HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.A.2. Council authorization to move forward with discussions with Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA) regarding service consolidation �� Consent Business 4. A. 2.
�,t I 1KO)'F�:t=
TO: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director
DATE: 09/03/2013
SUBJECT: Council authorization to move forward with discussions with Minnesota Valley
Transit Authority (MVTA) regarding service consolidation. (D)
Action Sought
The Shakopee City Council is asked to offer and pass a motion to approve moving forward with
discussions with MVTA regarding transit service consolidation.
Background
Over the past few months the Scott Transit Review Board (TRB) has met with representatives of
MVTA, Southwest Transit (SWT) and the Metropolitan CounciUMetro Transit(MT) to discuss
the potential for transit service consolidation or cooperation with them. A copy of the summary
of those discussions is attached for the City Council's information. After reflecting on the three �
conversations the TRB recommended moving ahead with further discussions with MVTA. If the
Prior Lake and Shakopee city councils and Scott County board of commissioners concur, those
discussions will begin in earnest.
Recommendation
The Shakopee Transit Advisory Commission (TAC) on August 15, 2013 recommended that the
City Council approve moving forward with discussions with the MVTA.
Budget Impact
There is no immediate budget impact from the proposed action.
Relationship to Vision
This item relates to goal D. Maintain improve and create strong partnerships with other public
and private sector entities.
Requested Action
The Shakopee City Council is asked to offer and pass a motion supporting further discussions
with MVTA regarding transit service consolidation and/or cooperation.
Attachments: TRB Summarv
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Scott County Transit Review Board (TRB)
FROM: R. Michael Leek,Shakopee Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Summary of Approaches outlined by Minnesota Valley Transit Authority
(MVTA),Southwest Transit(SWT) and Metropolitan Councii/Metro Transit
MEETING DATE: July 31, 2013
INTRODUCTION:
In preparation for the discussions with the 3 providers identified above,the TRB prepared a series of
questions. These questions were modified somewhat depending on the provider, but are viewed as
useful in summarizing the approaches proffered by all three providers. Thus,this memorandum is
organized around those basic questions. The questions in this memorandum do not exactly match those
for each of the three discussions since they were modified for each discussion, but hopefully reflect the
basic sense of the questions.
SUMMARY:
Following is a summary of the responses from MVTA,SWT and MC/MT.
GOVERNANCE QUESTIONS:
Why would you consider addinq our communiries to your service?
MVTA-MVTA feels it would be a natural fit, as MVTA has a vision of being the transit provider south of
the [Minnesota] river.
SWT- From the discussion, it was not clear why SWT would want to add Scott County communities to its
service. The nature of their response was more on the order of contracting for service rather than
merging services.
MC/MT-MC/MT delivers services that connects people with opportunities,supports economic activity
and social interaction. Adding Scott County services builds upon this role both for Scott County and the
Region.
What is the local representation on your board of directors and how does it relate to your current
structure? How do you see Prior Lake,Shakopee and Scott County in this structure?
MVTA-Scott County currently has a representative on the MVTA board of director(i.e. Commissioner
Jon Ulrich). If inerger occurred, Prior Lake and Shakopee would each gain a seat on the board of
directors.
SWT- If inerger occurred, Prior Lake and Shakopee would each gain a seat on the board of directors.
MC/MT- Prior Lake and Shakopee would not gain a seat on the governing body,which is the governor-
appointed Metropolitan Council itself.
z
What do you envision as the process for a merger and transition,including a potential timeline?
MVTA- Discussed coordination with other entities as examples of how the transition might take place. A
specific timeline was not identified.
SWT-Discussion was very vague and a timeline was not identified.
MC/MT-Suggest a joint review of the Scott County Transit Capital and Operations Plan and discussion of
how that could be implemented through a Transit Cooperation Agreement such as exists with the City of
Minnetonka. A specific timeline was not identified.
COORDINATION WITH OTHER ENTITIES:
What is the strategic vision for your agency and what do you see as your future as a transit provider?
MVTA- MVTA sees itself in the future as the south of the Minnesota River transit provider with a role in
transitways as well (e.g. Cedar Corridor BRT).
SWT-A copy of the 2013-2015 Strategic Plan was provided, and it appears that the focus is on a)
growing service along TH 212 and TH 169, and b)serving the SW LRT.
MC/MT-The vision is to foster efficient and economic growth in the Region by(in part) providing
reliable, cost effective and sustainable transit services.
How do you see yourself adapting to the region's evolving transit model with the emphasis on
transitway investments over traditional express and local routes?
MVTA-South of the River provider, operator Cedar Corridor BRT.
SWT-The focus is on a) growing service along TH 212 and TH 169, and b) serving the SW LRT.
MC/MT- MC/MT does not see the Region moving toward transitways at the expense of express and
local route service. Refers to the Regional Service Improvement Plan (RSIP) as including a commitment
to express and local route service.
What role do you envision you would have in leading the effort to develop BRT on 169 and/or connecr
to the Region's evolving transitway system?
MVTA- Expressed excitement at the prospect of a TH 169 transitway, but did not discuss specific steps
to achieve the goal.
SWT- Representatives did not have a specific answer to this question, and the Strategic Plan does not
seem to address it either.
MC/MT-'Would explore connections between American Boulevard BRT,TH 212 and TH 169.
Do you see potential value in coordination with SmartLink?
IH:\TRANSIT\TransitCommission\2013\Summarv-MVTA SWT MC 07312013-JAK
2.CJOCxu�ronncrnc.,...r,.roo�n,.,...,t....��e�rrn c�err r.er mo��n��a,....,
3
MVTA-Provided a general response related to starting and expanding their own local services.
SWT-TRB did not ask this question specifically,so there was no specific discussion.
MC/MT-Have a good relationship with SmartLink, but do not have immediate plans for evaluation
and/or expansion of these services.
PLANNING AND SERV/CE QUESTIONS:
How do you see northern Scott County, especially Shakopee and Prior Lake,fitting into your current
service p/anning and what adjustments should be made to accommodate these communities?
MVTA- Because their service planning and contracting are similar to Prior Lake's and Shakopee's (e.g.
MVTA also contracts with Schmitty&Sons for bus service)felt that transition would be easier to manage
and benefits would obtain.
SWT-The focus is on a) growing service along TH 212 and TH 169, and b)serving the SW LRT.
MC/MT- Existing and planned services"fit very well"with MC/MT network of express and local services.
Provided a long list of service delivery items about which there would need to be agreement from route
planning to marketing and beyond.
How would you implement the Scott County Transit Operations and Capital P/an recently adopted?
MVTA- Indicated that as long as the current services, and those in the Plan are working, MVTA would
not contemplate making changes.
SWT-TRB did not ask this question specifically, so there was no specific discussion.
MC/MT-Suggest a joint review of the Scott County Transit Capital and Operations Plan and discussion of
how that could be implemented through a Transit Cooperation Agreement such as exists with the City of
Minnetonka. A specific timeline was not identified.
How do you see the transition from the existing service contract with Schmitty and Sons to a new
contract?
MVTA- It was noted that MVTA has similar contract(s)with Schmitty&Sons,and that transition could be
relatively easily accommodated.
SWT-SWT will be rebidding their existing contract in the next year or two; SWT can work with 2
contractors until then.
MC/MT- Metro Transit would plan to provide service with a mix of directly operated service and
contracted service.
We have two CMAQ grants for-buses to serve our Park and Ride facilities in the STIP—Prior Lake in
2013 and Shakopee in 2015.
1. What expertise do you have in implementing these grants?
H\TRANSIT\TransitCommission\2013\Summarv-MVTA SWT MC 07312013-1AK
Z.d0�x��\TDA�f T�f�..��f..TOO\�n.....J�+�\�rt\/TA—C1�T—�A/'_l17]'1']!1'17.�..��
4
2. How will these grants serve as assets to you in implementing service for our residents?
MVTA- MVTA has staff that can assist with the details of the CMAQ grants and their implementation.
SWT-TRB did not ask this question specifically, so there was no specific discussion.
MC/MT- Not specifically addressed, but the MC administers all CMAQ grants in the Region.
There are cities in Scott County not currently being served by BlueXpress. What is your approach or
philosophy of expansion of service to currently unserved areas?
MVTA-Has recognized providers cannot look at just the current transportation service area, and has
recommended projects outside of the area. Farmington is an ex-officio member of the MVTA board.
SWT-Look at service delivery strategy and partnerships such as those in Chaska and Chanhassen.
MC/MT-Discussed use if dial-a-ride service to rural areas. There is not enough demand for regular route
service at this time.
STAFFING AND RESOURCE QUESTIONS:
Are you adequately staffed to absorb this additional service or would additional staff be required? Do
you see a continuing role for existing staff as we make the transition?
MVTA-Adequate staffing
SWT-Adequate staffing
MC/MT-Adequate staffing
OTHER ORGANIZATIONAL MODELS:
• A joint powers board between Shakopee and Prior Lake for transit operations other than dial-a-
ride
• A joint powers board between Shakopee, Prior Lake and Scott County for transit operations
including dial-a-ride
• Scott County taking overall all management of commuter transit activities and integrating it into
its existing transit program (SmartLink model)
• County-wide joint powers agreement where all Scott County municipalities contribute funding
to transit services. (County-wide JPA model)
• Maintain the status quo
TRB ACTION REQUESTED:
Provide staff with direction on the governance approach the TRB wishes to explore more fully.
H\TRAN5IT\TransitCommission\2013\Summary-MVTA SWT MC 07312013-JAK
2.d��xLl.\TD A�f T f.�..��1'..TO�\11.......1+�\\.1\Tl1—f1�?—�Af—l1'I]1']!1'I].1..�..