ITEM 5.3 Wright County JPA public transitW
OtkzoF
MINNESOTA V
DEPARTMENT INFORMATION
Request for
City Council Action
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:
REQUESTOR:
MEETING DATE:
Administration
Lori Johnson, City Administrator
May 12, 2014
PRESENTER(s):
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM #:
Lori Johnson, City Administrator
5.3
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend discussion of Wright County Cities Joint Powers Agreement for Public Transit including
input on the City's desire to enter into the agreement to provide public transit in Otsego.
ARE YOU SEEKING APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT?
No
IS A PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED?
No
BACKGROUND/JUSTIFICATION:
Since December, 2013, the Wright County cities have been working with MnDot to secure public transit
in Wright County following the upcoming dissolution of RiverRider on June 30, 2014. It has been
determined that Trailblazer Transit is the only option available to provide public transit in Wright
County. However, the Wright County Board has not been able to reach a majority decision on
partnering with Trailblazer for transit in Wright County.
For that reason, the only manner of providing public transit in the cities within Wright County now is for
the cities to form a joint powers entity that will partner with Trailblazer Transit. The cities of Buffalo,
Monticello, and Delano have a significant commitment to and reliance upon public transit; it is
important to these cities that bus service continues without interruption on July 1. Thus, the City of
Buffalo took the lead in drafting a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) of the cities to provide public
transportation. The Buffalo City Council has approved the entering into the JPA. Howard Lake and
Delano Councils have reviewed the agreement and support the JPA. Most of the other cities are
reviewing the JPA at their upcoming meetings.
One of the main concerns raised when the City Administrator group discussed the JPA this week was the
allocation of the payment of the local share. The local share for purposes of this agreement is the
portion of the 15 percent of costs not covered by fare revenue. MnDot funds 85 percent of the
approved budget. The revised JPA that is attached calls for local share payment based on ridership; this
is similar to the arrangement of the agreement Otsego entered into with Albertville, Hanover, and St.
Michael for service beginning in January. That agreement calls for payment based on parcel units in the
area served. The new JPA is structured to require payment from the cities based on the service
received. Therefore, if Otsego does not have service during the ramp -up phase, no local share is
required. Payment is not assessed until service is provided. The ramp -up phase is the transition period
in which Trailblazer will be acquiring busses and staff to expand service to meet the demands in Wright
County. It may take until 2016 until all cities receive full service. In addition to the local share payment,
a recent change to the JPA calls for an annual payment for administration of the JPA; this has not yet
been discussed by the cities.
Further, the voting and opt-in/opt-out provisions of the agreement were identified as items that need
additional discussion and careful consideration before a final JPA is adopted.
Gary Ludwig, Trailblazer Transit, has stated that the delays in decision making by Wright County have
precluded Trailblazer from providing service on July 1 to the extent that it currently exists. Mr. Ludwig
stated Trailblazer will be able to provide service on September 1, 2014, if a JPA is approved and a
partnership with Trailblazer is entered into soon.
MnDot has agreed to assist the cities with financing start-up costs such as cash flow reserve and capital
through an agreement between MnDot and Trailblazer. The costs would be either eliminated through
operating profits or through repayment by the cities in five to ten years.
I will provide additional information at Monday's meeting regarding the potential JPA and recent
developments in this matter.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: X o ATTACHED c NONE
• Draft Joint Powers Agreement
• April 28, 2104, Letter from Trailblazer Transit to Wright County
POSSIBLE MOTION
Please word motion as you would like it to appear in the minutes.
No motion is required. However, a motion to authorize continuing discussions on the JPA and with
Trailblazer as service provider is appropriate if the Council wants to provide public transit in Otsego in
the near term. If the Council concurs with the JPA, a motion could be made to support the agreement
nerally as written or with the changes recommended by the Council.
BUDGET INFORMATION
FUNDING: I BUDGETED: o YES
■ i•
ACTION TAKEN
o APPROVED AS REQUESTED o DENIED o TABLED o OTHER (List changes)
COMMENTS:
WRIGHT COUNTY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION TRANSPORTATION
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
The parties to this Agreement are governmental corporations under the laws of the State of Minnesota
and located in Wright County, Minnesota.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute §471.59 authorizes the joint and cooperative exercise of powers common
to the contracting parties.
WHEREAS, the undersigned parties desire to provide for an agreement between and among them to
establish a joint powers board for Transportation for purposes of providing a coordinated service
delivery and funding source for public transportation; and
WHEREAS, it is the resolution of the Governing Bodies for each undersigned party that it is in the best
interests of the citizens of each governmental unit to enter into this Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AND UNDERSTOOD AS FOLLOWS:
1. Joinder of Wright County Political Subdivisions. The undersigned Wright County Political
Subdivisions hereby agree to join together for the purpose of coordinating the delivery of public
transportation services and establishing a joint funding source for said services through establishment of
a Wright County Political Subdivision Transportation Joint Powers Board ("WCST Board").
2. Board Composition. Each member shall appoint annually a representative to the WCST Board.
Members can appoint an alternate representative who may act in the place and stead of an absent
representative from that governmental unit.
3. Funding Services. The WCST Board is authorized to procure such State and Federal funding as is
available for the provision of public transportation services. Each member unit agrees to pay a
proportionate share of the remaining unfunded expenses based upon the proportion of their unit's ride
share attributable to the governmental unit for the prior year. There shall be an initial $1,000 fee from
each member unit to cover initial administrative services. This fee will be an annual fee upon approval of
the WCST Board when deemed as necessary for the proper operations of the Board.
4. Meetings. The WCST Board shall meet at least annually on a schedule determined by the WCST
Board. All meetings of the WCST Board shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the Minnesota
Open Meeting Law, Minn. Stat. §13D.01, ET. seq., as amended. Special meetings may be called by the
Chair or upon written request of three (3) or more board members. Written notice of any special
meetings shall be sent to all board members and to the city clerk of each member city to comply with
posting requirements.
5. Powers and Duties. The powers and duties of the WCST Board include, but are not limited to,
expending funds for the purpose of establishing, funding, coordinating, administering and operating a
public transportation service including:
a. Apply for, receive and expend State and Federal funds available for said purpose, as well
as funds from other lawful sources, including fares, donations or gifts for the purpose of providing public
transportation services and such supplemental services deemed advisable by the WCST Board.
Approve an annual budget.
Adopt and implement a management plan to carry out the WCST Board's purpose.
d. Enter into contracts with public or private entities as the Board deems necessary to
accomplish the purpose for which the Board is organized, including, but not limited to, the hiring of any
consultants.
e. Obtain such insurance as the Board deems necessary for the protection of the WCST
Board, members of the WCST Board, member cities, and its property.
f. Exercise all other lawful powers necessary and incidental to the implementation of
public transportation services and the purposes and powers set forth herein.
6. Voting. Each member's voting authority shall be determined by the proportion of their Unit's
ride share to the aggregate ride share of the member Units. Every Governing Unit shall be entitled to
one vote. Prior to the first meeting in March the Secretary of the Board shall determine the number of
votes for each Member in accordance with this section and certify the results to the Chair. A quorum
shall consist of 10 representatives from the member cities. A simple majority vote of the board
members present at the meeting with a valid quorum shall be required by the WCST Board to take
action unless otherwise provided in this Agreement or by law. (ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE: Proportional
Voting shall only be instituted when the WCST Board votes on Budget Matters in excess of $10,000).
7. Officers. There shall be a chair, a vice chair, and a secretary elected from the members at the
initial meeting of each year. The officers shall be elected from different member cities. The WCST
Board may elect or appoint such other officers as it deems necessary to conduct its meetings and affairs.
8. Effective Date/Termination. This agreement shall become effective upon adoption of a
resolution by the Governing Body of each member unit and be effective for Five Years after adoption.
This Agreement shall remain in effect until a party hereto gives notice to the WCST Board of its intention
to withdraw. Notice of withdrawal must be given by April 1 of a given year. Termination will be effective
at the conclusion of the fiscal year.
9. No Waiver. Nothing herein shall be construed to waive or limit any immunity from, or limitation
on, liability available to any party, whether set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466 or otherwise.
10. Severability. If any section, subdivision or provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid or
unenforceable for any reason, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section, subdivision or provision
shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any of the remaining provisions.
11. Amendment. Any amendments to this Agreement must be in writing, signed by the parties,
following approval of their respective Governing Bodies.
12. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of
Minnesota.
13. Disputes. The parties agree that they will submit any disputes under this Agreement to
mediation prior to resorting to an action in Court.
By signing this Agreement, the parties hereto certify that the same has been approved by their
respective Governing Bodies.
By
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Administrator
By
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Administrator
By
Wright County Board Chair
ATTEST:
Wright County Official
By
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Administrator
By
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Administrator
Trfilblazer
./ Transit
April 28, 2014 -
Lee Kelly, Wright County Coordinator
Christine Husom, Wright County Board Chair
Wright County Government Center
10 2nd Street NW
Buffalo, MN 55313
Dear Mr. Kelly and Ms. Husom,
1 MT_; IT
Serving Sibley and McLe®d
ON, UP* 12 014
207 West 11th Street • .Glencoe, MN 55336
Phone (320) 864-1000 • Fax (320) 864-1910
On Thursday, April 24, 2014, the Trailblazer Joint Powers Board voted to discontinue negotiations with
Wright County relative to a new joint powers agreement to provide public transit service in Wright
County. The vote was 4-0 with Commissioner Ron Shimanski abstaining from the vote. Commissioners
Sheldon Nies, Bill Pinske, Jim Swanson, and Kermit Terlinden voted yes. In summary, the Trailblazer
Board based its decision on the belief that the Wright County Board is not ready to form a partnership
with Trailblazer. Listed below are more specific reasons that explain the decision.
The Trailblazer organization has participated in several meetings with Wright County Board members
and has observed multiple other meetings, including Wright County Board meetings, where the
discussions indicate there is a deep divide among Wright County Board members about public transit in
Wright County, The Trailblazer Board is uneasy about partnering with an entity that has such division
and disagreement, and the continuous discord over partnering with Trailblazer raises concerns about
Wright County's willingness and ability to commit to a long-term partnership.
Although Wright County voted 3-2 to accept Trailblazer's terms of partnership, Trailblazer believes that
the Wright County Board is not a viable partner at the present time. Entering into a new transit
partnership is difficult enough with a united board that is in full support of the initiative, but a divided
board threatens the success of a partnership from the beginning. As recently as Tuesday, April 22, 2014,
the Wright County Board was talking about its ability to pull out and walk away from a Trailblazer
agreement, and there were also comments made about Wright County possibly having an alternate
partner available in a relatively short time. This is not the type of talk that inspires confidence that there
will be a successful partnership with Trailblazer.
Furthermore, not only did the aforementioned Wright County vote contain a questionable amendment
that required Trailblazer to hire all RiverRider drivers so that Wright County could lessen its liability
against two-thirds of RiverRider's potential unemployment expenses, but the lengthy effort'it took to
get a passing vote was concerning to the Trailblazer Board, as was the political gamesmanship that
overshadowed the decision. Just prior to the vote, Commissioner Daleiden accurately predicted that the
Trailblazer Board would find the Wright County Board confusing.
The Trailblazer Board was also concerned about the performance of Commissioners Sawatzke and
Borrell on the negotiation committee. In short, the Trailblazer.Board felt that these commissioners were
not doing theirjobs as committee members. On Thursday, April 17, 2014, the Trailblazer Board believes
that the Trailblazer model was clearly explained to Commissioners Sawatzke, Borrell, and Potter, along
with potential service levels and local share costs for Wright County. However, comments made by
Commissioners Sawatzke and Borrell at the Wright County Board meeting on April 22, 2014, indicated
that they didn't know what the Trailblazer model was, what service levels might be provided in Wright
County, or what the costs to Wright County might be for those service levels. Instead of bringing the
information back to the other Wright County Board members who were not present at the Trailblazer
meeting when these matters were explained, it appeared that Commissioners Sawatzke and Borrell
withheld the information from board members; misled the general public, and exploited the subject for
their personal political agenda. If these commissioners didn't understand the information, then the
Trailblazer Board believes it was their responsibility to learn the information and properly report
everything back to the full Wright County Board. Additionally, these commissioners stated publicly that
the Trailblazer Board didn't even know what the Trailblazer model was, which is inaccurate and insulting
to Trailblazer. The Trailblazer Board believes that this type of behavior is unprofessional and
unacceptable, and Trailblazer does not want to partner with anyone who operates this way. Nor does
Trailblazer wish to operate with individuals who regularly provide information out of context or who
provide incorrect information altogether, even after they have been told their information is incorrect.
Sibley and McLeod Counties have worked with MnDOT over the past 15 years to develop an effective
and efficient transit system that the residents, cities, and elected officials are very happy with. The
quality of service, service design, and expenses are watched over very carefully by the Trailblazer Board
members and various department heads in both counties. Trailblazer provides more than twice the
level of service and nearly four times the number of rides in an area with less than half the population of
Wright County. On the other hand, RiverRider has been cited by MnDOT for numerous performance
issues and is dissolving because Sherburne County no longer wanted to partner with Wright County.
Subsequently, Trailblazer finds it ironic and offensive that Commissioners Sawatzke and Borrell are so
critical of Trailblazer's numbers and believe that they can fix Trailblazer if given the opportunity to do so.
These comments are inflammatory and are based on incomplete information, and they are coming from
commissioners who are at the helm of a transit system that has a poor performance record and that will
soon cease to exist. Why would Trailblazer want to partner with individuals who are disparaging and
disrespectful to Trailblazer and the people who have built it into something that MnDOT, Sibley County,
McLeod County, and the residents are proud of?
The Trailblazer Board provided Wright County the opportunity to partner with a popular and successful
transit system in Sibley and McLeod Counties because it was the right thing to do. The Trailblazer
organization and business model would be focused on providing a higher quality of service and a higher
level of service than what has been provided by RiverRider, which is what Trailblazer has heard directly
from the transit stakeholders in Wright County that they desperately want. Regrettably, the Trailblazer
Board cannot pursue a partnership with Wright County at the present time due to Wright County's lack
of confidence, trust, and respect for Trailblazer. The lack of responsibility, professionalism, and stability
on the Wright County Board also makes it difficult for Trailblazer to believe that an amicable, long-term
partnership will be successful at this time. Furthermore, the values of the Wright County Board relative
to transit are significantly different than the values of Sibley County and McLeod County. Some Wright
County commissioners are adamant about not spending any county money on transit, whereas Sibley
County and McLeod County are focused on providing a quality transit service at sufficient levels that
make it worthwhile for the general public to access the service on a regular basis and that allow for the
cost -savings benefits to other government programs to kick in. Trailblazer desires to provide as much
service as efficiently and safely as possible, whereas some discussions at Wright County Board meetings
suggest that increased use of public transit is undesirable. How can Trailblazer expect to develop a
successful partnership with Wright County to provide transit services when some Wright County Board
members do not even support public transit to begin with?
2
Understanding that the political climate on the Wright County Board is unlikely to change in the near
future, Trailblazer would be open to allowing the cities in Wright County to unite and collectively take
the place of Wright County on the Trailblazer Joint Powers Board in order to expand the existing
Trailblazer public transit system into Wright County. However, Trailblazer is firm in its position that it
will not work with 16 separate cities. Rather, the cities need to organize on their own and then
approach Trailblazer with a request for partnership. Although Sibley and McLeod Counties would have
preferred to work with Wright County rather than a collective of cities, Trailblazer has been impressed
by the patience and professionalism shown by the cities in Wright County and their unwavering desire
and support to provide quality transit service.
Additionally, the Trailblazer Board has voted to expand its service area and to provide transportation to
Functional Industries with three buses for the remainder of 2014 and for the foreseeable future.
Trailblazer is concerned about the consumers at Functional Industries getting caught in the political
crossfire, and the Trailblazer Board wants to make sure there is continuity of service for this population
until a long-term solution for transit can be worked out in Wright County. Therefore, please be advised
that Trailblazer plans to still provide service in Wright County without any local assistance from Wright
County for at least the short-term. The Trailblazer Board recognizes the value and need for public
transit in Wright County and will continue to pursue opportunities where economies of scale can be
achieved and where residents can benefit from increased levels of service.
Sincerely,
Gary R. Ludwig
Executive Director
Trailblazer Joint Powers Board
CC: Bill Pinske, Sibley County Commissioner and Trailblazer Chairperson
Kermit Terlinden, McLeod County Commissioner and Trailblazer Vice -chairperson
Mike Schadauer, Office Director — MnDOT Office of Transit
Tom Gottfried, Program Director — MnDOTOffice of Transit
Beverly Herfindahl, Program Coordinator— MnDOT Office of Transit
Lori Johnson, City Administrator— City of Otsego
C* 5- Li
WRIGHT COUNTY 'u icnnAn"AREA TRANSPORTATION
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
The parties to this Agreement are governmental corporations under the laws of the State of Minnesota
and located in Wright County, Minnesota.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute §471.59 authorizes the joint and cooperative exercise of powers common
to the contracting parties.
WHEREAS, the undersigned parties desire to provide for an agreement between and among them to
establish a joint powers board for Transportation for purposed of providing a coordinated service
delivery and funding source for public transportation; and
WHEREAS, it is the resolution of the Governing Bodies for each undersigned party that it is in the best
interests of the citizens of each governmental unit to enter into this Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AND UNDERSTOOD AS FOLLOWS:
1. Joinder of Wright County Political Subdivisions. The undersigned Wright County Political
Subdivisions hereby agree to join together for the purpose of coordinating the delivery of public
transportation services and establishing a joint funding source for said services through establishment of
a Wright County Pelitical SubdivisionArea Transportation Joint Powers Board ("WE3T-WCAT Board").
2. Board Composition. Each member shall appoint annually a representative to the ,"�WCAT
Board. Member cities can appoint an alternate representative who may act in the place and stead of an
absent representative from that governmental unit.
3. Funding Services. The VIGSTWCAT Board is authorized to procure such State and Federal
funding as is available for the provision of public transportation services. Each member unit agrees to
pay a proportionate share of the remaining unfunded expenses based upon the proportion of their
unit's ride share attributable to the governmental unit for the prior year. There shall be an initial $1,000
fee from each member unit to cover initial administrative services. This fee will be an annual fee_.
adjusted as necessary by t;- - a— the \A�TWCAT Board, when deemed
necessaFy.approoriate to provide forthe proper operations of the Board.
4. Meetings. The WWtrSTWCAT Board shall meet at least annually on a schedule determined by the
WG&TWCAT Board. All meetings of the Wf3TWCAT Board shall be conducted in a manner consistent
with the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, Minn. Stat. §13D.01, ET. seq., as amended. Special meetings
may be called by the Chair or upon written request of three (3) or more board members. Written notice
of any special meetings shall be sent to all board members and to the city clerk of each member city to
comply with posting requirements.
I Comment [s1j: How about "Wright County
Area Transportion" just sounds better
5. Powers and Duties. The powers and duties of the'"�WCAT Board include, but are not limited
to, expending funds for the purpose of establishing, funding, coordinating, administering and operating
a public transportation service including:
a. Apply for, receive and expend State and Federal funds available for said purpose, as well
as funds from other lawful sources, including fares, donations or gifts for the purpose of providing public
transportation services and such supplemental services deemed advisable by the WC-STWCAT Board.
b. Approve an annual budget.
C. Adopt and implement a management plan to carry out the `"� WCAT Board's purpose.
d. Enter into contracts with public or private entities as the Board deems necessary to
accomplish the purpose for which the Board is organized, including, but not limited to, the hiring of any
consultants.
e. Obtain such insurance as the Board deems necessary for the protection of the
WQSTWCAT Board, members of the VKSTWCAT Board, member cities, and its property.
f. Exercise all other lawful powers necessary and incidental to the implementation of
public transportation services and the purposes and powers set forth herein.
6. Voting. Each member's voting authority shall be determined by the proportion of their Unit's
ride share to the aggregate ride share of the member Units. Every Governing Unit shall be entitled to
one vote. Prior to the first meeting in March the Secretary of the Board shall determine the number of
votes for each Member in accordance with this section and certify the results to the Chair. A quorum
shall consist of 10 representatives from the member en# estntities�. A simple majority vote of
the board members present at the meeting with a valid quorum shall be required by the WCSTWCAT
Board to take action unless otherwise provided in this Agreement or by law. (ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE:
Proportional Voting shall only be instituted when the MXF WCAT Board votes on Budget Matters in
excess of $10,000).
7. Officers. There shall be a chair, a vice chair, and a secretary elected from the members at the
initial meeting of each year. The officers shall be elected from different member cities. The 1A�TWCAT
Board may elect or appoint such other officers as it deems necessary to conduct its meetings and affairs.
8. Effective Date/Termination. This agreement shall become effective upon adoption of a
resolution by the Governing Body of each member unit and be effective for Five Years after adoption.
This Agreement shall remain in effect until a party hereto gives notice to the VKSTWCAT Board of its
intention to withdraw. Notice of withdrawal must be given by April 1 of a given year. Termination will
be effective at the conclusion of the fiscal year.
9. No Waiver. Nothing herein shall be construed to waive or limit any immunity from, or limitation
on, liability available to any party, whether set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466 or otherwise.
10. Severability. If any section, subdivision or provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid or
unenforceable for any reason, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section, subdivision or provision
shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any of the remaining provisions.
11. Amendment. Any amendments to this Agreement must be in writing, signed by the parties,
following approval of their respective Governing Bodies.
12. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of
Minnesota.
13. Disputes. The parties agree that they will submit any disputes under this Agreement to
mediation prior to resorting to an action in Court.
By signing this Agreement, the parties hereto certify that the same has been approved by their
respective Governing Bodies.
By
Mayor
ATTEST:
By
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Administrator City Administrator
By.
Mayor
ATTEST:
By.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Administrator City Administrator
By
Wright County Board Chair
ATTEST:
Wright County Official