Transportation Cooperation Council Meeting Wednesday May 27, 2009 7:00pm County Administration Building, Room 201

Ed Eilert Fourth District Johnson County Board of Commissioners Chair, Transportation Cooperation Council

Meeting Summary Attendees

TCC Voting Members David Dillner Edgerton James Azeltine - Leawood David Belz Prairie Village Erik Sartorius Overland Park Tim Green Lenexa Lawrence Andre Mission Adrienne Foster Roeland Park Others Attending Ed Eilert BOCC & TCC Chairman Ed Peterson BOCC Ron Freyermuth Shawnee Mike Boehm Lenexa Mac Andrew JoCo Public Works Brian Pietig JoCo Public Works Kelly Stull JoCo Public Works Rise Haneberg JoCo County Mgrs Office Marge Vogt Olathe Mickey Sandifer - Shawnee Elliot Lahn Merriam Chris Leaton Spring Hill John Shepherd - Gardner John Sullivan Westwood/Mission Wood Doug Wood BOCC

Annabeth Surbaugh BOCC Alice Amrein JoCo Transit David Greene Gardner Steve Klika Transportation Council James Joerke JoCo Facilities Kent Lage JoCo Public Works Mary Biere JoCo HR

Welcome The meeting convened at 7:02 pm with a welcome from Commissioner Eilert and introductions. Acceptance of Meeting Summary Motion to accept the January 7, 2009 Meeting Summary was seconded and passed. Opening Comments Commissioner Eilert informed the group that since taking over as chairman of the TCC, he has tried to contact each citys TCC member and/or mayor to get a feel on the future of the TCC. In general, about one-half of the cities would not mind if the TCC went away while the other half thinks there should be an opportunity to proceed but with more focus.

\\Pwksfil02\data\transportation cooperation council\20090527TCCMeeting\20090527MeetingSummary.doc

Page 1 of 6

Commissioner Eilert stated that a large part of this meeting agenda is an attempt to bring the group to a focus or to an agenda that has meaning and measurable results some time down the road. Other feedback received during the meetings with cities representatives was whether or not the TCC should meet as frequently as it has in the past this remains an open question and may depend on what focus the TCC members decide to take. Some of the transportation issues and concerns that the TCC was identified to address are already being addressed by others specifically the Transportation Council. Commissioner Eilert stated that is why he asked Steve Klika to attend to help determine if there is some way that the TCC can assist the Transportation Council without duplicating their efforts. Review of intent of TCC Inter Local Agreement Mr. Kent Lage stated that the TCC interlocal agreement has been signed by all 20 cities and the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Lage presented the following excerpts from the interlocal agreement as a basis for identifying the intent of the TCC (presentation summary handout attached): 1. WHEREAS, one of the primary shared interests for the COUNTY and the CITIES is transportation planning which is necessary to maintain and improve mobility throughout the community and to ensure coordination in regional transportation programs and projects 2. WHEREAS, the COUNTY and the CITIES deem it to be in the best interests of the public and the citizens and residents of the County and the Cities to cooperate in transportation planning; to pursue a unified vision of transportation for the entire community; and to work together on transportation issues in relations with regional planning organizations, adjacent municipalities, and with federal and state government agencies 3. The purpose of this Agreement is to establish a council of local government representatives for the purpose of addressing transportation planning issues in and throughout the area of Johnson County and to promote intergovernmental cooperation by providing a forum and operating structure through which local elected and appointed policymakers can discuss and create a unified vision of transportation within Johnson County to preserve and enhance mobility and transportation- related environmental stewardship. This Agreement is not intended to create a separate or independent legal entity. It is intended to establish an advisory council which can and will provide consultation and make recommendations to the County and to individual cities on public investments in transportation or plans and proposals related to transportation issues. 4. The Transportation Cooperation Council shall be organized and exist as an advisory body, serving in an advisory capacity to the COUNTY and to each or all of the participating member CITIES. 5. The purpose of the Council is to promote collaboration in transportation planning through the pursuit of a unified vision of transportation and providing a resource to review and comment upon transportation plans, proposals and issues as they affect the community of Johnson County. 6. The Transportation Cooperation Council will, as it deems advisable, perform the following functions and issue the following reports: Identify, recommend, promote, and support transportation goals, proposals, projects and issues for the whole community, giving due recognition to the diverse needs

\\Pwksfil02\data\transportation cooperation council\20090527TCCMeeting\20090527MeetingSummary.doc

Page 2 of 6

within the community, the independent authority of the participating jurisdictions, and the environmental and economic impacts of transportation issues; Encourage partnering among the CITIES and with the COUNTY on transportation design and planning, on financing and funding opportunities for projects, and on other matters related to the goal of maintaining and improving the communitys shared transportation systems; Assist local entities in securing and maximizing transportation related resources; On its own initiative or at the request of a participating member CITY or the COUNTY, or by appropriate official request of an agency stakeholder, review and provide comment upon any proposals, plans, projects or other issues, consistent with the goals and objectives of this Agreement and the Council, but such review and comment shall not regulate, permit, restrict or limit any authority of the CITY or COUNTY with respect to such proposal, plan or project; Establish and maintain cooperative work relationships with key community stakeholders, with the identified Agency Stakeholders, and with the Transportation related advisory bodies now functioning within CITIES and the COUNTY, including the Transportation Council and the Technical Review Committee of the County Assisted Roads System (CARS) program.

Mr. Lage also presented the TCC purpose summary and actions these are included in the attached presentation summary handout. Commissioner Eilert stated that he believed it was important to review why the TCC was formed and why the TCC membership was attending the meetings based on the TCC interlocal agreement. He also noted that one of the prevailing issues that cross city boundaries is public transportation and the feedback he received is that there is interest in public transportation. Since an established responsibility for the Transportation Council is to advise the Board of County Commissioners on public transportation, Commissioner Eilert asked Mr. Klika to comment on whether there could be a role for the TCC to support or assist the Transportation Council. Mr. Klika told the group that the Transportation Council was organized approximately five years ago to be a policy, planning, and oversight group for the Countys transit system. The Transportation Council is responsible for developing the short and long range plans of the countys transit system as well as approving policy for the Council and providing the operating oversight for the transit system. The Transportation Council is comprised of 12 members appointed by the County Commissioners to represent all areas of the county. Approximately one year ago, the Transportation Councils five-year plan was approved and the Council is now moving forward with implementation. Mr. Klika noted the following two areas where he believes the TCC could assist the Transportation Council: 1. Five-Year Strategic Plan implementation Assist in implementation of the plan to for complete development of the fixed route system which supports major arterial routes, expand express services, elderly and handicapped services, and focus on major projects such as Vision-Metcalf and the I-35 corridor. Each city is responsible for transit within the city limits in cooperation with the Transportation Council. The TCC could assist with integration of the

\\Pwksfil02\data\transportation cooperation council\20090527TCCMeeting\20090527MeetingSummary.doc

Page 3 of 6

city transit systems and the County system and to educate the municipalities as to what is happening with the transit system and how it affects their city and the county as a whole. 2. Funding The request going into the County Commissioners will be in the range of $5 million to $6 million this year to keep the plan moving forward. Over the next five years annual funding will be on the order of $30-40 million to fully implement the plan. Funding is a major issue that needs to be addressed that the TCC could help with. Commissioner Eilert noted that one of the issues presented by members/mayors during his discussions is how to fund public transportation, the CARS Program, a western highway and other needs when there is no money. With todays environment there probably isnt that kind of money but we shouldnt throw up our hands and not plan for the future. Maybe this could be one issue for the TCC to investigate. With the major engineering companies in the region that work all over the county/world, maybe there is an opportunity to learn from them on a process or system for funding that is outside of the box that may work for Johnson County other than simply looking to the state, raising property taxes or sales tax. There is no reason to duplicate what others may have evaluated for funding or what the Transportation Council is responsible for. But a worthwhile action may be to cooperate, support and promote others efforts. The other major issue expressed to Commissioner Eilert is that there is no need to meet just to meet which most would agree with. Perhaps tonight, the TCC might identify several issues to focus on for the future and that is the challenge for the meeting tonight. Commissioner Eilert opened the floor for a discussion. Johnson County Chairman of the Board Annabeth Surbaugh commented that the previous meetings had gone in a lot of different directions and questioned if we are attempting to fill a void when the void cannot be defined and if so, then why should the TCC continue to meet. Chairman Surbaugh clarified that she is not saying that the TCC should not meet but noted that a lot of staff time and public facilities are used to conduct these meetings and wonders if the TCC is meeting only because it is already established. Commissioner Eilert replied by saying it was not a consensus from the members that the TCC should meet just to meet but more that this is what may have been happening previously. The feedback during this meeting will help determine whether or not the TCC should move forward, and if so, in what direction. One comment was made that the TCC appeared to be a good group of stakeholders and might be able to assist collectively with dealing with the funding issue. The question was raised about pursuing/receiving stimulus money the response was that stimulus funds have been secured in numerous cities and the county. Mr. Klika clarified that there are two primary concerns for transit to deal with 1) capital which is an ongoing effort to deal with federal funds (which require local matching funds) and 2) the bigger issue is the ability of Johnson County to sustain operations. $50 million per year is needed to run the envisioned transit system for the county and the federal funds cannot be used to support the daily operations costs.

\\Pwksfil02\data\transportation cooperation council\20090527TCCMeeting\20090527MeetingSummary.doc

Page 4 of 6

Small group discussion on future focus for TCC The meeting attendees were divided into three groups to discuss the future focus for the TCC. The groups were facilitated by Mary Biere, Rise Haneberg and Kent Lage. After approximately 25 minutes, the groups reconvened with the following suggestions identified between the three groups: 1. Share information (education) 2. Planning, coordination & implementation of plans 3. Collaborate 4. Think-tank 5. Regional focus 6. Funding opportunities 7. Policy board for transportation vision for Johnson County 8. Mechanism for discussing transportation issues 9. Prioritize transportation projects 10. Lobby for funding Comments made regarding this list included: Concerns that at previous meetings where funding was discussed, not much came out of the discussions. If funding is discussed in the future it should be approached in a different manner. This list assumes that there is interest in keeping the TCC in existence. The TCC needs to look at where it fits as a committee in the county and the region. The TCC needs a vision. An original intent of the TCC may have been to provide a mechanism/group to discuss issues as they arise aka south metro, bus rapid transit. The TCC should meet only when there is a specific issue that the BOCC refers to the TCC. This is not a nuts and bolts group the TCC should look at high-level issues only. Should the TCC be elected officials only? Are we forcing a purpose onto a structure? Should the focus of the TCC be split between reactive and proactive efforts? The TCC could be active and handle issues such as funding and could be directed on issues such as collaboration and planning. TCC members are liaisons between the County/TCC and the cities. The TCC is comprised of people who can make things happen if funding were available. What can the TCC do with the low budget? Attending the TCC has been very informational and eliminating the TCC would not be advised. However, if the TCC cant succeed with an issue or topic, then the TCC should be cautious about getting involved. A number of the items identified would be good if the time is right but the time in not right (and not just referencing money/economic conditions).

\\Pwksfil02\data\transportation cooperation council\20090527TCCMeeting\20090527MeetingSummary.doc

Page 5 of 6

Each member was asked to vote for his/her top three priorities for why the TCC should meet. The top three topics selected were: 1. Exploring funding opportunities (including lobbying) 13 votes 2. Regional focus (Johnson County) 11 votes 3. Mechanism for transportation discussions as directed (aka standing task force to address issues identified by the BOCC or a city) 18 votes Voting for two of these three topics, discussions as directed received 19 votes, regional focus received ten votes and exploring funding opportunities received eight votes. Vice-chairman Lawrence Andre provided the following summary points: There is no need to meet unless a purpose is identified. There are significant transportation needs in Johnson County. Should these needs be addressed now or in the future? The BOCC or the cities working through the BOCC should drive the TCC meetings/process. In essence, the TCC is telling the BOCC that it is available to work on issues and will meet when asked. Commissioner Eilert stated that he believes this summary is consistent with what he heard from his previous discussions with city representatives regarding the TCC. He also noted that his understanding from the discussions tonight is that the direction the TCC should take is to be on-call and meet at the request of the BOCC or a city. It was commented that this approach would seem to be a more reactive approach rather than a proactive approach. To be proactive, the BOCC might want the TCC to compile the list of needs, priorities and associated costs so that if funding does become available the TCC is not reacting to develop the costs and priorities. Commissioner Eilert noted that a discussion for the future may be the composition of the TCC should it be both elected and appointed? It was commented that a next step could be that the interlocal agreement be redrafted based on the discussions tonight to reflect that the TCC is to provide a mechanism for transportation discussions as directed by the BOCC or a city. The meeting was adjourned at 8.31pm.

\\Pwksfil02\data\transportation cooperation council\20090527TCCMeeting\20090527MeetingSummary.doc

Page 6 of 6