PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING

June 24, 2015

The Public Works Committee meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mr. Fred Spears, Chair. The following members were present, constituting a quorum:

Mr. Richard Collins, Vice Chair; Mr. John Skubal; Mr. Paul Lyons; Mr. Jim Kite; and Mrs. Terry Happer Scheier.

Also present were: Mr. David White, Councilmember; Mr. Bill Ebel, City Manager; Mrs. Kate Gunja, Assistant City Manager; Mrs. Tammy Owens, Deputy City Attorney; Mr. Dave Scott, Chief Financial Officer; Ms. Gena McDonald, Assistant Chief Financial Officer; Mr. Anthony Hofmann, Director of Public Works; Mr. Brian Shields, City Traffic Engineer; Mr. Mike Miller, Assistant to the Director; Mr. Richard Profaizer, Maintenance Operations Manager; Mr. Sean Ruis, Public Works Maintenance Supervisor; Mr. Scott McClure, PC Technician; and Ms. Kathleen Behrens, Recording Secretary. Approximately five people from the public were in the audience. ______

Chair Fred Spears took the Chair’s prerogative of addressing the agenda items out of order.

JOHNSON COUNTY TRANSIT UPDATE

Mr. Chip Corcoran, president, Renaissance Infrastructure Consulting, 13006 Walmer, spoke on behalf of Johnson County Transit, Transportation Council. He introduced his colleagues, Ms. Alice Amrein, transit administrator, Johnson County, Kansas Government and Mr. Dick Jarrold, vice president regional planning and development, Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA).

Over the last six to seven years, there have been many financial challenges across the country and in Johnson County. A lot of work has been done in the area of trans- portation services in Johnson County during that time. The County assembled the Strategic Transit Action Recommendation Taskforce (START) in 2009 to study transportation services. They made a presentation to the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) in 2011 when they developed a long-term strategy for trans- portation services in the County. Financial challenges at the time limited their ability to implement the entire strategic plan, so they broke it into three pieces; short-term, medium-term, and long-term plans. During that same time period, the County was fortunate to partner with Overland Park to obtain a Transportation Infrastructure Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant from the federal government that helped support significant infrastructure improvements along the Metcalf corridor. The infra- structure took approximately three years and was completed in 2013.

Mr. Corcoran relayed that he is Chair of the Johnson County Transportation Council (JCTC). The JCTC consists of a body of individuals who were appointed by the Board of County Commissioners to advise them on transportation issues. The JCTC investi- gated the services being provided. They implemented the START strategic plan with the hope of making some significant changes. Those changes took place in subse- quent years. Some changes to the system’s operation happened. Simply by reviewing Public Works Committee Meeting June 24, 2015 Page 2 the different programs and examining things to a greater degree, significant savings was realized with how the County provided its services.

Between 2014 and 2015, a management consolidation took place between the JCTC and the KCATA. That consolidation had always been discussed, but it did not take motion until mid-2014. By the end of 2014, an agreement was reached that folded the management of the Johnson County system into the KCATA system, which began the process to regionalize Kansas City’s transportation system. The consolidation resulted in huge savings, not to mention a multitude of efficiencies. Services were substan- tially improved, along with access to County residents and to the overall region.

Ms. Alice Amrein, transit administrator, Johnson County, Kansas Government, reported that Johnson County Transit offered three programs. The JO is the County’s commuter express service. It predominantly takes people to and from the downtown Kansas City central business district for employment. The JO also offers limited midday service. The Metcalf and 75th Street services operate all day, but have limited hours and service. The Special Edition Program was designed for elderly and disabled residents. Those individuals can utilize the service for any trip purpose of their choice within the County limits. The program also transports to limited service areas in Kansas City, Kansas, and Kansas City, Missouri, for medical-related trips. The request for additional resources will significantly change the program moving forward. Sheltered Workshop Industrial Fixed Transit is a service provided to the Johnson County Developmental Support agency and transports clients to and from the workshop in Lenexa.

The JO is comprised of three different components. The Xpress service utilizes I-35. The Xpress bus is allowed to drive on the shoulder when interstate traffic is moving slower than 35 mph. It can continue traveling on the shoulder until it is able to merge back into the regular flow of traffic.

The Connect service concentrates on localized Metcalf and 75th Street east/west connections and north/south connections throughout Johnson County. A grid system is being created in the County for people to commute throughout Johnson County without having to first travel to the downtown Kansas City central business district.

The Johnson County Transit local services operate into portions of Kansas City, Kansas, and Kansas City, Missouri, but the service area is limited. The routes are longer and not typically conducive as a commuting option.

The Route J service is offered to residents of Overland Park Towers and Santa Fe Towers. This is a cooperative agreement between Johnson County Transit and the City of Overland Park. It has been in place for over 25 years. The program was initiated by the City of Overland Park and it continues to operate two days a week.

Total Johnson County Transit annual ridership is nearly 600,000 and has been on a steady increase. When gas prices started to decline, the program experienced some- what of a decline as well. Most of that ridership was seen on the K-10 connector route.

Mr. Corcoran stated since the inception of the strategic plan, the Johnson County Board of County Commissioners has been very active and focused on the system and its operation. They continue to search for more efficient ways to operate the system, Public Works Committee Meeting June 24, 2015 Page 3 but also try to get the most out of it, in terms of getting people to the places they need to go.

In 2012, Johnson County Transit implemented $327,094 in annual service reductions, which related to underperforming routes. It was found that while the routes were providing a service to people, they were underperforming nonetheless. Those were hard changes to make, because they affected people’s livelihood and ability to have access to their jobs.

Johnson County Transit entered into some agreements with the KCATA, in terms of how they operate the bus system. Several buses are now parked downtown. They investigated different fuel agreements. They were able to produce $1 million in savings from system operation out of the budget. The system operates under a service contract with Kansas City First Transit. A restructure of that contract provided an additional $500,000 in annual savings. The management consolidation resulted in another $450,000 in annual savings. It primarily involved the consolidation of staff positions and the administration of the program. Over time, the system found efficiencies that totaled $2,360,624.

Johnson County Transit federal funding flows through the KCATA. It is a complicated formula, but the KCATA is responsible for distributing the funds and conducted reviews of both the County system and their system to determine different ways to cooperate. Those efforts ultimately resulted in additional revenues to the County system of $1.2 million. Johnson County Transit’s annual budget is $13 million, so the savings was significant in their efforts to both find savings and search for good revenue sources for the system over that period of time. Chair Spears asked if $13 million was the net budget after the increase in revenue of $2,360,624. Ms. Amrein answered yes, based on capital, but sometimes it is higher. Mr. Corcoran stated the system positioned itself to strategically begin looking to the future. Operational programs, management, and administration have been put in place to begin to enhance the services.

As part of the 2016 budget process, Ms. Amrein stated the JCTC and staff submitted three requests for additional resources to the Board of County Commissioners. The first request was an expansion of service between Wyandotte County, Kansas University Medical Center (KUMC), and the Mission Transit Center. The expansion equates to approximately $55,000 that Johnson County Transit will fund out of its existing resources within the transit budget. It will begin to make connections between Wyandotte County and Johnson County. The KCATA will operate the route. It will be the first time to have a KCATA bus operating at the Mission Transit Center. It is the first time a route has been funded by all three jurisdictions.

Ms. Amrein stated they are requesting approximately $1.1 million for the Metcalf/ 75th Street and connector services. The plan is beginning to create more of the grid system within Johnson County, so people can commute within Johnson County using their system.

Johnson County Transit has received two requests for additional resources as it relates to the paratransit service expansion. One relates to the Special Edition Program. It involves the expansion of service and removal of the trip restrictions. As previously mentioned, Special Edition riders are only allowed to go to medical appoint- ments in Kansas City, Kansas, or Kansas City, Missouri, in the areas where they Public Works Committee Meeting June 24, 2015 Page 4 provide service. The request would remove that restriction, so people can use the service to travel to other locations besides medical-related services. The City of Kansas City, Missouri, said they would match the $455,000 with a like amount for Jackson County, Missouri, and Kansas City, Missouri, residents to move into portions of Johnson County. That was a significant boost in interjurisdictional connectivity for the disabled and elderly populations.

Ms. Amrein stated when Mr. Corcoran spoke to the cost savings over the last several years, part of it has been a result of trying different ways of service delivery. The Direct Taxi Voucher Program is a pilot program. A person will be able to purchase vouchers and call a taxi company or a vendor to schedule their trips themselves, versus calling the scheduling office to request a trip and be placed on a route. The program will also test the demand in the portions of Johnson County where the Special Edition Program is not provided. The Special Edition service area is bounded by 159th Street to the south, State Line Road to the east, County Line to the north, and K-7 to the west. There are large less dense areas where they plan to begin testing demand. Mr. Spears asked if the vouchers would work for Uber companies. Ms. Amrein replied that they plan to write a Request for Proposal (RFP) on the vouchers. Typically, they would start with a taxi voucher. She usually waits for the KCATA to begin a program to see how it works before she suggests rolling the program out in Johnson County. The KCATA is currently exploring the Uber and Lyft services to see how they could work into the program.

Based on the modified program, Ms. Amrein stated the total request for additional resources is $1,950,000. The Taxi Voucher Program was reduced to $375,000 in County support. The KCATA will award $100,000 in grant money, for a total project of $475,000.

With regard to regional connections, Mr. Corcoran stated one concern of the KCATA is how to grow ridership on the Johnson County system. The current system is good, but ridership needs to grow. They believe one of the contributing factors to the lack of growth and ridership on the fixed routes is the insufficient amount of strong connections. One concept that will be used alongside the request for additional revenue would be to improve those connections.

Mr. Corcoran presented a regional connection and pointed out an existing route, Route No. 107, which is operated by The Metro in Wyandotte County and does very well. The route offers approximately 750 daily trips. It comes close to Johnson County, but not all the way to the Mission Transit Center. The plan includes connecting Route No. 107 into the Mission Transit Center, which would provide connections to KUMC, as well as facilities throughout Wyandotte County. More importantly, it will provide a connection for Wyandotte County residents to access Johnson County for employment or other activities. Because it is a shared service, The Metro and the Unified Government of Johnson County agreed to participate in funding to fill that gap. It will not be a particularly expensive annual cost and will cost Johnson County approximately $55,000 per year. Johnson County Transit believes it would be a good investment and create real potential for the connection to grow ridership on Route No. 107, and the rest of the connecting lines.

Mr. Corcoran addressed the 95th Street route. KCATA Route No. 175 is a reverse commute route that provides service in the mornings and afternoons. It comes out of Kansas City, Missouri, and has very strong ridership into Johnson County in the Public Works Committee Meeting June 24, 2015 Page 5 mornings and the reverse in the afternoons. Johnson County Transit would like to expand the route. They believe there is good demand for service on this particular route. It also provides a connection from Johnson County to two Metro Area Express (MAX) lines in the Waldo area along 75th Street. The intent is to expand that service more than simply a.m. and p.m. peaks and more through the midday on an hourly basis using 95th Street and Metcalf. It will access job centers south of I-435, in the vicinity of Corporate Woods and the Sprint campus. Many of the passengers use the service to travel to the hospitals in that vicinity. They believe expansion of the route has good potential. The KCATA will participate with Johnson County on the expansion.

Mr. Corcoran stated the hope is to improve connections between the two major spines in this part of the community, Metcalf north/south and 75th Street east/west. Currently, The JO 75th Street route connects to the Main Street MAX line and Waldo. It also connects with the Troost MAX line. It operates every two hours. The Metcalf route operates every hour; every 30 minutes during peak times. They think that makes for difficult connections and believe there is good demand for connections between the two routes. Part of the proposal is to make the frequency of the 75th Street route comparable to the frequency of the Metcalf route. They also are working to improve how the connections are physically made. They will be simple connections, as opposed to a person having to cross 10 lanes of traffic.

The plan will not increase service levels on Metcalf. They will increase the areas accessible from the Metcalf corridor. Johnson County Community College is a potential market for the system. On the south end of Metcalf, they plan to take some of the trips over to Johnson County Community College and travel through the areas in and around Corporate Woods and 119th Street. The routes have yet to be definitively set. The KCATA has excellent ridership with the universities on the Missouri side of the Kansas City metropolitan area, the University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC) in particular. They currently have an agreement in place with UMKC and nearly 1,000 of their students utilize the transit service on a consistent basis. The services are not as robust in Johnson County, but they believe there is a market. If they offered better services, students are a market for transit and would be one way to grow transit operations.

Mr. Corcoran stated they plan to provide better service south of 135th Street. They believe there is market potential in that area of the County, so people are able to access their places of employment. That is a relatively lower cost piece of the improve- ment and those connections have an annual estimated cost of approximately $40,000.

Mr. Corcoran addressed the blue line, or the Nall route. This route offers limited service and only operates during peak hours. The route travels to the Mission Transit Center and into downtown Kansas City. Ridership on that route is extremely low. The intent is to extend the route along 95th Street to the west over to Lenexa, where it can access a strong job market in the vicinity of Renner Road.

All of the aforementioned routes involved in the request for additional resources are currently under review by the Johnson County Board of Commissioners. It is the $1.1 million component of the request. A lot of activity centers will now be accessible in a better way if the proposed connections go into place in 2016.

Public Works Committee Meeting June 24, 2015 Page 6

If the Johnson County Board of Commissioners approves the plan, Ms. Amrein said major public education and marketing processes will be an absolute necessity. Johnson County Transit will work with employers and the businesses along the corridor. They hope employers will provide support of the system as they move into that phase of the project, because it is an important piece that needs to take place before the service is deployed. Mr. Corcoran said they want to offer well-designed services and bring an adequate amount of awareness to the public. Discussions will take place with the various cities within the County, the business community, and other entities. They may find that route adjustment is necessary to better serve the community. Once the concepts are refined, conversations will take place with the community to ensure the right services are deployed to adequately meet demand.

Mr. Spears asked if there had been any discussion on weekend dedicated express routes to and from Johnson County to various downtown venues, such as the Kauffman Center for the Performing Arts or the Crossroads District. He suggested that the routes could begin in the early evening hours and return at midnight or later. Ms. Amrein replied that was something they wanted to do, but it was scaled back from the original proposal. The proposal is limited to evening service Monday through Friday only. Before evening service routes can be deployed, they will first have to meet with the Johnson County Board of Commissioners and receive approval. They recog- nize there is some demand to expand the evening services into the weekends at a later date.

Mr. Paul Lyons referred to the bus service along 75th Street linking to the bus service along the Metcalf corridor. He asked if a bus stop would be placed in the vicinity of the intersection at 75th Street and Metcalf. Ms. Amrein replied there is already a bus stop at that intersection in the CVS parking lot. That stop was included in the TIGER grant. They hope to make the routes more seamless so riders are not required to cross the street to get to their next connection. That will involve interlining the connections. They will continue to work on those things with the KCATA. More importantly, along the 75th Street route, will be to increase frequency to better match up with the Metcalf route. That will make the transitions more efficient, so people do not have to wait an hour or more for their next connection. This will be a function of timing the routes in a more accommodating way, so people have time to move from route to route through the various connections.

Mr. Lyons said The JO service along Metcalf has been in place for a few years. He asked Ms. Amrein to elaborate on its success or lack thereof. Ms. Amrein responded that The JO’s success has not hit the goals they initially hoped it would. Part of the problem involved the drop in the economy in 2008 and 2009, as well as development not happening along the Metcalf corridor as soon as they anticipated. Johnson County Transit has determined they may have started the service a couple of years too early, but they received the TIGER grant. Included in the requirements to receive that grant money was to get the service in place to accommodate the investments being made along the Metcalf corridor.

As the Metcalf South corridor redevelopment begins to happen, Ms. Amrein said it will be beneficial to include Johnson County Transit in the discussions that involve public transportation. They will need to determine if the transit service should travel through the development to pick up passengers, versus keeping the stop directly on Metcalf. That is another reason they are eager to meet with developers and area businesses. They want to find out exactly what they are looking for and how the current system Public Works Committee Meeting June 24, 2015 Page 7 and routes might be modified to better accommodate their needs. The Metcalf service line is almost entirely comprised of northbound/southbound trips and has very few east/west connections. The Xpress service on Metcalf that travels into the downtown Kansas City central business district draws great ridership. The local route along Metcalf does not draw that same level of ridership.

Mr. Lyons could not recall ever receiving an advertisement or any other type of marketing material to alert him when that transit service was first put in place. He asked what type of communications or marketing efforts were planned to notify people of the transit service when the modifications are made to existing service routes and times. Ms. Amrein found Mr. Lyons’ comments disappointing, because Johnson County Transit did an extensive marketing outreach when the program was initially rolled out. They sent out mailers to residents and businesses that were located three- quarters of a mile within the service area. Mr. Lyons suggested he might live outside the notification area. Ms. Amrein said the system update will involve an extensive marketing campaign. They plan to conduct face-to-face meetings with local businesses to discuss how the bus service could be beneficial to their employees. They will find out where employees are traveling from to come to work, so they are able to determine the locations for the best connections. Money has been set aside for those marketing labors, because public education and marketing is a real part of their strategy moving forward.

Mr. Lyons asked for the primary cost elements when a service or route is added to the system. Ms. Amrein replied primary costs stem from the maintenance and operation of the overall system. They have capital equipment, although some of it is beginning to wear. Eight new buses will be rolled out in October 2015. Primary costs lie in the areas of service operation, drivers, maintenance, and fuel. Mr. Corcoran said the primary costs to the KCATA are relatively the same. Labor and maintenance produce the highest costs.

Mr. Corcoran stated the Metcalf corridor local service carries approximately 200 people a day. Those numbers are extremely low for a suburban corridor the size of Metcalf. They have not determined exactly why the numbers are so low. Some people may not know about the service. Part of the reason involves the need for improved connections. Both Johnson County Transit and the KCATA need to understand why ridership is where it is today and task themselves to get people to use the system. The system update will make bus service easier for the user. They are promoting a new $3 pass for local service that can be used all day. The $3 pass will be easier to use than having to produce $2.25 every time a rider goes in a different direction.

Mr. John Skubal calculated that the system was being subsidized at about $20 a rider. There are approximately 600,000 people riding the buses and subsidizing a budget of $13 million. Ms. Amrein replied the subsidy on Johnson County Transit is about $11 a trip. The higher subsidy is associated with the special services offered to elderly and disabled individuals, because they are more costly to operate than a fixed route. Mr. Skubal asked if that was a national average, high, or low. Ms. Amrein replied that it varies by type of system. The cost is well within the range for the type of system operating in the Kansas City area. They use Fair Box Recovery as a perform- ance measure. They set a 20 percent goal and are at about 17 percent. The subsidized cost is not where they would want it to be long-term. When ridership increases costs will decrease.

Public Works Committee Meeting June 24, 2015 Page 8

Mr. Corcoran stated the system will become more efficient through transit services that accommodate transportation needs, rather than making special service calls. Subsidy will begin to reduce, with more efficient delivery of the special services. Mr. Skubal asked about the Special Edition customers and if they could ask the bus driver to take them to the bank. Ms. Amrein answered yes. The JO Special Edition customers are allowed to request rides for any trip purpose within Johnson County. Mr. Skubal said they would be refused a trip to KU Medical Center. Ms. Amrein said that was correct. Special Edition customers have to be at least 65 years old to use the service. Mr. Skubal asked if he could call them tomorrow and get a ride to the bank. Ms. Amrein answered yes, as long as he was registered to use the system. The system is not typical of a paratransit system, because nearly 90 percent of the riders use the service to travel to and from work or to the doctor, not for social or everyday activities.

Mr. Skubal questioned why the bigger buses continue to be used with such low ridership numbers. Ms. Amrein replied that smaller vehicles are used on Metcalf for the midday routes when ridership is lower. They will review that issue next week, because they are preparing for another vehicle purchase. Some routes require the big buses, such as the ones that go downtown. Those buses are usually full. On the return trips, they are not full which gives the perception of an empty bus. Some of the K-10 connector routes were standing room only for a while, so they changed to an over-the-road coach bus to accommodate those trips. Mr. Skubal has seen that bus coming in and out of the community college.

Mr. Skubal asked if population density was studied before buses are placed on certain routes. He understood the development along the Metcalf corridor has been slow, but he said there is no density there. He questioned if transit worked without density. Ms. Amrein stated density does aid in the success of transit systems. Johnson County Transit has predominantly been a commuter express service. Routes are set up based on where people live and take them into the downtown Kansas City central business district. The Metcalf corridor has good density for transit service to work, as long as all of the other components are in place, such as shopping, retail, and restaurants. Those are the types of things the Vision Metcalf plan espouses to do in the next few years. She believes the Metcalf corridor will prove to do quite well in the future.

Mr. Spears asked if 1010 Taxi offered $10 trips up to 10 miles. Ms. Amrein said that is their moniker. Mr. Spears said if it is assumed that half of the 600,000 riders are long-distance riders going to Lawrence or downtown, which is more than 10 miles, Johnson County Transit could spend $3 million with 1010 Taxi and operate a lot more efficiently. He asked if that was an option. He believed there would be a tremendous amount of cash savings simply by using a 1010 Taxi-type operation and focusing only on longer routes. Ms. Amrein responded that some of the service changes included in the 2014 service RFP included more service with 1010 Taxi. Those rates are lower. The average cost to Johnson County Transit for a 1010 Taxi ride costs approximately $18. Johnson County Transit would pay more for 1010 Taxi to be its exclusive provider in association with paratransit. With an RFP, they would need additional capital to recoup some of those expenses.

Mr. Lyons appreciated Johnson County Transit investigating a transit system in Johnson County. It has always irritated him that the only bus system was the one that took him to downtown Kansas City. He was encouraged that they are building a system tailored to Johnson County. From an overall metropolitan transportation system, he was also encouraged by the fact they were not trying to build a system Public Works Committee Meeting June 24, 2015 Page 9 where everyone had to first ride into downtown Kansas City and then head back to their destination. He felt it was the right direction to place routes where they made more sense and would eventually become more efficient. Ms. Amrein said that was one of the shortfalls of their system. They only had so much money and tried to make the system work as efficiently as possible. It is not efficient for a person to have to travel north first to then have to turn around and travel south to access their place of employment. The creation of better connections with the KCATA routes to make it easier for people to commute into Johnson County for work will benefit the overall system.

Mr. Lyons said the tough part to the process was figuring out how to put together a bus route where the subsidies were not overwhelming. It would be nice to see a breakeven system at some point. Ms. Amrein responded that no public transit system is breakeven. Mr. Lyons said he hears that all the time, but did not understand why. He thanked the speakers and said he appreciated the fact they were working to build a system within Johnson County for the commuters who live here.

Mr. Spears thanked the speakers for their work, because they were obviously making some positive changes. At yesterday’s Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) board meeting, public transit was discussed and there were more questions than answers.

Ms. Amrein said this agenda item was informational only. At tomorrow’s meeting, the Johnson County Board of Commissioners will begin work on setting the maximum mill levy for the 2016 budget. At this time, they are proposing a 3.3 mill increase asso- ciated with additional money for parks, libraries, maintaining general services, and the transit request. As they continue to design the services, Mr. Corcoran said it will be important to keep open communication with City staff. Staff provides them with suggestions for the businesses to talk to and help them reach out to those people. The Committee’s assistance and direction will also be a great help as they move forward with the new system design over the next several weeks. Mr. Skubal suggested they talk to the Overland Park Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. Jim Kite stated the Council recently embraced the City’s Bicycle Study. He asked if The JO and KCATA buses were equipped with bicycle racks. Ms. Amrein and Mr. Corcoran confirmed that their buses were all equipped with bicycle racks to accommodate passengers.

SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE PROTOCOL

Deputy City Attorney Tammy Owens stated sidewalks are public infrastructure that may or may not be in a right-of-way or sidewalk easement in front or adjacent to a home. Sidewalks are unusual from other public infrastructure in that under State or City ordinance, the adjacent property owner is responsible for their maintenance and repair.

Mrs. Owens stated that Chapter No. 12 of the City ordinance provides that the adjacent property owner shall pay for maintenance and repair. If the City has to perform the maintenance and repair, the adjacent property owner will be required to reimburse the City. If reimbursement is not received within 30 days, it can be assessed against the property. Chapter No. 13 of the ordinance provides essentially the same thing, except there is an added 5 percent administrative fee. The City Engineer is required to give a certain amount of notice to the adjacent property owner Public Works Committee Meeting June 24, 2015 Page 10 and inform them that the work has to be done in a certain amount of time. The ordinance sets a maximum of 60 days for the City Engineer to give that leeway to the adjacent property owner. If the City does the work and the bill is not paid, that money goes on the tax rolls and is assessed against the property.

Mrs. Owens relayed that Resolution No. 3817 provides while the adjacent property owner is responsible for maintenance and repair of the sidewalk, the City can elect to have a maintenance program. If that happens, the Public Works Director is respon- sible for the program. While technically and legally the City could assess adjacent property owners, it has not been their practice because of the maintenance program.

With regard to maintenance, Mr. Lyons said Public Works crews periodically grind down tripping hazards on sidewalks. Technically, he asked if those services could be charged to the property owner. Mrs. Owens replied that the City could charge for those services. They would most likely block off the sidewalk and give the property owner an allotted amount of time to complete the repairs. By practice, Mr. Lyons said the City does not place that responsibility on the property owner. Mrs. Owens confirmed that to be correct. The City could certainly order the cost to be the responsibility of the property owner. City ordinance and State statute provide for that, but she was unaware of any instance where they actually utilized that process.

Mr. Skubal asked who owns the sidewalks. Mrs. Owens answered the City. Mr. Skubal asked if the homeowners are responsible for the City’s property. Mrs. Owens answered yes, as an adjacent property owner. Mr. Skubal clarified if tree roots forced the sidewalk up, the property owner is not allowed to cut the tree down because the City also owns the tree. Mrs. Owens said that was correct, unless other arrangements are made with the property owner. Mr. Skubal asked if the City damaged one of its vehicles driving on the sidewalk, would the property owner have to pay for it. Mrs. Owens replied that the City has been named in past lawsuits, as has the adjacent property owner. In certain circumstances, the adjacent property owner’s insurance company paid for the damage.

Chair Spears asked if he chose not to shovel his sidewalk and a runner slipped and broke their leg on the sidewalk adjacent to his home, would he or the City be liable for the damages. Mrs. Owens said the property owner could absolutely be named in the lawsuit. She said it would be fact-specific. She would not say who would be liable, but the City has been involved in lawsuits along with adjacent property owners.

Public Works Director Tony Hofmann stated the City maintains the sidewalks. There are approximately 870 miles of sidewalk in Overland Park. Based on 2012 estimates, approximately 15 percent, or 62 miles, have some type of defect. The estimated cost to replace 62 miles of sidewalk would be roughly $8.8 million.

Mr. Hofmann stated the City replaces sidewalks during major street projects, such as the Street Improvement Project overlay and the Neighborhood Street Reconstruction Program. Because the City is already going onto the property to make street improve- ments, it provides reasonable cost to replace sidewalks at the same time. Infrastructure is replaced adjacent to streets that are maintainable. To put things into context from 2009 to 2014, and the street improvement projects that happened during that time, 15.7 miles of sidewalk was replaced at a cost of $1.7 million.

Mr. Hofmann recognized Maintenance Operations Manager Richard Profaizer. Public Works Committee Meeting June 24, 2015 Page 11

Mr. Profaizer heads up a separate sidewalk repair program. The City uses contract and in-house forces to make sidewalk repairs and generally follow up on complaints about trip/fall hazards. Staff follows up on those inquiries generally within 24 to 48 hours. They perform minor patch repair to mitigate safety hazards. Under limited special circumstances, the City will do minimal replacement.

Mr. Lyons stated the City also has a program where residents can petition to have a new sidewalk put on their street. Mr. Hofmann said that was correct. Residents are required to petition for a new sidewalk and it requires official approval. Mr. Lyons said he is attending a meeting next week in his ward on that exact subject. Mr. Hofmann said petition instructions are provided on the City’s Web site and it is a self- explanatory process.

Vice Chair Richard Collins asked what type of defects were involved in the 62 miles of City sidewalk in need of repair. Mr. Hofmann replied the defects would be defined generally as linear cracking or spalling. Full replacement would not be necessary in every situation.

Mr. Skubal said the discussion did not make sense to him. Since the City owns the sidewalks, it would be crazy to make the residents pay for the repairs. Mrs. Owens said the City has never required a resident to pay for a sidewalk repair. The Governing Body made the decision not to go in that direction. She and Mr. Spears recently discussed the newspaper article where a Kansas City, Missouri, woman was charged a ridiculous amount of money for sidewalk repair. She assumed for that and other reasons, the Governing Body has elected not to make that enforcement.

Mr. Lyons felt staff and the Committee should revisit the City ordinance. He has been involved in a couple of circumstances where discussions took place in his neighbor- hood about putting in sidewalks. One of the arguments from those opposed to sidewalks raised similar issues. Residents would surely voice their opposition if the City put a sidewalk in front of their house and made them potentially liable to pay for its repair and maintenance. He felt the subject should be approached from a safety standpoint. Sidewalks should be placed on all City streets for safety. Mrs. Owens pointed out that the City does not allow safety hazards on the sidewalks. Mr. Lyons said he was referring to a substantial part of his own neighborhood. He has to walk his dog on the street and dodge cars because there are no sidewalks. It has become a very heated passionate debate among some of his constituents, because they feel they would be put in an awkward position if a sidewalk were to be placed on their street. Staff stated earlier that residents could be placed in an awkward position if they had a sidewalk in front of their house. Until tonight, he did not believe that was even an option. Mrs. Owens said the point is that the City has limited resources. Overland Park has a lot of sidewalks. There were other ways for the City to enforce sidewalk repair or replacement, but the Council has elected not to follow through on that enforcement.

Mr. Spears stated his sidewalk is only 25 years old and in good shape. Some side- walks in the older portions of the City are in bad shape. He asked if a resident could choose to replace their own sidewalk. Mrs. Owens answered yes. The resident would have to comply with the City’s right-of-way ordinance, obtain a permit, and follow that process.

Public Works Committee Meeting June 24, 2015 Page 12

Mr. Spears asked for the cost to replace one-foot of sidewalk. Mr. Profaizer replied it would cost approximately $8 to $10 per square foot, because they are smaller and that is why the City replaces them during major reconstruction projects. He has seen bids as low as $4 to $5 per square foot. Mr. Spears asked if he replaced 60 feet of sidewalk in front of his house, it would probably cost around $8 per square foot to get it done. He asked if City sidewalks were four feet wide. Mr. Profaizer answered yes. Mr. Spears said that would equate to a significant amount of square footage and would be quite costly.

Mr. Kite asked if the City’s sidewalk maintenance protocol had been benchmarked against other cities. Mr. Skubal brought up a dichotomy and it did sound rather odd that the City owned the sidewalks, but expected property owners to pay for repair and maintenance. Mrs. Owens stated it is a Kansas statutory provision. She had not investigated other city ordinances on the subject. Staff could certainly do that if they received that direction from the Committee. The Council does not have an expectation that adjacent property owners will pay to repair their sidewalks, because of the City’s sidewalk maintenance program.

Mr. Kite asked if there was a way to find out how other Kansas cities addressed the statutory provision and their construction practices. Mr. Hofmann answered yes. He referred to a community comparison document prepared by Mr. Profaizer. In the cities of Olathe, Overland Park, and Topeka, adjacent property owners are responsible for sidewalk repair. The City of Lenexa is responsible for their sidewalk repair. Mr. Kite asked if Lenexa had budget money earmarked for sidewalk repairs and recognized their own responsibility. City Manager Bill Ebel responded that the City of Overland Park essentially assumes responsibility for sidewalk repair. There may be some rural smaller communities in Kansas that require its residents to assume the cost for side- walk repair and maintenance. He was unaware of a single city in Johnson County that required property owners to pay for sidewalk repair, or anyone who had been taken through the code violation process to complete the repairs. Most Johnson County cities have a sidewalk maintenance program. Based on the individual governing body rulings, funding those programs differ from city to city.

Mr. Ebel stated that Kansas City, Missouri, changed its process within the past 10 years. They may require a property owner to make the necessary sidewalk repairs at their own expense. They might perform the work themselves and send the bill to the property owner. Mr. Kite clarified that current Overland Park practice is to complete sidewalk repairs itself. Mr. Ebel believed Lenexa had a maintenance pro-gram similar to Overland Park to repair sidewalks. Some cities set up programs and spend millions of dollars over a set period of time to replace their sidewalk infrastructure. There was a time when Overland Park stopped accommodating on-demand citizen requests. The Public Works Committee decided the most efficient way to update dilapidated side- walks was to repair them during road reconstruction projects. The Council recently decided to re-implement on-demand requests at an annual budgeted amount of $100,000. This year that money came out of the contingency fund. That program is included in the Five-Year Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for street repair.

Mr. Collins said when a developer develops a subdivision, they dedicate roads to the City. They also dedicate right-of-way next to the roads. Mrs. Owens stated it could be an easement, but depends on location. Mr. Collins asked if a sidewalk would not typically be considered an easement, similar to a utility easement on the backside of a property. Residents are not allowed to build anything on the easement because utility Public Works Committee Meeting June 24, 2015 Page 13 companies require access. Mrs. Owens explained if it is an easement, the required legal language will be included in the documentation. It may say that the property owner maintained the underlying rights, but were not allowed to interfere in any way with the infrastructure. Mr. Ebel stated most of the City’s sidewalks are pure right-of- way. There are areas of public easement on sidewalks, which the City has the right to maintain, but the property owner actually owns it. He could not provide the Committee with an exact percentage at this time but most of sidewalks in the Overland Park are pure City property right-of-way. Mr. Collins stated that helped him more fully understand Mr. Skubal’s earlier question about the City owning the side- walk but it being the property owner’s responsibility to maintain it. For example, the property owner mows the grass between the street and the sidewalk. Mrs. Owens said that was correct.

Councilmember Dave White stated nearly all of the sidewalks north of 103rd Street are at least 50 years old, if they have not been rebuilt. That also includes the age of the roadways. The City does not have the money to replace all of the old roadways. They have performed some work in the northern part of Ward 1 and continue to work south, but deteriorating sidewalks remain in abundance. In his neighborhood, every place a water meter is located in the middle of a sidewalk, the infrastructure surrounding it has collapsed. Those situations are truly dangerous. Sidewalks tend to mainly be Wards 1, 2, and 3 issues. It was his understanding that 50 years was the average useful life of sidewalks. Sidewalk dilapidation will begin to move into the southern portions of the City as that infrastructure continues to age. He believes the City should strengthen the Sidewalk Maintenance Program to meet demand. He does not want the City to ever require residents to pay for sidewalk repairs on their property.

Mr. White asked the Committee to be cognizant of the demographics in areas of the City with deteriorating sidewalks, especially the elderly community that live on fixed incomes. Many of the properties in the older portions of the City are rental properties. The City’s statute might be beneficial in certain injury situations but in a real sense, the City will take responsibility because sidewalks are a part of its infrastructure. They should also be willing to invest money for spot maintenance, although spot repairs are more expensive.

Mr. White was pleased to see $100,000 taken from the City’s contingency fund this year for sidewalk repair, but that was a small amount in the overall scope of the needed repairs. He asked the Committee to consider this item to a greater extent over the next few years. The City’s sidewalk maintenance and repair issues will soon begin to snowball and move south.

Mr. White stated walking is another form of transportation. People continue to talk about Overland Park being a walkable city and safe sidewalks are necessary for that activity. The Committee needs to determine if they are willing to spend the necessary money to ensure the sidewalks are safe. He was not suggesting they replace miles of sidewalks, but at least the areas where water meters or tree roots have crumbled sections to the point they are unsafe to cross.

Mr. White asked what the incentive would be for a citizen to repair their own section of sidewalk, if they are required to go through a permitting process and pay admin- istrative fees. If it becomes their responsibility and they are required to pay for the repairs out of their own pockets, a lot of residents might decide to rip out their section Public Works Committee Meeting June 24, 2015 Page 14 of sidewalk and replace it with gravel. The City should take care of those repairs and build sidewalks to its standards. He asked the Committee to ratify what had been done in the past to the sidewalk maintenance program and monetarily amplify it to meet demand.

Mr. Lyons asked for additional information. Several of the examples raised by Mr. White, were exactly the same as in his neighborhood. In many instances, he felt grinding sections of sidewalk has been very effective. He would not consider fully replacing the sections of sidewalk that can be sufficiently repaired with grinding. A manhole began to collapse in the middle of a sidewalk in his neighborhood and he reported it. The City placed an asphalt layer over that section of the sidewalk and smoothed it out to eliminate the tripping hazard. These types of repairs can signifi- cantly reduce the overall cost to repair sidewalks. He asked if the quoted cost to replace old sidewalk with new sidewalk was a worst case scenario. Mr. Hofmann replied that would be a worst case scenario as it relates to the current 62 miles of defective sidewalk in the City. Some sections may be more defective than others. Mr. Lyons suggested they try to figure out what sections of sidewalk to completely replace, versus other methods of repair. Mrs. Owens advised that staff performed that analysis which is a function of the Street Maintenance Program. She felt the Committee was correct in their statements that the City should not force adjacent property owners, in general, to repair or replace sidewalks on their property; however, she would not want the Council to foreclose their opportunity to do that in the event an adjacent property owner is responsible for the damage done to the sidewalk. They should maintain the opportunity in the ordinance to enforce appropriate payment for repairs if they choose. As a general rule up to this point, the decision has been to not make property owners pay for sidewalk repairs. In her sense of the issue, the side- walk maintenance program was not broke, other than the need for more funding.

Mr. Spears relayed that a lot of concrete patching had been done in his neighborhood with a yellowish-color of concrete. This method of patching has addressed many sidewalk issues in the general vicinity of his home. He asked if patching was a long- term temporary fix, as opposed to full replacement. Mr. Profaizer replied in technical application, patching is termed to be a temporary fix.

Mr. Art Chartrand, resident, 12851 Noland, thanked the Committee for their time. He travels for a living and has been in every major city in the country. He said ugly streets and ugly sidewalks make for ugly houses. In neighborhoods where streets and sidewalks are maintained and kept in good repair, the houses look better. Sidewalk maintenance is both a functional and aesthetic issue.

Mr. Chartrand did not believe right-of-way or an easement was the same thing as fee- simple ownership. He recently asked the City Attorney’s office to investigate that question. To be clear, Mrs. Owens stated that was not her suggestion. Mr. Chartrand said assertions had been made that the City owned the sidewalks, and he asked the City Attorney's office for its legal opinion but has not received a response. In terms of right-of-way, the City had very persuasive rights. Sidewalks are supposedly the property of the homeowners, but homeowners are prohibited to build on or do any- thing to them. The issue of ownership is important and inquires as to why the City could legally assess a property owner. He suggested that the City get a good legal opinion to determine who actually owns the sidewalks. It was Mrs. Owens’ under- standing, that Mr. Chartrand’s email had been received by Senior Assistant City Public Works Committee Meeting June 24, 2015 Page 15

Attorney Steve Horner. She assured Mr. Chartrand and the Committee that the email would be pulled, highlighted, and addressed.

Mr. Chartrand stated he paid for approximately 300 feet of sidewalk adjacent to his home. Installation is an important component of sidewalk reconstruction. He lives on a corner lot. The sidewalk in front of his house was built 20 years ago and still looks impeccable. Many builders are allowed to use whatever contractor they choose to build the sidewalks in new developments. Some sidewalk decay stems from the fact that the sidewalk was not built to high quality at its inception. The right type of con- crete will not spall. Correct sidewalk pour depths contribute to a lengthy lifespan and helps keep sidewalks intact and not break up.

Mr. Chartrand presented photographs of sidewalks in his neighborhood that had experienced grinding repairs. In his opinion, they look awful. Grinding repairs may bring a sidewalk up to functional ADA compliance, but are not aesthetically pleasing. His research found three ways to repair sidewalks. Grinding should not go farther than one inch in depth. Sidewalks can be saw cut. The City of Portland, Oregon, experienced a positive response to saw cutting its sidewalks. The data stated saw cutting was competitive to grinding. He requested that the Committee ask staff to study and consider saw cutting as one method for sidewalk repair.

2016 PUBLIC WORKS OPERATING BUDGET REVIEW

Assistant Chief Financial Officer Gena McDonald directed the Committee to section No. 5, the Public Works Department Goal Area, of the 2016 Budget Working Papers. Personal Services comprise 67 percent of the Public Works operating budget. Fairly large amounts for Commodities and Contractual Services come out of the Public Works Department to include snow maintenance, routine operational costs, and maintenance of larger City trucks and other vehicles. Capital Outlay consisted of 8 percent of the overall budget, or approximately $1.5 million. It is nearly 45 percent of the City’s total Capital Outlay budget, and ongoing replacement of Public Works equipment largely consists of snow plows.

In 2016, the department budgeted for one full-time employee, a Transportation Project Inspector in Cost Center No. 320, Traffic Engineering. This person will inspect traffic control issues and traffic signal projects. The 2016 budget also includes one part-time Pavement Evaluator (.47 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE), and one Right-of-Way Inspector .50 FTE). The positions are part of the City’s part-time Summer Internship Program. Those individuals will work in the field and rate street conditions. Two full-time summer interns equal one halftime FTE. Other positions within the department swapped between cost centers. Mr. Lyons asked if the new Transportation Project Inspector was needed because of all of the new traffic lights in the City. Since the economic recovery, Ms. McDonald responded that the City had attained a lot of additional projects. They reduced the number of full-time employees in that same position in 2010 when the City was going through the recession. They are beginning to bring staff levels back up to meet workload.

Chair Spears referred to Commodities, Contractual Services, and Capital Outlay. He understood that some of the exemptions for sales tax would cease at the State level. He asked if that meant the City would have to begin paying sales tax on, for example, trucks and asphalt. Ms. McDonald was unsure if staff had a clear understanding at this time of the law. If sales tax exemptions went away, it would impact the City in Public Works Committee Meeting June 24, 2015 Page 16 terms of what they will have to pay for items. To date, Mr. Ebel said the law did not eliminate the sales tax exemption, but it did create a commission to review sales tax exemptions moving forward. Nothing has changed in 2016, as far as the City’s sales tax exemption is concerned.

Personal Services increased by nearly 2 percent. Much of the increase involves hospital and medical insurance. The increase was a result of an increase to the City’s medical plans and funding Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) which they did not do in the 2015 budget and had not done since before the recession. The Kansas Public Employees Retirement System (KPERS) rate is projected to decrease slightly in 2016. Recent turnover in the Public Works Department reduced the department’s retirement contributions by approximately 5 percent.

Commodities and Contractual Services experienced a decline that is directly related to the Stormwater Utility Fund. Some stormwater projects increased in cost. Staff will attempt to reallocate funding within the Stormwater Utility Fund and move some of the reserve operational funding to Maintenance and Capital Projects. Equipment replacement in 2016 is budgeted at $1,502,970. This includes the purchase of five single-axle snow plows, one smaller snow plow pickup truck, one street sweeper, one semi-tractor, one crack/seal machine, and pickup trucks. Mr. Spears asked if the Committee should expect an annual equipment replacement cost of around $1.5 million moving forward. Ms. McDonald replied that $1.5 million is closer to what the department needs on an annual basis for equipment replacement than what they have spent in the past. She does not expect to see much more of an increase over the $1.5 million. Replacement needs change year to year and from department to department.

Mr. Kite noticed a budget spike for equipment in quite a few of the department cost centers, such as $24,200 in Administration and $26,600 in Street Engineering. All of the increases through the different department funds seem to be equipment-related. Ms. McDonald explained the increase in Cost Center No. 301, Administration, was for a staff vehicle. The City deferred replacing vehicles for numerous years. In 2016, staff determined it was not reasonable to expect staff vehicles to last forever.

The Stormwater Utility Fund decreased by 9.3 percent. This was largely attributed to spending down the fund balance between 2014 and 2015. Several projects came in significantly higher than what staff originally anticipated. A portion of the fund balance moved into Maintenance and Capital Programs. The programs were rebalanced so over the long term, the fund will remain in balance. This was the reason for the decrease in the fund’s total budget authority.

Current revenues are the revenues staff anticipates to receive in 2016 and are antici- pated to increase by approximately 9 percent. Staff anticipates the ad valorem tax to increase 6.6 percent. The larger transfers from other funds came from the money the City placed aside for a number of years for large equipment replacement. Beginning in 2016, they will begin funding some of the equipment replacement out of the reserve and transfer money back into the fund.

Stormwater Operations are expected to increase by approximately 4 percent. This is largely due to an additional $100,000 for equipment replacement, and an additional $100,000 in Personal Services. The capital maintenance budgets in this fund reflect Public Works Committee Meeting June 24, 2015 Page 17 what is currently in the CIP and the Maintenance Program. In 2016, Capital Project Reserve is $465,000 and is what staff anticipates carrying into 2017.

The one-eighth of one percent Sales Tax for Street Improvements funds the Neighbor- hood Street Reconstruction Program and a large component of the thoroughfare program. Staff anticipates a slight growth in revenue in 2016. Sales tax is projected to increase 1.8 percent over 2015 estimates, which is 3.1 percent over the budget. Staff anticipates capital expenditures will increase slightly, both in residential street reconstruction and thoroughfares. Street Maintenance and Traffic Management Systems remain at $500,000. The reserve carried into the beginning of the year and the reserve at the end of the year are anticipated to be higher than the original estimation. That accounts for the larger beginning and ending fund balances and the increase in the actual fund statement. More details on the Five-Year one-eighth of one percent Sales Tax Program were outlined on page No. 4.18. It listed the current program projects through 2020, which coincides with the CIP and the Maintenance Plan.

Mr. Spears asked if the sidewalk construction figures in the budget were for new construction. Ms. McDonald clarified that those figures were for the new construction program and the on-demand petition program. The $100,000 dedicated for the sidewalk program is a component of the larger Street Maintenance Program. The sidewalk program received an annual increase of $100,000 that began in 2015. Mr. Spears said it increased to $100,000, but it used to be $50,000. Ms. McDonald was unsure if a specific amount had been broken out in the past for sidewalks. Mr. Ebel stated $50,000 is included in the CIP. That money is for the petitioned program. The $100,000 is included in the Street Maintenance Program. Mr. Spears said there is not a dedicated sidewalk maintenance line item. Mr. Ebel explained the next time the Committee reviews the Street Maintenance Program, there will be a sidewalk maintenance component included where there had not been in the past. The Committee can discuss funding to a greater extent during their fall meetings.

Mr. Skubal asked if more money would be placed in reserves in 2016. Ms. McDonald answered yes, for the one-eighth of one percent Sales Tax Fund. Staff anticipates starting 2016 with $3.6 million. She explained how the one-eighth of one percent Sales Tax Program worked. Some years they spend less and other years they spend more. At the end of 2020, most of the fund will be spent. Staff plans to have $3.6 million left at the end of 2016 and have a plan for how they will spend the money between 2017 and 2020. Mr. Ebel asked what the fund reserve was anticipated to be in 2020. Ms. McDonald did not have an exact number, but predicted it would be under $1 million. The plan is to spend all of that money over the five-year period. There is no money sitting idle that is not planned for future expenditures.

Page No. 34, Special Street and Highway Fund, outlined revenue from the gas tax. It is a pass-through from the State. Staff anticipates a slight increase in 2016 revenue over what was budgeted for 2015. Staff based their 2016 estimate on what was received in 2014. In 2014, the City experienced decent growth, which resulted from lower gas prices and general recovery of the economy. There is a fixed dollar amount per mile. As gas prices decrease, the fund should receive more money because people should be driving more. It is an inverted relationship. Mr. Spears asked if the 5 percent increase in 2016 was due to the $4.6 million in the 2015 Budget and not due to the $4.8 million in the 2016 Proposed Budget. Ms. McDonald stated that was correct. The $4.975 million listed under Estimated 2015 is the revenue anticipated for Public Works Committee Meeting June 24, 2015 Page 18

2015. It includes a beginning fund balance of $316,971, plus $4.65 million of actual revenue, and $8,029 in interest. Maintenance Expenditures are anticipated to remain relatively steady and should show an increase from $4.5 million in 2015 to $4.6 million in 2016.

Ms. McDonald noted that there were a few minor changes to the CIP. On page No. 6.37, the Switzer, College Boulevard to Indian Creek Parkway, project is currently under construction. The project cost was revised in May based on the construction bid. Estimated project costs decreased from $8.4 million to $6.8 million.

Storm Drainage was found on page No. 6.46. Several projects came in higher than what was originally anticipated. Due to the revenue stream, staff had to reallocate funding within the program. Construction of the 2014 Storm Drainage Improvement, Monitor Square, has not started. The project cost increased by $665,000. The Storm Drainage Improvement projects for Stanley, 151st Terrace and Metcalf, increased by $1,075,000. The 2015 Storm Drainage Improvement project, 103rd Street and Connell, is expected to increase by $785,000.

The only change to the Maintenance Program was the additional $100,000 per year for the On-Demand Sidewalk Repair Program.

Mr. Spears explained that one mill is worth roughly $3 million. He was not suggesting they do this, but he asked staff earlier where they would put the money if the City raised the mill levy. Staff’s universal response was to use the money on street recon- struction. If the mill levy was raised or the City came across some extra money, he asked the Committee if they would spend it all on street reconstruction or allocate a percentage to sidewalks or some other project.

Mr. Lyons said they continue to hear that the City has long underfunded sidewalk repair. If they had the money, it was clear they should spend the money on sidewalk repair. Curb repair/replacement is another issue that needs to be addressed. He received a call from a constituent a few days ago who was complaining about the deteriorating curbs in his neighborhood. At some point in the past, the City purchased low grade concrete that rapidly deteriorated.

Mr. Kite said some of the City’s sidewalks will be rebuilt during future street improve- ments which will, to some extent, accelerate the sidewalk/curb repair issue.

Mr. Spears asked if the Committee should recommend to the Council raising the mill levy by one mill, and dedicate that money to Public Works improvements. If that happened, they could break down how to spend the $3 million.

Mr. Skubal fully supported an increase in the mill levy to address street maintenance issues. The City continues to fall behind in that area and it is currently building yet another new road. Historically, the City built two miles of thoroughfare at a time, but it does not have the money to do that right now. The more streets they build, the more they have to maintain. He has not seen an increase in the City’s street main- tenance budget for quite some time. A testament to society is not what is built, but how existing infrastructure is maintained. The City is not taking care of what has been left to it. He referred to the Pathfinder Survey and often thought Public Safety would be the number one concern for residents, but it is not. Residents want safe streets and to be able to traverse the community from one point to the other without Public Works Committee Meeting June 24, 2015 Page 19 being stopped by lights or signs. He will support an increase to the street mainten- ance fund. He does not think the City can do enough, soon enough. Once a street is lost, the subgrade is lost, and it will cost twice as much to repair it because recon- struction will have to start at the base.

Mr. Skubal said if the federal government told Topeka that the largest tax increase in the history of the State had to go before the voters, they would head straight to the nation’s capital to voice their opposition, yet they want to tell the City how to operate its budget. If they want to see how every city operates their budgets, they should travel to each of the cities and see their budget processes firsthand.

Mr. Skubal said the Council talks about adding more police officers and other expenses. He does not want to see a huge tax increase, but he felt Mr. White was absolutely correct with his earlier comments. A mill increase that equates to an additional $30 or $50 a month will be very difficult for an elderly person to pay on a fixed income. Before the Committee decides to recommend a mill increase, they need to take into consideration every person it will have an effect on, but he personally could support a one mill increase.

Vice Chair Collins read an excerpt from an email he received today regarding some supposed legislation that recently passed. He quoted from the report, “No city will be allowed to increase budgets from property taxes that exceed the rate of inflation, unless it is approved by the voters.” He referred to page No. 5 of the Overview and read, “Property tax revenues are projected to increase 6.7 percent when compared to 2015.” He asked the Committee to assume for a moment that legislation took effect on January 1, 2016. If property tax revenues were projected to increase 6.7 percent, which is considerably higher than the Consumer Price Index (CPI) which is closer to 1.7 percent, he asked if that would mean the City had to reduce its budget by 5 percent of the mill levy. Mr. Ebel responded that staff’s understanding of the legislation was exactly as Mr. Collins just described. A 6.7 percent increase would be restricted to 1.7 percent. That legislation includes a lot of fluctuating exemptions such as new construction or roads. The Kansas Department of Revenue (KDOR) will eventually provide Kansas cities with a worksheet to perform their calculations. Technically and simplistically, the City would have to reduce the mill levy to ensure property tax revenue only grew 1.7 percent, unless they decided to capture the additional revenue. In that case, it would be required to be taken to the next regularly scheduled election which by State legislation is in the fall of odd years. Discussions continue as to whether a city could create a special election in a non-odd year.

Mr. Collins said if property taxes continued to increase over the next four years over the CPI and the City captured the dollars but did not spend them, the money would be set away in some type of an account. Mr. Ebel replied that the City would no longer capture the money. Theoretically and in the simplest of terms, the City would roll back the mill levy to ensure they were only capturing 1.7 percent of the revenue based on the new assessed valuation. Mr. Collins could not argue with Mr. Skubal’s comments. He questioned if they should consider raising the mill levy by more than one mill. Mr. Ebel said any mill levy increase with assessed valuation growth would more than likely require voter approval. If the legislation goes into effect, which will be decided on Friday, they will not have the ability to raise the mill levy without a public vote.

Public Works Committee Meeting June 24, 2015 Page 20

Mr. Collins said if the City was going to do something, they should do it now. Mr. Ebel said that was a discussion and decision to be made by the Governing Body. The specifics are complicated. Exemptions create complications in the calculations and how the revenues will grow. He said Ms. McDonald will work through the specifics in the next five-year plan. Staff will be able to provide more basic information after the July 6, 2015, legislative action, assuming they pass the implementation date for 2018. If that does not happen and the legislation becomes effective in 2016, they would have to start all over, redo the budget, and have it finished by the end of August. As it had been presented today, the budget would have to be completely redone as well as the five-year plan. That would involve a tremendous amount of work. A process that would normally take six months would be condensed into two weeks.

Mr. Lyons said the 6.7 percent projection in increased revenue sounded like one of the exemptions allowed by the law with that money spent on new infrastructure. Mr. Ebel stated the law does state that there is an exemption for infrastructure. Mr. Lyons said sidewalks would be included on that list. Mr. Ebel answered yes, but he predicted cities from all over the State would have their own interpretation of the language until KDOR distributes the calculation worksheet. Mr. Lyons said the KDOR will basically interpret the law and tell the individual cities how to make their calculations. Mr. Ebel answered yes, but that was a very simplistic way to answer the question. The Council will be responsible for shifting the money around to optimize the results within the allowable regulations set by the KDOR. Staff is currently undergoing a lot of analysis in preparation for the bill to pass. Mr. Lyons asked if the law would take effect on July 1, 2015. Mr. Ebel was unsure. They will have to wait until Friday to find out.

Mr. Skubal asked what a 6.7 percent property tax increase amounted to with regard to assessed valuation. Mr. Ebel stated the City receives approximately $36 million a year in property taxes, so 6.7 percent equates to approximately $3 million a year. Mr. Skubal said the increase could go to infrastructure and since sidewalks are considered infrastructure, they could spend $3 million on sidewalks or on street replacement. He asked if the Council could allocate that money however they wished at this point. Ms. McDonald advised that KDOR should be distributing its worksheet next week, which will provide clarity in terms of what is allowable. At this point, it would be difficult to interpret the bill. Mr. Ebel said staff would be able to provide the Committee of the Whole with a lot more information when they meet to discuss the 2016 budget on July 6th. Staff will continue their contingency planning using both scenarios.

Mr. Collins moved to recommend to the Committee of the Whole approval of the 2016 Public Works Budget as recommended by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lyons and carried with a vote of 6 to 0.

IMPACT OF LITE GIG FROM AT&T AND GOOGLE FOR UTILITY LOCATES

Public Works Maintenance Supervisor Sean Ruis provided the Committee with a brief summary of the impacts that private fiber line projects have had on traffic main- tenance operations. The Public Works maintenance crews locate the City’s infrastructure, which includes City fiber for the cables to run the traffic signals and the streetlights. Staff performs all the locating in-house and does not use Kansas One-Call to locate the infrastructure.

Public Works Committee Meeting June 24, 2015 Page 21

Overland Park has one locate technician. The AT&T fiber build-out, Lite GIG, rolled out in October 2014. The locate technician averages approximately 200 locates a month. With the inclusion of Lite GIG, that number increased from 280 to 550 locates per month and is too much of a workload for one person to handle. Staff implemented a work plan, had other department employees receive their certification, and trained them to locate. Currently, two budgeted employees perform locates and are not performing their normal job duties. A third employee is ready to begin locating if Google decides to come to Overland Park.

Cable hits per month refer to contractors in the field that fail to locate and wind up damaging City streetlights, fiber, and signal heads. Staff investigates those situations to prove the contractor could have found locates but instead, unlawfully performed the work. Staff either charges the company at fault for the repair work, or they have a City contractor make the repairs. In 2014, cable hits averaged two per month. That number has since increased to four to six hits per month.

Chair Spears asked if the City added some type of a punishment cost or upcharge when companies unlawfully damage City property. Mr. Ruis answered yes. If a company is caught performing work against the law, their permit is pulled. In order to obtain a new permit, they have to apply again. He was unsure of the fine amount, but they are also charged for staff and administrative time for the repairs. Approximately 8 percent is added to the bill for administrative work. Mr. Spears suggested they consider enforcing a bigger fee.

Mr. Ruis reported that claims averaged two a month. That has since increased to three or four a month, maybe more, with the launch of Lite GIG. The Shawnee Mission School District started a fiber build-out to tie in all the district schools with new fiber.

A chart entitled Impact to Traffic was presented that graphed the increase in locate requests since AT&T Lite GIG began in October 2014. Today, they average over 600 locates per month which equates to full 8-hour days for his two full-time employees. The numbers only represent AT&T Lite GIG and not Google. If Google decides to come in, they could bring as much as 30 to 50 contractors with them. If that happens, locate requests will jump to approximately 900 per month.

Mr. Lyons asked for clarification on AT&T Lite GIG. Mr. Ruis explained that AT&T Lite GIG is the project name. Mr. Lyons asked if locators simply identify cable locations. Mr. Ruis answered yes. Locators hook up to the City’s streetlights or traffic signals with a ground connection. They do the paint markings and place flags in the ground near the locate area. Mr. Lyons asked if a contractor hits cable, was that a result from them ignoring the markings or flags. Mr. Ruis answered a lot of the time the reason for hits stems from carelessness. Some companies do not follow the rules and fail to identify locates before they begin their work. The City of Overland Park does not use the Kansas One-Call system. Out-of-state contractors come into the City to perform work and are unaware of the law. They automatically assume they should call Kansas One-Call for the utility locates. Those contractors need more education on Overland Park procedure. Mr. Lyons asked if it would make more sense to use Kansas One- Call. Mr. Ruis answered yes, but they are expensive. Kansas One-Call charges close to $45 a ticket. The City would not be paying for their service, but for the subcon- tractor locating the infrastructure.

Public Works Committee Meeting June 24, 2015 Page 22

Mr. Hofmann further explained if the City was linked to the Kansas One-Call system, it would be required to pay for every request. Mr. Spears said AT&T laid cable in his front yard. His home is located a long way from the closest traffic signal and the streetlights on his street are on the opposite side of his house. Mr. Ruis said the City would not have performed locates in Mr. Spears’ yard. Mr. Spears asked if the City had utilized Kansas One-Call, would they have paid $45 to locate at his home. Mr. Ruis answered yes.

Vice Chair Collins asked if the charges could be incorporated in the permit fee. A contractor has to obtain a building permit to dig. Mr. Ruis said permits are not received per installation. Contractors obtain a single permit which covers a large area of ground. There would be an administrative burden to issue thousands of permits. He heard that AT&T plans to connect their service to 3,000 to 4,000 homes in the City. Overland Park does not require each connection to have a permit, but issue permits on a regional basis to cut down on administrative overhead.

Mr. Collins asked if they could pull the three locators out of the field and make them responsible for administering the permits. Mr. Ruis said staff would have to investigate that possibility.

Mr. Ruis expressed his appreciation for his locate team. Many of his employees perform a lot of work outside of their assigned duties. Maintenance Utility Locator Technician Gene Stevenson is the only person paid as a full-time locator. Senior Maintenance Worker Jason Stumph and Maintenance Worker Jeff Ruport are very intelligent individuals with excellent performance skills. He was able to train them and felt fortunate when they accepted the assignments to assist with locates. Admini- strative Assistant Valerie Howard works at the Blue Valley office and does all of the billing for that office and files the locate reports. Ms. Howard also receives all of the homeowner complaints and performs these additional locate tasks in addition to her normal workload. Senior Engineering Technician Janet Luessenheide performs billing and recoups the money that is returned to the General Fund from cable hits. They are a great team. Operations are working so well, he looks forward to Google coming to town.

Mr. Spears acknowledged that the locate team was a tremendous revenue source where the City had been spending a lot of money and getting nothing in return. He asked staff to study how current practices could be turned into at least a break even, if not a profit. Mr. Hofmann did not disagree with Mr. Spears, but said locates were only one aspect of many in Mr. Ruis’ section of the department. It involves the cost of doing business, compared to hiring a private entity to do the work and turn a profit. Staff continually searches for ways to recoup costs. The savings generated by the locate team goes directly back into the operating budget.

Mr. Lyons appreciated Mr. Ruis’ acknowledgement of his team and for their hard work. He was sure their department had a program in place to recognize individuals that go the extra mile.

STAFF UPDATES

Mr. Hofmann reported that City Engineer Dan Miller retired on June 12, 2015. Staff is working on the recruitment packet to find his replacement. The job opening will Public Works Committee Meeting June 24, 2015 Page 23 most likely be made public in the next couple of weeks. A panel will be put together to perform a deliberate process for that hiring action.

They are down to a few final candidates for the Stormwater Supervisor position. They expect to make a potential offer in the next week. This position received both internal and external applications.

At 9:11 p.m., Chair Spears declared the meeting adjourned. Minutes transcribed by Cindy Terrell.

______Fred Spears, Chair