not improve much over the MTC service, so in
2001, the City also opted out of MVTA and created its own service, the Laker Lines. All
funds contributed by property owners in the City of Prior Lake were deposited in the
City's dedicated transit fund. Shortly thereafter, the Legislature removed the transit tax
and authorized funding of the transit system through the Minnesota Vehicle Sales Tax
(MVST).
EXPRESS $ERVICE
In 2002, Laker Lines began operating two express bus services to Downtown
Minneapolis. In 2004, we added a third bus, and by 2007, we were operating four
morning and four evening routes. The chart below summarizes the ridership numbers
since 2003. The 2013 number includes riders through August; however, at our current
rider levels, we should provide more than 97,000 rides by the end of the year.
Laker Lines Total Riders
2003-Fresent
ioo,000
90,000
80,000
70,000 ���
60,000 . � ----
48,452 48,909
50,000 -
40,000 .
30,000 20,093 20,563 ' '
20,000
10,000
0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Since 2003, Laker Lines has seen a 372% increase in riders.
September 26, 2013 ' � -
,oF_exiaR.
,�
�� �,,
`.....,..,.AIINNES��.: `.:'
Although technically considered separate operations, Laker Lines and Shakopee Transit
have jointly operated the BlueXpress commuter service since July, 2007, with 8 morning
and 8 evening commutes. Today, BlueXpress offers 10 morning, 10 evening, 2 midday
and 8 reverse trips. Ridership on BlueXpress continues to grow. In 2011, we
experienced a 20% increase in riders over 2010. In 2012, ridership increased by 9% over
2011. So far, in 2013, we have seen a 2% increase in riders. Overall, since 2007, we
have seen a 254% increase in riders on BlueXpress. Although we are the smallest transit
provider in the Metro region, no other provider, including Metro Transit, is growing at
the same rate.
BtueXpress Total Riders
200,OOD , ��
180,OOD
160,000 141,68
140,000 ' 137,289 '
120,000
100,000 - ------ -- - -- - —
80,000
60,000 52 304
4d,00Q
20,000 -- — -
0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
The efficiency of a transit service is often measured by subsidy per passenger. While
this is not the only measure or even the best measure of efficiency, this is the metric
used by the Metropolitan Council. According to the 2011 Route Subsidy Analysis,
prepared by the Metropolitan Council, the subsidy per passenger for BlueXpress is
$7.29. This is considered within the targeted threshold for express service.
When considering this subsidy, there are some important points to keep in mind about
the BlueXpress service:
• BlueXpress buses travel further to reach the downtown employment center than
almost any other express service. In order to be considered an "express" service,
buses must travel 3 miles on the freeway; BlueXpress buses travel 25 miles one
way. Longer travel distances equal higher costs.
• Fares are set by the region (Metropolitan Council) so express routes traveling a
few miles collect the same fare as routes traveling 25 miles. This has two
impacts. Shorter routes have the ability to make several trips with fewer buses,
so fare recovery is higher. Also, shorter routes typically cost less to operate, so
the fares collected will go further in reducing the subsidy.
September 26, 2013 - 2 -
, :�F YRIp�,
, �. l
i� V ��.
r
�\ I
....�..MI�NESOt�, i;
" The closest route comparison to BlueXpress is the Rush Line, which runs from Forest
Lake to downtown Minneapolis, and which is operated by the Metropolitan Council.
The subsidy per passenger for this service is $9.43.
As part of the BlueXpress service, we jointly operate 2 park and ride lots, Southbridge
Crossings Transit Station and Eagle Creek Transit Station. Together, the 2 facilities have
approximately 1,100 parking spaces. Marschall Road Transit Station is the third facility
and is currently under construction. We expect it will be operable in 2014. The MRTS is
a former auto dealership site. The existing building will house Scott County Transit
offices, along with other Scott County facilities. A small portion of the building will also
be used for BlueXpress riders. There will be indoor waiting areas and restrooms,
something both existing facilities do not have. The MRTS will be able to accommodate
400 park and ride spaces.
LOCAL SERVICE
Beginning in 2000, Scott County Transit in cooperation with the City provided dial-a-ride
service during the summer months for Prior Lake residents. The additional service
during this peak period of time proved to be a valuable service to our residents. Each
year an average of 1,400 riders used our summer transit services as a means to get to
summer school, work, appointments and various summer activities.
In 2004, the City replaced the dial-a-ride service with the Local Laker Link, a fixed route
circular service focusing on access to summer school and summer jobs. The idea behind
the Local Laker Link was to provide more service to a larger number of riders. The
circulator bus route provided continuous service to several destination and pickup
points throughout the day. The chart below illustrates the number of rides provided by
the Local Laker Link since 2004.
Local lafcer Link Total Rides
2500
2168
2000 ��
1600 '
1500 1418
953
1000
654
500
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
The users of the Local Laker Link were primarily summer school students, the cost per
rider was very high, and rider numbers continued to decline. Although the service was
September 26, 2013 - 3 '
� O4 YR/p��
4 V �'
�
,,,. yixxcso��''_
- valued by the School District and summer school students, the combination of
increasing costs and declining riders meant the City could not sustain this service. For
this reason, the City discontinued the service in 2013.
OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE SERVICE
When the City opted out of the regional service, it committed to providing some sort of
transit service to its residents. The level of service is up to the City. The City has been
committed to providing express service since 2001, and further enhanced that
commitment when it entered into a joint powers agreement with Scott County, the City
of Shakopee and other Scott County communities to form the Transit Review Board in
2004. As part of that agreement, the City is a full partner in BlueXpress and has
provided funding for the Southbridge Crossings Transit Station, the Eagle Creek Transit
Station and the Marschall Road Transit Station.
FUNDING FOR TRANSIT SERVICES
Funding for "opt-out" transit operations is defined by Minnesota Statute. Prior to 2001,
transit was primarily funded from two sources: 1) property taxes, and 2) the State
General Fund. The property tax was enabled in 1970 when the private Twin Cities Rapid
Transit Company (which had provided streetcars, then buses) was taken public. The
property tax continued until 2001 when Minnesota Statutes 473.388 was amended to
set out the formula under which suburban transit providers would receive a share of the
Motor Vehicle Sales Tax (MVST).
In 2010, after the State Constitution was amended to allocate a greater share of MVST
to transit, the Metropolitan Council adopted the Revenue Allocation Policy. While State
statute mandates suburban transit providers a specific percentage of MVST based on
the 2001 legislation, the Metropolitan Council's Revenue Allocation Policy bases the
allocation of any additional share of MVST from the 2006 constitutional amendment on
the provider's fund balance. If a provider's fund balance exceeds the amount
determined by the Metropolitan Council, the provider will not be eligible for any share
of the MVST funds above the original percentage. Transit service in Scott County, and
specifically in Prior Lake and Shakopee, is a relatively young service. Over the years, the
cities have accumulated fund balances to be used to grow transit service and facilities as
population and demand increases. The Revenue Allocation Policy means Prior Lake and
Shakopee must spend down reserves to a minimal amount in order to receive any
additional funds from the region. The longer-term impact is to reduce the ability of
suburban transit communities to retain funds from year to year to make investments.
In 2011, the State Legislature further reduced the amount of MVST allocated to the
suburban transit providers by reducing the amount received in State Fiscal Year 2011 by
a total of $3.3 million in SFY 2012 and 2013. The Metropolitan Council made the
decision on how these reductions would be taken from each provider. For Prior Lake,
this legislation meant a 37% reduction in MVST and for Shakopee it meant a 13%
reduction. Overall, the Scott County reduction is 23%. This reduction expired in SFY
2014 (July, 2013).
September 26, 2013 - 4 -
o F eRio�
; :a t
f � �?
,
'_, M �NNESO�� j :
� The City of Prior Lake's share of MVST in 2013 is currently estimated at approximately
$627,000. In addition, we expect to recoup about $220,000 in fares. These funds, along
with the transit dollars provided previously, are deposited into a Transit fund dedicated
to transit-related activities. The funds are used for operating the bus service, capital
improvements, such as the park and rides and the purchase of buses, and
administration costs. Any unused funds are placed in the Transit reserve, and are used
for expenditures over and above our share of MVST dollars and fare revenues.
With the completion of the Marschall Road Transit Station, the number of park and ride
spaces in Scott County will meet our needs until after 2020, or later.
GOVERNANCE ISSUES
The City, as is true of all opt-out providers, is directly tied to the Metropolitan Council.
Our buses are owned by the Metropolitan Council, and leased to the City. Our funding
is funneled through the Metropolitan Council as well. We are also required to comply
with the Metropolitan Council's transit policies.
There has also been discussion in the Legislature about eliminating the ability of cities to
provide opt-out service, and centralizing all transit services. In 2010, the Office of the
Legislative Auditor conducted a review of the transit governance structure in the Twin
Cities metropolitan area. The report specifically recommended the continuing
operation of the suburban transit providers.
Recently, the Scott County Transit Review Board (TRB) began discussing alternatives to
transit governance in Scott County. With the growth of BlueXpress and County dial-a-
ride services and the near completion of transit capital projects, the time was ripe to
look at the future of transit governance. This is consistent with the recommendations of
the Scott County Unified Transit Management Plan and the Office of the Legislative
Auditor's 2011 report. The TRB considered several options, including joining MVTA,
Southwest Transit, Metro Transit, or combining Shakopee, Prior Lake and Scott County
services. The TRB recommended joining MVTA. The Prior Lake City Council has not
made any decisions at this time.
CURRENT PROJECTS
We have received three grants on behalf of Laker Lines/BlueXpress. The first grant is
the Jobs Access Reverse Commute (JARC) grant. We were awarded $436,000 to create
the BlueXpress Reverse Commute project, which provides a transportation alternative
to workers in the central cities to available jobs in suburban Shakopee and Prior Lake.
The project involves the purchase of a coach bus and the operation of at least three
additional reverse routes to and from downtown Minneapolis. We have partnered with
the SMSC to provide service to Mystic Lake team member. The bus began operations in
January, 2011, and we have added several riders to our service.
We have also been awarded a Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) grant on behalf
of BlueXpress for $1.6 million. This proposal includes funding for 3 coach buses and
start up operating costs to add express service to the University of Minnesota and the I-
September 26, 2013 - 5 '
OF -YRlp� .,,
�
IF� �5.
iV
1 �
''� J
`�. MixNESOt�: ;y;
�`� "� 494 corridor. With the addition of these 3 coaches, BlueXpress will provide direct
service from the Marschall Road Transit Station. We hope to express bus service to the
University of Minnesota, and to provide express service to the I-494 corridor. Buses
should be available in late 2014.
We applied for and have received preliminary approval of a second CMAQ grant for $2.7
million. This proposal includes funding for 3 coach buses and start up operating costs to
provide service to the Marschall Road Transit Station. This grant funding will be
available in 2016.
UPCOMING CHALLENGES
The biggest challenge we will face in the future is funding. The only source of funding
we have at this time is the MVST, which been steadily declined until 2010. Numbers
have slowly increased over the last two years, but not to previous levels.
MVST Receipts
$660,000
27,738
$561,000
$485,016
6,957
,000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Est.2013
Based on current projections, we will be able to sustain our current level of service for
another 5-6 years; however, as we use our reserves, we may have to reevaluate our
level of future service.
September 26, 2013 - 6 -
� 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Scott County Transit Review Board (TRB)
FROM: R. Michael Leek, Shakopee Community Development Director '
SUBIECT: Summary of Approaches outlined by Minnesota Valley Transit Authority
(MVTA), Southwest Transit (SWT} and Metropolitan Council/Metro Transit
MEETING DATE: July 31, 2013
INTRODUCTION:
In preparation for the discussions with the 3 providers identified above, the TRB prepared a series of
questions. These questions were modified somewhat depending on the provider, but are viewed as
useful in summarizing the approaches proffered by all three providers. Thus, this memorandum is
organized around those basic questions. The questions in this memorandum do not exactly match those
for each of the three discussions since they were modified for each discussion, but hopefully reflec# the
basic sense ofthe questions.
SUMMARY:
Foliowing is a summary of the responses from MVTA, SNiT and MC/MT.
GOVERNANCE QUESTIONS:
Why would you consider ddding our communities to your service?
MVTA- MVTA feels it wouid be a natural fit, as MVTA has a vision of being the transit provider south of •
the [Minnesota] river.
SWf- From the discussion, it was not clear why SWT would want to add Scott County communities to its
service. The nature of their response was more on the order of contracting for service ratherthan
merging services.
MC/MT- MC/MT delivers services that connects people with opportunities, supports economic activity
and social interaction. Adding Scott County services builds upon this role both for Scott County and the
Region. '
What is the local representation on your board of directors and how does it relate to your current
structure? How do you see Prior Lake, Shakopee and Scott County in thls struciure?
MVTA- Scott County currently has a representative on the MVTA board of director (i.e. Commissione.r
Jon Ulrich). If inerger occurred, Prior Lake and Shakopee would each gain a seat on the board of
d irectors.
SWT- If inerger occurred, Prior Lake and Shakopee would each gain a seat on the board of directors.
MC/MT- Prior Lake and Shakopee would not gain a seat on the governing body, which is the governor-
appointed Metropolitan Council itself.
I H•\TRANSI"f�TrensitCommission\2013\Summarv-MVfA SWT MC 07312013-JAK
2.dOC%u � n ie��r _ oo� n......a_.�.n�rrn e�em enr mo�an�� a,.�
2
What do you envision as the process for a mergerand transition, including a potential timeline?
MVTA- Discussed coordination with other entities as examples of how the transition might take piace. A
specific timeline was not identified.
SWT- Discussion was very vague and a timeline was not identified.
MC/MT- Suggest a joint review of the Scott County Transit Capital and Operations Plan and discussion of
how that could be implemented through a Transit Cooperation Agreement such as exists with the City of
Minnetonka, Aspecifictimelinewasnotidentified.
COORDINATION W/TH OTHFR ENTITIES:
What is the strategic vision for your agency and what do you see as your future as a transit provider?
MVTA- MVTA sees itself in the future as the south of the Minnesota River transit provider with a role in �
transitways as well (e.g. Cedar Corridor BRT).
SWT- A copy of the 2013-2015 Strategic Plan .was provided, and it appears that the focus is on a)
growing service along TH 212 and TH 169, and b) serving the SW LRT.
MC/MT- The vision is to foster efficient and economic growth in the Region by (in part) providing
reliable, cost effective and sustainable transit services.
How do you see yourself adapting to the region's evolving transit model with the emphasis on
transitway investments over traditional express and loca! routes?
MVTA- South of the River provider, operator Cedar Corridor BRT.
SWT- The focus is on a) growing service along TH 212 and TH 169, and b) serving the SW LRT.
MC/MT- MC/MT does not see the Region moving toward transitways at the expense of express and
local route service. Refers to the Regional Service Improvement Plan (RSIP) as including a commitment
to express and local route service.
What role do you envision you would have in leading the effort to develop BRT on 169 and/or connect
to rhe Region's evolving transitwaysystem?
. MVTA- Expressed excitement at the prospect of a TH 169 transitway, but did not discuss specific steps �
to achieve the goal.
SWT- Representatives did not have a specific answer to this question, and the Strategic Plan does not..
seem to address it either.
MC/MT-'Would explore connections between American Boulevard BRT, TH 212 and TH 169. •
Do you see potential value in coordination with SmartLink?
I H:\TRANSIT\TransitCommisslon\2013\SummaN-MVTA SWT MC 07312013-JAK
2.docw,.�;?�n �T�<__..�„TOO�,,..__,,__�.�„T ., o , ,�., _
,
3
MVTA- Provided a general response related to starting and expanding their own locai services.
SWT- TRB did not ask this question specifically, so there was no specific discussion.
MC/MT- Have a good relationship with Smartlink, but do not have immediate plans for evaluation
and/orexpansion ofthese services.
PLANNING AND SERVICE QUESTIONS:
How do you see northern Scott County, especial/y Shakapee and Prior Lake, �tting into your current
service planning and what adjustments should be made to accommodate these communities?
MVTA- Because their service planning and contracting are similar to Prior Lake's and Shakopee's (e.g.
MVTA also contracts with Schmitty & Sons for bus service} felt that transition would be easier to manage
and benefits would obtain.
SWT- The focus is on a) growing service along TH 212 and TH 169, and b) serving the SW LRT.
MC/MT- Existing and planned services "fit very well" with MC/MT network of express and local services.
Provided a long list of service delivery items about which there would need to be agreement from route
planningto marketing and beyond.
Now would you implement the Scott County Transit Operations and Capital Plan recently adopted?
MVTA- Indicated that as long as the current services, and those in the Plan are working, MVTA would
not cantemplate making changes.
SWT- TRB did not ask this question specifically, so there was no specific discussion.
MC/MT- Suggest a joint review of the Scott County Transit Capital and Operations Plan and discussion of
how that could be implemented through a Transit Cooperation Agreement such as exists with the City of
Minnetonka. A specific timeline was not identified.
How do you see the transition from the existing service contract with Schmitty and Sons to a new
`contract?
MVTA- It was noted that MVTA has similar contract(s) with Schmitty & Sons, and that transition could be
relatively easily accommodated,
SWT- SWT will be rebidding their existing contract in the next year or two; SWT can work with 2
contractors until then.
MC/MT- Metro Transit would plan to provide service with a mix of directly operated service and ;
contracted service.
We have two CMAQ grants for-buses to serve our Park and Ride facilities in the STIP—Prior Lake ln
2013 and Shakopee in ,2015.
1. What expertise do you have in implementing these grants?
I H:\TRANSfT\TrensitCommission\20131Summarv-MVTA SWT MC 07312013-JAK
2.dOIXU.�rnn n�c..,... �rne�n �� "n Ir n
6 � _ _
4
2. How will these grants serve as assets to you in implementing service for our residents?
MVTA- MVTA has staff that can assist with the details of the CMAQ grants and their implementation.
SWT- TRB did not ask this question specifically, so there was no specific discussion.
MC/MT- Not specifically addressed, but the MC administers all CMAQ grants in the Region.
There are cities in Scott County not currentl y being served hy BlueXpress. What is your approach or
philosophy of expansion of service to currently unserved areas?
MVTA-Has recognized providers cannot look at just the current transportation service area, and has
recommended projects outside of the area. Farmington is an ex-officio member of the MVTA board.
SWT-Look at service delivery strategy and partnerships such as those in Chaska and Chanhassen.
MC/MT-Discussed use if dial-a-ride senrice to rural areas. There is not enough demand for regular route
service at this time. '
STAFFING AND RESOURCE QUESTIOIVS:
Are you adeguately staffed to absorb this additionaf service or would additional staff be required? Do
you see a continuing role for existing staff as we make the transition?
MVTA- Adequate staffing
SWT- Adequate staffing
MC/MT-Adequate staffing '
OTHER ORGANIZATIONAL MODELS: '
• A joint powers board between Shakopee and Prior Lake for transit operations other than dial-a-
ride
• A joint powers board between Shakopee, Prior Lake and Scott County for transit operations
including dial-a-ride
• Scott County taking overall all management of commuter transit activities and integrating it into
its existing trans'st program (SmarkLink model)
• County-wide joint powers agreement where all Scott County municipalities contribute funding
to transit services. (County-wide JPA rnodel)
• Maintain the status quo
TRB ACTIOI�t REQUESTED:
Provide staff with direction on the governance approach the TRB wishes to explore more fufly.
I H \TRANSIT�TransttCommission\2013\Summarv-MVTA SWT MC 07312013-JAK
_ 2 .docx : — — — ' —
,
����� �.�Il7CIlll7Cb�]lglLll�ll��
�����b� ���g�� ���.��
Wednesday, July 31st, 2013
Scott County Government Center
200 Fourth Avenue West, Shakopee
7:30 a.m. — 8:30 a.m.
MINUTES
Attendees: Jon Ulrich, Thom Boncher, Lyn Rohe, Christine Kelly, Bob Crawford, Jane
Kansier, Pamela Schurman, Troy Beam, Michael Leek
i. Approve ]une minutes
Christine motioned for approval; Bob seconded. Minutes approved.
2. Discussion of next steps in service merger/collaboration
• Based on the interview and preparation, MVTA was the top choice for members,
• Members felt SW did not have a vision that included our area. They are
viewing 169 as their lifeline for survival. Did not show interest in 35W as a long
term corridor option. The primary benefit for SW would be opportunities for collaboration
on 169 and LRT.
• The Met Council was weli prepared; however, they also did not appear to have a great
interest in the 169 corridor. Their governance structure lacks the ability to make changes
quickly. We would go from having a significant voice to almost no voice. There is also a
redistricting issue. Metro Transit also has a union in place which would add a different
dimension to how to react to their workforce.
If we made an agreement and things did not work out, we probably would not be able to
pull out from an agreement with the Met Council. We could contract with
Metro Transit for service like Maple Grove. However, this arrangement did not benefit
Maple Grove when the state legislature reduced MVST for suburban providers. Maple Grove
did not receive any MVST for 2 years.
• There was group consensus that MVTA was the first priority to explore a
merger/col laboration.
• SW Transit was tabled as a possibility.
• On page 4 of the memorandum distributed by Michael Leek, there was discussion on other
organizational modefs. Commissioner Ulrich felt #1 should be eliminated.
It does not reflect a partnership with Scott County. An ongoing relationship with the county
is important. There is a meeting that relates to transit scheduled for August 20 where a
.05 cent sales tax increase will be discussed. A portion of that increase may go to transit.
Counties can apply for CTIB, transit providers cannot.
Michael suggested #5 be eliminated. John questioned whether the cities cared if they lost
their local voice. Michael stated he was unsure if the Shakopee Council cared as long as the
city continued to receive service. Pamela stated the Shakopee Council is anticipating a
recommendation from the TRB to say yes or no on pursuing a merger. Jane stated the Prior
Lake Council is looking to the TRB for recommendations on the future of transit in their
community.
Chair.� Jon Ulrich, Scoff Counfy Commissioner Members: Mike McGuire, P�ior Lake Council
Vice-Chair. Bob Crawford, Elko New Markef Council Thom Boncher, Jordan Council
Open, New Prague Council
Scott Schneider, Be11e Plaine Counci!
Pamela Schurman, Shakopee Council
Thomas Terry, City Adminisfrator-Elko New Markef
Christine Kelly, Savage Counci!
n����� �.�ll�7lll�C11�JJ11Cllg�fl��
7C����g� ���b�� ���.��
• Next step: A letter from the Tf�6 to the Shakopee and Prior Lake Councils and the County
Board, suggesting that more detailed discussions should be entered into with MVTA, Tf the
Councils and the Board agree, send a letter to MVTA. Then set up a committee to discuss
how to move forward.
• The Prior Lake Council would prefer a single track approach rather than a dual track
approach. Michael suggested we advise the councils that other models were reviewed,
There are a few that have merit, but we will not pursue them unless conversations with
MVTA are not fruitful. �
• Jon questioned if funding were not an issue past 2016, would we be thinking differently?
There is pressure for consolidation at the legislative level. From a funding perspective, we
will continue to be under pressure. . The Met Council will continue to pressure the smaller
providers. Their vision is that transit should all be operated under one roof.
� When questioned about running our own buses to the airport, Mall of America, etc., Jane
stated with more operating money we could do a lot of things. We could potentially grow
our ridership by 20% if we had more buses. Michaei stated if we owned some of our own
buses and they were not a part of the regional fleet, other than coordinating with the
region, we would not have to deal with the Met Council.
It all goes to governance at a regional level. The Met Council governance depends on the
orientation of the governor.
Jon mentioned the meeting on 8/20 again regarding the .05 cent sales tax. It may not be
.05, it may be an eighth, and it may not be totally devoted to transit.
]ane stated the outcome of the sales tax discussion may influence the direction the TRB
ta kes .
• Pamela Schurman motioned, and Christine Kelly seconded the motion to explore further, a
merger/consolidation with MVTA. The motion carried,
3. Update on Marschall Road Transit Station (MRTS)
The project is on time for library staff to move in late August. Michael explained a
situation that has arisen with Apple Ford. The dealership plans to use two adjoining
vacant lots to expand. They currently have a CUP, they want to combine two lots
into one parcei, On the minor subdivision, the county has stated the lots could not
be combined because they are in two different taxing zones through the watershed
district. Michael would like to combine the two properties, and may need help
working with county staff to get this accomplished.
4. Other
i
I35 Solutions Alliance Update '
Planning for a future transit station at CH70, and included Elko New Market as part �
of their future plans. Reorganized all the way down not only for Dakota County, but �
Scott County as well.
169 Corridor Coalition Update
Coalition is in kind of a reorganization mode. The have had a regional corridor advocate
for the past several years. They are moving away from an advocate and are going to hire
an administrative person who wili help with newsletters, agendas, marketing, etc. to
provide greater efficiency.
Chair. Jon Ulrrch, Scotf CounfyCommissioner Members: Mike McGuire, PriorLake Council
Vice-Chair.• Bob Crawford, Elko New Market Council Thom Boncher, Jordan Council
Open, New Prague Council
Scott Schneider, Belle Plaine Council
Pamela Schurman, Shakopee Council
Thomas Terry, City Administrator-Efko New Markef
Christine Kelly, Savage Council
����� ��n�n���n����
7C��.��n� ]E������ 1�����
CTIB Update
There wili be a tour in the fall by County Boards from five counties. Carver and Scott
will join in the tour.
MVTA Update
Michaei Abegg left.
5. Other
The article in the Star Trib reporting on the transit way study was misleading. There was
a lively discussion that was interesting and positive, according to Jon and Jane. Lisa is on the
transit way project management team. It will be interesting to hear how they took
the discussion and how they are going to move forward,
Michael reported that during the last meeting of an intergovernmental working group
involving the county, Shakopee, Prior Lake, and the SMSC, the SMSC reported they
have funding available that could be dedicated to making an additional lane on 169
to 83, There have been ongoing discussions with MnDOT, and it seems they may be
softening their position. There is long term potential on CH83, both job based and
destination based. The group will look at how to partner together. Jon questioned
whether the tribe might be interested in another lane over the Ferry Bridge. ,
Schmitty's is staging an extra bus at Southbridge in the morning and in the afternoon to handle
crowding issues and timing issues occurring as a result of the road work on the Bloomington Ferry
Bridge.
Pam Schurman motioned for adjournment; Christine Kelly seconded.
Meeting adjourned at 0828.
Next meeting date: Wednesday, August 28th, 2013
Chair.� Jon Ulrich, Scotf CounfyCommissioner Members: Mike McGuire, PriorLake Counci!
Vice-Chair.• Bob Crawford, Elko New Market Counci! Thom Boncher, Jordan Counci!
Open, New Prague Counci!
Scotf Schneider, Belle Plaine Council
Pamela Schurman, Shakopee Counci!
Thomas Terry, CityAdministrator-Elko New Market
Chrisfine Kelly, Savage Council
I