OFFICIAL - Main Street Streetcar Extension

[flyingember]

Isn't the existing TDD being absorbed? So once the vote passes any trains ordered would be running on a legally single system.

Let's say there's money for 10 trains in the funding. There may be operations logistics why one wouldn't run all 10 downtown but I can see how ordering them once funding is available count start testing them quicker than waiting on track availability. That at a minimum would speed up having the expansion ready

[grovester]

Yep, absolutely, once the new district actually exists as a legal entity, spend away!

[WoodDraw]

Isn't the existing TDD being absorbed? So once the vote passes any trains ordered would be running on a legally single system.

Let's say there's money for 10 trains in the funding. There may be operations logistics why one wouldn't run all 10 downtown but I can see how ordering them once funding is available count start testing them quicker than waiting on track availability. That at a minimum would speed up having the expansion ready

I highly suspect this is what is happening, even if they won't be quick to admit it.

[aknowledgeableperson]

It really doesn't matter if the two TDD's become one or not. There can always be an agreement between the two to share operations and such. And I would imagine that there would have to be an election within the first TDD to merge with the second one.

[flyingember]

It really doesn't matter if the two TDD's become one or not. There can always be an agreement between the two to share operations and such. And I would imagine that there would have to be an election within the first TDD to merge with the second one.

There's two paths (off the top of my head, MO statutes cover it)

1. you have a vote only in the new area. only this new area has to say yes
2. you have a vote in both areas. the existing area has to vote to expand and the new area has to vote to join.

[flyingember]

Ok, I found the text. Given a board has to be elected for this TDD I don't think it's being joined to the existing one since that would share the same board. Would have to be a new replacement TDD covering downtown too or a separate one.

Annexation of property adjacent to a transportation district,procedure--removal of property, procedure.

238.208. 1. The owners of property adjacent to a transportation district formed under the Missouri transportation development district act may petition the court by unanimous petition to add their property to the district. If the property owners within the transportation development district unanimously approve of the addition of property, the adjacent properties in the petition shall be added to the district. Any property added under this section shall be subject to all projects, taxes, and special assessments in effect as of the date of the court order adding the property to the district. The owners of the added property shall be allowed to vote at the next election scheduled for the district to fill vacancies on the board and on any other question submitted to them by the board under this chapter. The owners of property added under this section shall have one vote per acre in the same manner as provided in subdivision (2) of subsection 2 of section 238.220.

2. The owners of all of the property located in a transportation development district formed under this chapter may, by unanimous petition filed with the board of directors of the district, remove any property from the district, so long as such removal will not materially affect any obligations of the district.

[flyingember]

What type of option does Cincinnati have? Is anyone familiar with their system enough to know what they want?

I don't know enough, but if we can work with them on that option, that seems like a very rational way forward.

Consider this to be more a discussion between two city governments on the value of the option. Does the option expire is a big question.
Like if Cincinnati won't have the budget to buy another train for 5 years and the option expires in 4 no sane individual wouldn't give the chance to KC.

KC could give Cincinnati something. Doesn't need to be big, like KC helps train their staff in some new product or area KC is especially good at. Both cities have a river with another state across it so there's things that can be learned from each other.

[pash]

.

[flyingember]

I mean, I understand why this isn't happening. It isn't happening because when somebody tells us that if we wait a year or so to order new streetcars, then we might as well wait a few years longer, everybody says, "Oh, well, then we might as well sit back and wait several years." Am I really the only one who hears that and thinks, "Well, then we damn well better get off our asses and make this happen right now"?

Now don't you go being logical. Think like a NIMBY and say no to everything. it's easier.

[DaveKCMO]

the plan was always to replace the existing TDD with the new one -- in both the city's 2014 plan and KCRTA's 2016 plan.

the riverfront extension is mostly not in the existing TDD or the new proposed TDD. it's likely portKC will set up a Port Improvement District. i know very little about PIDs, but PortKC controls that process and the land so that reduces the chance of having two special districts getting out of sync on a project. PIDs can levy sales and property taxes (and maybe special assessments?). they're probably going to need a development impact fee, as well. initial capital cost estimate is $30 million, plus a portion of the system's operating costs. the riverfront extension would be a good candidate for a TIGER grant (eco devo is the driver), but not the small starts program the UMKC extension is targeting (ridership is the driver).

the streetcar authority is the entity responsible for streetcar operations, regardless of the funding source or status of any special district. the city of kansas city is the owner of the system and the recipient of federal transit administration funds (as is KCATA). that means the streetcar authority and KCMO will have to be directly involved in construction and operations of both the riverfront and UMKC extensions.

back to vehicles... cincinnati's CAF options expire at the end of 2017. the UMKC extension's lengthier timeline unfortunately precludes taking advantage of them (this is where starting MUCH earlier than june 2016 would have helped!). any new vehicle procurement would be subject to stricter "buy america" standards that have already taken effect and escalate to a higher percentage of domestic content every year through X date.

[aknowledgeableperson]

1. The current TDD has to have it's own interests as it's top concern. Don't believe it is in the position to speculate on expansion that may or may not happen. It is not prudent for it to spend money for something that is outside of it's current district.

"Speculating on expansion" is called transit planning, and in this case the speculation/planning is necessary to avoid a delay of several years in opening the expanded line. If the TDD's leadership, and the city's, are not figuring out how to make this happen, they are terrible at their jobs.

We have a TDD that runs a streetcar line. It can buy more streetcars.

2. The City is not an entity that can loan cash.

Yes, it is. It is also an entity that can give money away, and one that can enter into contracts to do things like purchase streetcars and then sell them. There are a million ways the city could help make this happen, if indeed the TDD even needs the city's help.

3. Political will? Why should the streetcars jump to the top of the lit of city priorities?

Because we're talking about merely shifting forward an investment by a few years—or maybe not even that, since we really just need to put the order in now, not pay for the whole thing—in order to (a) save money, since changing federal rules are raising acquisition costs, and (b) save a whole lot of time, several years' worth, that we will otherwise needlessly waste before the city's premier transit project is completed.

I mean, I understand why this isn't happening. It isn't happening because when somebody tells us that if we wait a year or so to order new streetcars, then we might as well wait a few years longer, everybody says, "Oh, well, then we might as well sit back and wait several years." Am I really the only one who hears that and thinks, "Well, then we damn well better get off our asses and make this happen right now"?

Planning and buying are two separate acts. Buying something is implementing an actual plan. A plan that is not a 100% sure thing.
If the current TDD buys the streetcars and then the expansion doesn't come into existence then what to do? Maybe sell at a loss?
And how the city finances work if the city were to purchase the cars it is correct that it doesn't have to pay for the cost now but it has to identify funds now and reserve those funds. Reserving those funds now prohibit the city from using those funds for other items it may need tying funds up for years.

[aknowledgeableperson]

"the plan was always to replace the existing TDD with the new one -- in both the city's 2014 plan and KCRTA's 2016 plan."

According to the law language citied above those votes would have to be unanimous. How would the action you describe work?

[DaveKCMO]

the two additional cars are for the starter line, not the UMKC extension (which would need 8 additional vehicles).

the current TDD board is made up of the mayor, chair of the PortKC board, and two mayoral appointees (krum and staub) who also sit on the authority board. they would vote to dissolve the current TDD after the new one is completely set up and the current TDD's rates are set to 0. since the TDD itself holds no debt and doesn't manage the streetcar fund (the city does both), that should be a relatively painless process.

the streetcar authority now has a page that discusses expansion: http://kcstreetcar.org/about-streetcar/ ... expansion/

[aknowledgeableperson]

" they would vote to dissolve the current TDD after the new one is completely set up "
From state statute 238.275 the board itself can not vote to dissolve.
Shall the ........................... Transportation Development District be abolished?
3. The district board shall not propose the question to abolish the district while there are outstanding claims or causes of action pending against the district, while the district liabilities exceed its assets, or while the district is insolvent, in receivership or under the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. Prior to submitting the question to abolish the district to a vote, the state auditor shall audit the district to determine the financial status of the district, and whether the district may be abolished pursuant to law.
4. While the district still exists, it shall continue to accrue all revenues to which it is entitled at law.
5. Upon receipt of certification by the appropriate election authorities that the majority of those voting within the district have voted to abolish the district, and if the state auditor has determined that the district's financial condition is such that it may be abolished pursuant to law, then the board shall:
(1) Sell any remaining district real or personal property it wishes, and then transfer the proceeds and any other real or personal property owned by the district, including revenues due and owing the district, to the commission or any appropriate local transportation authority assuming maintenance and control of the project, for its further use and disposition;
(2) Terminate the employment of any remaining district employees, and otherwise conclude its affairs;
(3) At a public meeting of the district, declare by a majority vote that the district has been abolished effective that date; and
(4) Cause copies of that resolution under seal to be filed with the secretary of state, the director of revenue, the commission, and with each local transportation authority affected by the district. Upon the completion of the final act specified in this subsection, the legal existence of the district shall cease.

[DaveKCMO]

from the KCRTA FAQ, written by an attorney:

If the new TDD is formed, it would exist along with the starter line TDD while the City
pursues federal funding needed to make the extension financially feasible. Until that
federal funding is obtained, and the project is ready to move to construction, the
revenue sources of the new TDD would not be triggered (i.e., they’d have been voter
approved but not implemented yet). This is expressly stated in the TDD Petition and
would be expressly stated in the ballot language just as was done for the 2014
expansion effort. Once all the other funding needed to make the extension feasible is
procured, then the existing TDD would be dissolved or its sales tax and special
assessments reduced to zero.

[flyingember]

The streetcar might have just become a lot harder to do.

The Republican platform says transit is something to fund locally. That's about as explicit as you can get.
http://usa.streetsblog.org/2016/07/21/o ... tastrophe/

On top of that, there's ~14 new transit projects likely going for federal funding now. So there's tough competition.

There's now a huge question of if there will be $100 million in federal funding to get.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bx1_a3 ... 1EZkU/view

And will MARC funding be allowed to go towards transit? Another unknown.

No general funds, PIAC, or excess TIF revenue is required for the extension.

I don't think anyone can make this claim now.

Funding this project 100% locally might be required at this point.

[flyingember]

I found the post where I made this argument back in July

http://kcrag.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=92 ... 19#p555719

Elections have consequences.

[MidtownCat]

So, looking like we will never have a trolley to the Plaza any time in our lifetimes. Cool.

[JBmidtown]

make Cerner and Sprint pay for the extensions.

just kidding. But for real though, there has to be some alternative option to federal grants.

[grovester]

I also hope you have more than 4 years left in your lifetime.