OPEN MEETING NOTICE REGIONAL TRANSIT COORDINATING COUNCIL

Transcription

1 OPEN MEETING NOTICE REGIONAL TRANSIT COORDINATING COUNCIL Brian McKiernan, MARC Co Chair Daniel Serda, Co-Chair There will be a meeting of the Regional Transit Coordinating Council on Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. at MARC - Board Room (600 Broadway, Ste. 200., Kansas City, Mo ) AGENDA 1. Welcome and Introductions 2. Approval of January 2018 Meeting Summary* 3. Public Comments (sign-in required, 3 minute maximum) 4. Policy Discussions: a. Transit and Mobility Project Priorities for CMAQ & STP Funding* Dick Jarrold and Martin Rivarola (15 minutes) b. Regional Transportation Plan Martin Rivarola (15 minutes) c. Coordinated Plan Update*/ 5310 Programming Process - Drew Stiehl/Jameson Auten (15 minutes) 5. Informational Items a. Legislative Update Daniel Serda and Dick Jarrold (10 minutes) i. Federal Infrastructure Investment Proposals b. Planning Sustainable Places Projects Beth Dawson and Shawn Strate (15 minutes) i. Leavenworth Transit Study ii. Southwest Johnson County Transit Study iii. Others c. Eligibility Modifications Jameson Auten (5 minutes) d. Member Updates (10 minutes) 6. Transit Briefs (Briefs on each item are available in your packet. RTCC members may request discussion on any of these at the meeting.) a. Regional Fare Collection, TVM s and Mobile Ticketing Update b. RideKC Performance Report c. Annual Review of MARC Conflict of Interest and Whistleblowers Policies 7. Next Meeting Date: May 9, 2018 () 8. Adjourn * Action item Special Accommodations: Please notify the Mid America Regional Council at (816) at least 48 hours in advance if you require special accommodations to attend this meeting (i.e., qualified interpreter, large print, reader, hearing assistance). We will make every effort to meet reasonable requests. MARC programs may not discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, color or national origin, according to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of For more information or to obtain a Title VI Complaint Form, see or call

2 REGIONAL TRANSIT COORDINATING COUNCIL Meeting Summary for January 10, 2018 ATTENDANCE Members and Alternates: Brian McKiernan, Unified Government (Co-Chair) Daniel Serda, Board (Co-Chair) Robbie Makinen, Sherri McIntyre, City of Kansas City, Mo. Josh Powers, Johnson County Aaron Otto, Johnson County Harold Johnson, Unified Government Justus Welker, Unified Government Tom Gerend, KC Streetcar Authority David Johnson, KC Streetcar Authority Dick Jarrold, Mike Spadafore, KDOT Josh Boehm, Jackson County David Warm, MARC Sara Davis, Oats, Inc. Others: Kite Singleton, KCRTA Anne Rogers, PSSI Tanya Rehma, KUMC Ben Bachwirtz, Wilson & Company Jennifer Schwaller, HDR Dave Kocour, HG Consult Chip Hillesheim, Dept. of Veteran Affairs Jeremiah Shuler, FTA Cathy Monroe, FTA Jon Moore, Olsson Associates Staff: Ron Achelpohl, MARC Karen Clawson, MARC Drew Stiehl, MARC Martin Rivarola, MARC Laura Machala, MARC Amanda Graor, MARC Patrick Trouba, MARC Aaron Bartlett, MARC Caitlin Campbell, MARC Whitney Morgan, MAARC John Ivey, Citizens for Progress Dan Ryan, Tri-County Mental Health Jim Huffman, Life Unlimited Jim Courtney, Mobility Advisory Committee Jared Gulbranson, WSP Eva Steinman, MoDOT Tom Worker-Braddock, Olsson Associates Kitty McCoy, Enterprise Control Systems Dave Kocour, HG Consult Veronica Wynn, MTM Lisa Womack, Chuck Ferguson, Shawn Strate, Tyler Means,

3 1. Welcome and Introduction Mr. McKiernan welcomed members and introductions were made. 2. Approval of November Meeting Summary The meeting summary for September 2017 was APPROVED. 3. Public Comments Mr. John Ivey, Citizens for Progress, said he wanted to see trail and rail constructed on the Rock Island at the same time for the cost savings benefit. He also said that there should be a quarter-cent tax for transportation and a ten-cent tax for tourism in Jackson County. He also mentioned the need of getting people to the airport, especially workers. 4. Policy Discussions: a. Draft Transit Project Priorities Martin Rivarola reminded the RTCC that MARC s Cal for Projects has been released. He reviewed the timeline noting that all applications are due on March 23 rd. Mr. Jarrold said that in conjunction with this round of programming, staff will ask the RTCC in March to endorse the joint submission of applications to help increase funding for transit. Mr. Jarrold presented a draft list of projects that is currently being considered for this programming round: Possible RTCC Project Priorities for the MARC 2018 Call for Projects Project Applicant Proposed Partners State Project Scope CMAQ Funding Source Capital/ Operating / Planning Regional Fare Collection / Mobile Ticketing (Validators) All Transit Operators-, Independence, Johnson Co., Wyandotte Co., Streetcar Purchase of mobile ticket validator systems and equipment. STP / CMAQ Capital Regional Clean Transit Vehicle Program Johnson Co., Wyandotte Co. and Replace buses that have reached their useful life with new CNG or propane buses STP / CMAQ Capital New Job Access Services ( KCI, 435, others) Transit Agencies and others TBD Fund new or expanded services with a jobs access focus CMAQ Operating Independence Ave. Enhanced Transit Service (BRT) Operating Assistance, Independence, Mo., Kansas City, Mo. MO Operating Expenses of new BRT Services CMAQ Operating Regional Fare Support (match to Private Invest, nonprofit funding, etc. ) or others Non-profits, private sector groups, CIDs etc. Match to funding from outside parties that contribute financially to provide area-wide or group-wide fare subsides or low fare zones. CMAQ Operating STP Regional Fare Collection / Mobile Ticketing (Validators) All Transit Operators-, Independence, Johnson Co., Wyandotte Co., Streetcar Purchase of mobile ticket validator systems and equipment. STP/CMAQ Capital Regional Clean Transit Vehicle Program Johnson Co., Wyandotte Co. and Replace buses that have reached their useful life with new CNG or propane buses STP / CMAQ Capital Independence Ave. Improved Transit Service (BRT) - Capital, Independence, Mo., Kansas City, Mo. MO Construction of stations for BRT Service STP Capital 75th/Metcalf and Downtown Overland Park (PSP implementation) or other Overland Park KS Transit Access Improvements STP Capital ADA/ Pedestrian Accessibility Program Local Local Gov Provide for ADA compliant bus stops and bike/passenger access pathways to transit on corridors in TBD STP, TAP, 5310 Capital Planning Sustainable Places Program MARC All Continuation of bi-state program STP Planning 5310 Regional Eligibility Process Mobility for All All Transit operators plus others Operating funds for mobility services 5310 Operating Travel Training All Transit Operators-, Independence, Johnson Co., Wyandotte Co., Streetcar Travel training on fixed route for seniors / disabled 5310 Capital Freedom On-Demand Expansion Johnson Co., Wyandotte Co. and Regionalize Freedom On-Demand 5310 Operating 2

4 Mr. Jarrold said that CMAQ funds can be used for both capital and operating projects. There are five projects that are being considered for CMAQ: mobile validators on buses, clean vehicle purchase, regional fare support to match private and non-profit funding for passes, jobs access services, and Independence Ave. BRT. The Independence project may need to wait until the next round of funding and after further study of BRT on the corridor. Mr. Spadafore asked if 5311 funds are being considered for job access services. He noted that FTA s Job Access Reverse Commute program funds were rolled into the 5311 program. Surface Transportation Program projects include Independence Ave. BRT, regional clean vehicle purchase, mobility ticketing validators, 75 th & Metcalf mobility hub, ADA/pedestrian accessibility program, and the Planning Sustainable Places program. Section 5310 applications include regional eligibility, travel training, and freedom-on-demand expansion. b RTCC Work Plan Ms. Clawson presented the final draft RTCC Work Plan for 2018 and said that she was looking for adoption by RTCC. Ms. Clawson said that the work plan was divided into 3 general areas of activity: regional coordination; service strategy, planning and development; and funding. These activities will support the overarching goals of improving the customer experience and implementing the Smart Moves plan. The specific activities in the work plan draft are as follows: RideKC Branding Implementation o Complete roll-out o Mobility hub branding Regional Revenue/Fare Collection o Continue providing payment options o Integrate all RideKC services into mobile platform including plan, pay, track functions RideKC Freedom o Expand service as recommended by service analysis Coordinated Plan Update o FTA requirement related to 5310 funds Develop a Mobility Work Plan Strategy o Transition MAC to take on broader mobility services and issues Outreach and Education Plan o Outreach and Education Workgroup Coordinated Plan Update o FTA requirement related to 5310 funds Develop a Mobility Work Plan Strategy o Transition MAC to take on broader mobility services and issues Outreach and Education Plan o Outreach and Education Workgroup Jobs Access Planning o Continue to develop solutions for regional job centers o Gardner & Edgerton o Airport o Others 3

5 Corridor Planning o BRT Corridors: Independence Ave and North Oak Tfwy o Streetcar Extensions and integration with other services o Planning Sustainable Places o Rock Island Rail Corridor (not yet funded) o Airport Transit Study (not yet funded) o I-435 Transit Study (not yet funded) Smart Moves Funding Work Group o Create a near- and long-term funding strategy Programming (5310, STP, CMAQ, TAP) o Develop project priorities & coordinate with partners o CMAQ Transit Project Scoring and Recommendations o Planning Committee Review/Prioritizing/Programming The RTCC adopted the 2018 work plan. c. Coordinated Plan Update Process Mr. Drew Stiehl provided an update on the process to develop a new Coordinated Plan. The strategy to update the plan is to 1) update data analysis, 2) incorporate new or prior engagement into the plan, and 3) revise and prioritize strategies to reflect new goals. The intent is to complete the plan update ahead of the Section 5310 call for projects (anticipated in April 2018.) This plan update is required before any projects are programmed. Mr. Stiehl outlined some of the ongoing engagement findings. He noted that the survey showed that most respondents were from Kansas City, Mo and many were not sure if they were ADA eligible. Additionally, when asked in the survey about different service characteristics as they relate to the respondents, e.g. My transportation is an affordable part of my budget, there was very little variation between those who would strongly disagree, disagree, agree, or strongly agree. The RTCC previewed the draft goals of the plan which include: GOAL 1: Maintain existing service levels for mobility service users in the region GOAL 2: Expand service levels for mobility service users in the region GOAL 3: Improve the quality and accessibility of information to the public GOAL 4: Bridge gaps in the built environment to improve network accessibility Mr. Auten spoke briefly about the s possible expansion of the RideKC Freedom service through the 5310 funding program. 5. Information Items: a. Update Robbie Makinen, CEO, spoke about a recent survey administered by ETC for that reported that 91% of non-transit riders were familiar with the RideKC name. Mr. Makinen also spoke about funding for transit. He said that his goal is for no rider to pay for transit. He is working to find other ways to pay for the $9 mil in fare revenue that receives each year, including diversifying the revenue stream. Mr. Makinen mentioned that veterans pass that is funds through other organizations as an example. Mr. Makinen mentioned an initiative called RideKC Community Connections whereby will work with organizations like Full 4

6 Employment Council or community improvement districts as a partners to pursue grants or other sponsors to help cover bus fares and bus pass costs. David Johnson said that the Smart Moves plan calls for a funding task force and asked if the RTC should be that group. He also asked how the Chamber would be brought into the conversation. Mr. Makinen agreed that the Chamber needed to be present. Dick Jarrold said that this item is in the work plan and staff is moving these things forward. b. Regional Connected and Automated Vehicle Policy Ms. Amanda Graor discussed work on the development of a Regional Autonomous Vehicle Policy Framework. She said that policy often moves slower than the technology. In order to move regional policy forward, MARC is undertaking an effort to build a framework that will assist the region in setting goals and advancing strategies to support the successful deployment of new transportation technologies. This is a 12- month planning process that will focus on seven initial areas of inquiry: 1. Travel Demand Management and System Performance 2. Infrastructure, Planning and Investment 3. Data Management and Cybersecurity 4. Environment and Land Use 5. Equitable Access and Mobility Services 6. Certification, Liability, and Insurance Ms. Graor said that a task force has been set up and will continue to meet. There was brief discussion about the impacts of AV in the region. c. Regional Pedestrian Policy Plan Aaron Bartlett gave a brief update on the Regional Pedestrian Policy Plan that is currently under review at MARC. He said that MARC has many regional plans, policies and programs that address the pedestrian mode. However, we have not performed a comprehensive review to provide a regional vision for a walkfriendly region. The final product includes a review of MARC s existing plans, policies and programs with a pedestrian lens, accompanied by recommendations to strengthen regional policy, technical work and best practices at the regional level, as well as recommendations for policy, technical work and best practices at the local level based on findings of the Local Government Pedestrian Inventory. Mr. Bartlett said that the plan reinforces recommendations from the Smart Moves 3.0 Plan by calling for robust pedestrian systems to support mobility hubs and transit corridors. The plan recommends the concentration of federal investments to complete pedestrian systems within ¼ mile of all mobility hubs and transit corridors. Moreover, it calls on public and private investment strategies to fund these investments. Mr. Jarrold asked if the plan includes any design criteria. Mr. Bartlett said that the plan does not but there are design criteria and standards out there that can be referenced. 6. Adjourn With no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned. 5

7 Project Priorities for the MARC 2018 Call for CMAQ and STP Projects (FY 2021 / 2022) Project State Project Scope Capital / Operating / Planning Total Cost Federal Share Local Match MO CMAQ STP PSP CMAQ STP PSP Lead Party KS Regional Fare Collection / Mobile Ticketing (Validators) MO (KS already secured) Purchase of ticket validators for the Missouri bus fleet. Compliments ticket vending machines and software separately funded. Capital $ 2,000, $ 1,600, Regional Partners $ 1,600,000 David Johnson Regional Clean Transit Vehicle Program Replace buses that have reached their useful life with new CNG or propane buses (~19 Buses): 5, UG; 6, Johnson County; 8 for ATA. Capital $ 8,750, $ 7,000, ATA, UG, JoCo $ 1,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Grants Dept and Bill Spies Prospect MAX Enhanced Transit Service (BRT) Operating Assistance MO Operating Expenses of new BRT Services Operating $ 1,500, $ 1,200, ATA $ 1,200,000 Planning Dept and Finance Dept Outreach related to regional fare support programs (funding to match contributions from employers, non profit institutions, etc.) Promote transit pass programs and funding support from the private sector and nonprofit institutions with federal funds supplementing or matching funds from outside groups providing passes. Operating $ 1,000, $ 800, Regional Partners $ 400,000 $ 400,000 Tyler Means (RSI) New Regional Services (KCI, 435, others) Fund new or expanded services, including new service delivery models, with a jobs access focus. Operating $ 625, $ 500, Regional Partners $ 300,000 $ 300,000 Planning Dept. and regional partners Planning Sustainable Places Program Continuation of bi state PSP program Planning $ 1,875, $ 1,500,000 Cities Using the funds $ 800,000 $ 700,000 MARC Multi modal Branding & Wayfinding KS/MO Branding and wayfinding for mobility hubs, MetroGreen, and regional bikeways. Planning $ 375, $ 300, and local partners $ 150,000 $ 150,000 Total $ 16,125,000 $ 12,900,000 $ 2,900,000 $ 5,400,000 $ 150,000 $ 2,700,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 850,000

8 Month/Year Jan 2018 Fixed Route Ridership Ridership JCT UGT Inde Combined SAF Sp. Edit. UGT Inde Combined ,060 35,755 11,448 20,902 1,036, ,563 5,753 2,704 1,830 32, ,021,424 33,900 14,398 22,642 1,092, ,574 5,518 2,791 1,612 36,495 % -5.2% 5.5% -20.5% -7.7% -5.1% % -15.1% 4.3% -3.1% 13.5% -10.0% 2017 Adjustment - Free fare day & Streetcar Link - OTP OTP JCT UGT Inde Combined SAF Sp. Edit. UGT Inde Combined % 97.54% 92.01% 94.64% 91.29% % 90.06% 94.88% 90.75% 85.66% % % 92.90% 96.93% 90.99% % 89.86% 93.90% 95.53% 85.35% % 0.39% -2.46% -0.96% -2.36% 0.33% % -0.02% 0.23% 1.03% -5.00% 0.37% Accidents/Million Miles Accidents/Thousand Miles JCT UGT Inde SAF Sp. Edit. UGT Inde Combined % -23.1% N/A N/A N/A -21.1% % 22.2% % N/A N/A 10.2% Mechanical Breakdowns Resulting in Service Interruptions Mechanical Breakdowns Resulting in Service Interruptions JCT UGT Inde Combined SAF Sp. Edit. UGT Inde Combined % -13.6% 233.3% 200.0% % -4.1% % N/A 50.0% 50.0% % 80.0% Customer Feedback/Complaints Customer Feedback/Complaints JCT UGT Inde Combined SAF Sp. Edit. UGT Inde Combined % -35.1% N/A 0.0% % -28.9% % 70.2% N/A 1.3% N/A 43.3% Miles Between Road Calls SAF Trips/Hour JCT UGT Inde Combined Avg Trips Hours Efficiency ,946 15,174 19,238 21,926 14, ,080 11, ,813 47,826 24,151 6,926 21, ,848 12, % 18.1% -68.3% -20.3% 216.6% -30.4% % -3.7% -6.6% 3.1% Cells to populate with data. Information not yet available. Special Edition Trips/Hour Trips Hours Efficiency Combined Trips/Hour ,753 2, Trips Hours Efficiency ,518 2, ,225 16, % 4.3% -7.0% 12.1% ,599 17, % -1.2% -5.1% 4.1% UGT Trips/Hour Trips Hours Efficiency ,704 1, ,756 1, % -1.9% 0.6% -2.5% Independence Trips/Hour Trips Hours Efficiency , , % 14.3% 12.6% 1.5%

9 Other Services Ridership Streetcar Bridj Taxi JCT Taxi MO Freedom Combined , , , , ,184 % 8.4% % 110.2% 197.7% N/A 16.0% OTP Streetcar Bridj Taxi JCT Taxi MO Freedom Combined % 0.00% 99.66% % 98.70% % N/A % N/A N/A N/A 1.0% Mechanical Breakdowns Resulting in Svc. Interruptions Streetcar Bridj Taxi JCT Taxi MO Freedom Combined % N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Accidents Resulting in Service Interruptions Streetcar Bridj Taxi JCT Taxi MO Freedom Combined % N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A OTD - On-Time Departures TD - Total Departures OTP - On-Time Performance On Time Performance Data Input TPU - Total Pick Up (early, on-time) TP - Total Trips less cancel, late cancel, no show OTP - On-Time Performance Fixed Route OTP Data Input SAF OTP Data Input OTD TD OTP TPU TP OTP , , % 461, , ,927 21, % 28,756 33, , , % 455, , ,769 22, % 28,286 33,141 % 0.8% 0.4% 0.39% % -4.5% -4.5% -0.02% JCT OTP Data Input Special Edition OTP Data Input OTD TD OTP TPU TP OTP ,100 2, % ,753 6, % ,058 2, % ,518 6, % % 2.0% 4.6% -2.46% % 4.3% 4.0% 0.23% UGT OTP Data Input UGT OTP Data Input OTD TD OTP TPU TP OTP ,698 18, % ,388 3, % ,183 15, % , % % 17.7% 18.9% -0.96% % 30.9% 29.6% 1.03% IndeBus OTP Data input IndeAccess OTP Data Input OTD TD OTP TPU TP OTP % ,688 1, % % ,411 1, % % -53.3% -52.2% -2.36% % 19.6% 25.9% -5.00%

10 Accidents Per Million Miles (fixed) & Thousand Miles (Access) Data Input Fixed Route Accidents/Million Miles SAF Accidents/Thousand Miles Accidents Miles Calc Accidents Miles Calc , ,004, , , , , , ,433 % -21.6% 2.0% % % 20.0% -1.8% 22.24% JCT Accidents/Million Miles Special Accidents/Thousand Miles Accidents Miles Calc Accidents Miles Calc , , , , % N/A 6.0% N/A % % -60.1% % UGT Accidents/Million Miles UGT Accidents/Thousand Miles Accidents Miles Calc Accidents Miles Calc , , , , % N/A 4.8% N/A % N/A 6.0% N/A IndeBus Accidents/Million Miles IndeAccess Accidents/Thousand Miles Accidents Miles Calc Accidents Miles Calc , , , , % N/A 5.5% N/A % N/A 22.5% N/A Key Safety Performance Measures Fixed Transit Employee Injuries Employee Injuries JCT UGT Inde Combined SAF Sp. Edit. UGT Inde Combined % 0.0% N/A N/A N/A 0.0% % % N/A N/A N/A % Fixed Transit Collisions Collisions JCT UGT Inde Combined SAF Sp. Edit. UGT Inde Combined % -21.6% N/A N/A N/A -18.9% % 14.3% % N/A N/A 0.0% Fixed Transit Avoidable Collisions Avoidable Collisions JCT UGT Inde Combined SAF Sp. Edit. UGT Inde Combined % -43.8% N/A N/A N/A -43.8% % 0.0% N/A N/A N/A 0.0% Fixed Transit Days Away From Work For Injuries Days Away From Work For Injuries JCT UGT Inde Combined SAF Sp. Edit. UGT Inde Combined UNK UNK % 193.6% N/A N/A N/A 193.6% % #VALUE! N/A N/A N/A N/A Fixed Transit Collision Claims Collision Claims JCT UGT Inde Combined SAF Sp. Edit. UGT Inde Combined UNK UNK % 333.3% N/A N/A N/A 333.3% % #VALUE! N/A N/A N/A N/A Fixed Transit Security Incidents (Assaults) Security Incidents (Assaults) JCT UGT Inde Combined SAF Sp. Edit. UGT Inde Combined % % N/A N/A N/A -66.7% % N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

11 Mid America Regional Council Conflict of Interest Policy Governing all Boards, Commissions, Committees and Subcommittees The Mid America Regional Council (MARC) is dedicated to building a stronger metropolitan region by promoting regional cooperation and developing innovative solutions to regional challenges. MARC strives to operate in an open and transparent way that inspires confidence that the organization is an effective steward of public resources. The purpose of this conflict of interest policy is to ensure that participants on the MARC board and committees have clear guidance when a participant in any MARC decision making process could have a conflict of interest and what the appropriate action would be in those circumstances. It is in the best interest of the MARC Board of Directors, Mid America Head Start and all other boards, commissions, committees and subcommittees to be aware of and properly manage all conflicts of interest and any appearances of conflicts of interest. This conflict of interest policy is designed to help directors, officers, employees and volunteers identify conflicts of interest and disclose them to the appropriate authority. It is also designed to provide a procedure to appropriately manage conflicts in accordance with legal requirements and the goals of accountability and transparency in all MARC operations. The MARC Board, and boards that work through MARC such as the Mid America Solid Waste Management District, make decisions in a number of program areas that impact the availability of federal, state and local government funds and private contributions. This conflict of interest policy is intended to support those decision making processes. This policy is intended to supplement but not replace any state or federal laws that govern conflicts of interest in public, non profit, and charitable organizations. 1. Interested Person Any member of a MARC board, commission, committee or subcommittee charged with decision making or making recommendations for funding, who has a direct or indirect financial interest, as defined below, is an interested person. 2. Financial Interest Defined A person has a financial interest if the person has, directly or indirectly, through business, investment, or family: a. An ownership or investment interest in any entity with which MARC has a transaction or other financial arrangement, b. A compensation arrangement with MARC or with any entity or individual with which MARC has a transaction or arrangement, or c. A potential ownership or investment interest in, or compensation arrangement with, any entity or individual with which MARC is negotiating a transaction or arrangement. Conflict of Interest Policy Updated May 2017

12 For purposes of this policy, family members includes spouses, parents, children, and siblings (including those related by marriage), as well as significant others and any other person who resides with the committee/board member. 3. Procedure In connection with any actual or possible conflict of interest, an interested person must disclose the existence of the conflict of interest to members of the committee considering the proposed action or recommendation. A person who has a conflict of interest in a certain matter shall not participate in the discussion of that matter except to disclose material facts and to respond to questions. Such person shall not attempt to exert his or her personal influence with respect to the matter, either at or outside the meeting. The interested person shall abstain from any votes on funding recommendations, contracts or transactions in which there is an interest as defined above, and shall abstain from any votes for all meeting minutes or other records of the meeting. 4. Gifts, Gratuities and Entertainment MARC committee members and directors shall avoid accepting, directly or indirectly, any rebate, gift, money or anything of monetary value from an organization or vendor that could benefit from a MARC committee action regarding funding recommendations, vendor selection or other transactions. From time to time, vendors may pay for meals apart from a bid process. 5. Committee Representation MARC makes decisions on federal and state funding that benefits local communities within the Kansas City region. The MARC Board and many of its committees are composed of local officials representing the communities that may benefit from MARC Board decisions. It is not a conflict of interest for a board member or a committee member, who are also elected officials or local government staff members, to advocate for or vote on issues that will affect their jurisdiction. If an elected official serves on another public board by virtue of their elected office, it is not a conflict of interest for that elected official to participate in discussions and vote on matters affecting that other public body. In the past, smaller communities have at times been represented by consulting engineers on committees which rely on both technical and community considerations to make funding recommendations. Private consultants or other private parties shall abstain from any discussion or vote on all matters before the committee that might pose a conflict of interest due to a relationship between the project applicant and the private consultant. The private consultant or party should limit any participation in discussion to answering questions asked by other committee members. Individual committees may adopt specific procedural requirements for participation by members and others present at meetings. Conflict of Interest Policy Updated May 2017

13 6. Disclosure, Notification, and Review Policy Each director, officer, and committee member shall disclose any relationships, positions or circumstances in which he or she is involved that he or she believes could contribute to a conflict of interest when and if such situations arise. If a board member or committee member is unsure as to whether or not a conflict of interest exists, it is their responsibility to consult a MARC staff member associated with that committee to make a determination. If after such consultation, the individual is still unsure, then a determination will be made by the executive director of MARC. If the board of directors, the Head Start Policy Council or other commission or committee has reasonable cause to believe a member has failed to disclose actual or possible conflicts of interest, that body shall inform the member of the basis for such belief and afford the member an opportunity to explain the alleged failure to disclose. If such a report is made regarding a member of the board, committees or commissions, the following steps will be taken: MARC staff, including the Executive Director, will review the information and attempt to clarify if a conflict of interest exists or if additional information is needed. MARC staff will contact the board/committee member and discuss the issue. In most cases, the issue may be one of clarifying a relationship or disclosing it for future decision making processes. If the conflict is one that could raise questions by funding agencies or others regarding MARC s decisions, the issue will be discussed with the MARC board officers to determine appropriate disciplinary and corrective action. This policy shall be distributed annually to all decision making bodies associated with the Mid America Regional Council, including but not limited to the Mid America Head Start, for their review. Adopted by the MARC Board of Directors, August 25, 2009 (Updated September 26, 2013 and May 23, 2017) Conflict of Interest Policy Updated May 2017

14 AGENDA REPORT Budget and Personnel Committee January 2018 Item No. x ISSUE: BRIEF REPORT: Annual Refresher of the Conflict of Interest and Whistleblower Policies BACKGROUND: The MARC board has established two key policies. As a best practice, the policies are annually included on the agendas to provide an opportunity to review the policies and inform new members of the Board. Conflict of Interest Policy Governing all Boards, Commissions, Committees and Subcommittees MARC strives to operate in an open and transparent way that inspires confidence that the organization is an effective steward of public resources. The MARC Board of Directors and a number of MARC committees are responsible for authorizing grants and funding allocations that benefit local governments, public agencies and other organizations in the Kansas City metropolitan area. The committee processes ensure that federal, state and local funds available to the metropolitan area are invested in ways that benefit the region and local communities. The purpose of the Conflict of Interest Policy is to ensure that participants on the MARC board and committees have clear guidance when a participant in any MARC decisionsmaking process could have a conflict of interest and what the appropriate action would be in those circumstances. The MARC Board approved the Conflict of Interest Policy in August The policy was updated in September 2013 to clarify family members. Further edits were made based on feedback from the Total Transportation Policy Committee at their October 15, 2013 meeting. The policy is designed to help directors, officers, employees and volunteers identify conflicts of interest and disclose them to the appropriate authority. It is also designed to provide a procedure to appropriately manage conflicts in accordance with legal requirements and the goals of accountability and transparency in all MARC operations. The policy is intended to supplement but not replace any state or federal laws that govern conflicts of interest in public, non-profit, and charitable organizations. The following MARC boards and committees involved in making decisions or recommendations regarding funding awards also have this topic on their agenda annually: MARC Board of Directors MARC CSC Board of Directors MARC Budget and Personnel Committee Total Transportation Policy Committee (including its supporting planning and programming committees) Head Start Policy Council Commission on Aging Regional Homeland Security Coordinating Committee Solid Waste Management District

15 AGENDA REPORT Budget and Personnel Committee Whistleblower Policy Since the enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, many organizations (not just publicly traded corporations) have expressed interest and expectation about having a whistleblower policy. Organizations have begun to focus on protecting whistleblowers and providing mechanisms for employees to raise concerns, realizing it is better for an organization to learn about unethical or unlawful conduct internally than to find out about the conduct from a news article, a subpoena from law enforcement, or an investigation for a regulatory agency. Protecting whistleblowers is an essential component of an ethical and open work environment. It increases transparency and gives management the opportunity to learn early on of unethical or unlawful practices directly from their employees rather than from the media, law enforcement, or a regulatory agency. In addition, effective whistleblower protection helps foster a work environment in which all employees are held accountable, thereby improving performance and empowering employees. 1 Nonprofits are now required to answer a question on the IRS 990 form to indicate whether or not the nonprofit has a whistleblower policy. In addition, MARC was awarded a HUD Sustainable Communities grant. As part of that grant s terms and conditions, MARC must have a whistleblower policy. A good whistleblower protection program should: Provide employees multiple ways to report concerns Establish a forum where employees can raise concerns Prohibit retaliation Train managers and supervisors Take disciplinary action against those who engage in retaliation The attached policy incorporates the use of an external hotline program called WeTip, which is provided free of charge by Midwest Public Risk, MARC s insurance carrier. Any reports submitted to the WeTip program will be forwarded to the Executive Director, Financial Affairs Director, Human Resources Manager and MARC Board Chair. RECOMMENDATION: None. Information only. STAFF CONTACT: Carol Gonzales 1 Information in this paragraph is taken from an article, Whistleblower Protection in the Nonprofit Sector, written by Jason M. Zuckerman that appeared on the Nonprofit Risk Management Center website.

16 Kansas City Area Transportation Authority 2018 Legislative Priorities for Regional Transit The Kansas City Area Transportation Authority () is the regional transit authority for the Kansas City, Mo./Kansas City, Kan., metropolitan area. Federal funding is a critical component to providing existing and future transit in the metropolitan area. s Board of Commissioners and Executive Team appreciate the support of our Missouri and Kansas Congressional delegation. Federal Funding Priorities Support Investing in America s Infrastructure: On behalf of the 16 million customers riding transit regionally, the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority appreciates our delegation s support of multi-modal transportation funding through annual appropriations in keeping with the FAST Act. supports the Administration s commitment to strengthen America s infrastructure and continue innovative and sustainable funding measures that support responsible policies for regional economic and mobility needs and priorities. We re building a comprehensive transit system for the next 50 years through innovation, creative local partnerships and looking at mobility in a completely new way. Continued federal funding is critical to leveraging the momentum already occurring in the Kansas City region. Robbie Makinen President & CEO Immediate Priority: s top priority is to obtain a grant agreement and release of the $30 million in Federal Small Starts Grant funds for Prospect MAX. Thanks to our delegation, this project was included in FY 17 DOT Appropriations bill. It is a transformational project that will help revitalize an economically challenged area and connect people to regional jobs. In response to last fall s Notices of Funding Availability, submitted two requests for USDOT discretionary funding. One for technology upgrades to regional bus fleets on both sides of the state line from the Bus and Bus Facilities Program ($1.78 M). The other for TIGER funding ($15 M) to extend the streetcar to the rapidly developing Missouri River riverfront. Regional Transit Programs: Identification of and support of reliable funding for transit as a means for communities to improve local and regional mobility, increase long-term economic development and attract and retain residents and businesses is a critical need. Kansas City Area Transportation Authority.org RideKC.org

17 Appropriation Bill for FY 2019 Bus and Bus Facilities and Capital Improvement Grants: Full funding for the Bus and Bus Facilities program and the New Starts program at FAST Act authorized levels. Both programs provide important funding for projects that support our regional economy and enhance access to jobs by bus, BRT and streetcar. TIGER Grants: Continuation of the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) discretionary grant program at current funding levels. The KC region has a history of effective use of TIGER funds for important projects ranging from new transit centers in Kansas City, Kan., and Johnson County to the downtown KC Streetcar. Administration s Rebuilding Infrastructure in America proposal recognizes the importance of infrastructure of all kinds to the economic health of our country. We support continued and growing federal infrastructure investment. The Administration s infrastructure proposal contains a mix of incentives, public private partnership (P3) concepts and grant funding. Such a mix is appropriate, but a better balance is needed between P3 programs (which may be appropriate for projects such as KC s streetcar) and direct federal funding for smaller projects including BRT projects focused in areas needing economic revitalization. Funding for the new infrastructure program should come from new sources and not from eliminating existing programs like FTA s Capital Improvement Program or the TIGER program REGIONAL TRANSIT RIDERSHIP 16+ million rides 13.2 million Johnson County 456,465 Independence 270,048 Unified Government 162,675 KC Streetcar 2.1 million For more information contact: Janet Leverich JLeverich@kcata.org Kansas City Area Transportation Authority.org RideKC.org