Public Works & Safety Standing Committee:
Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas, Kansas (March 16, 2026)

By Drew Arends, Kansas City Documenter

These notes were produced through Kansas City Documenters, which trains and pays community members to take fact-checked notes at public meetings, strengthening transparency and accountability in local government.

Summary

• Parts of Kansas City, Kansas, and Wyandotte County could see significant improvements to areas of high traffic if the Unified Government is chosen for a Safe Streets for All (SS4A) grant. 
• Residents should expect increases in sanitary sewer, stormwater and solid waste utility rates if current service levels are maintained or improved. For sanitary sewers, a 1% service increase would add about 56 cents a month per average household starting May 1, 2026, and a 7% service increase would add about $3.97 per average household in 2027. Stormwater and solid waste rate increases per average household would also vary based on service changes.  
• The UG is applying for grants from the Mid-America Regional Council (MARC). These could pertain to multimodal, environmental, air quality or environmental improvements.

Notes

Meeting Attendance

• Chair and Commissioner Andrew Kump, District 2 at large
• Commissioner Bill Burns, District 2 
• Commissioner Christian Ramirez, District 3 
• Commissioner Evelyn Hill, District 4 
• Commissioner Phil Lopez, District 6 

• Call to Order/Roll Call
  • Kump called the meeting to order. 
  • Burns and Ramirez attended in person. Hill attended online. Lopez was not present for the roll call but later joined the meeting virtually. 
• Revisions to agenda
  • None. 
• Approval of standing committee minutes from March 24 and June 23, 2025, and Jan. 28, 2026
  • Motion approved. 
• Committee Agenda
  • 4.1 Presentation: Safe Streets For All (SS4A) Vision Zero action plan
    • Sarah Shafer with the Public Works Department and Alyssa Marcy with the Planning & Urban Design Department led the initial presentation. They reviewed how the UG was eligible for a variety of grants. Locally, it comes from MARC. On a state level, it comes from the Kansas Department of Transportation. Federally, it comes from an Safe Streets for All grant if the UG plans and prepares beforehand.
      • A steering committee led by the UG has done the planning and preparation. Shafer and Marcy highlighted example projects that SS4A can fund, including intersection improvements, pedestrian and cycling facilities, traffic calming and street management. 
      • Formal applications for SS4A grants are due in June. This  presentation was an initial overview. 
    • Priority safety locations were reviewed by a consultant with Kimley-Horn, Anthony Gallo.
      • To determine locations, data such as crash history, crash risk and public engagement were reviewed. The steering committee then reviewed top locations across each district in the county to create a short list of 20 locations. Finally, UG staff reviewed locations that had planned projects by the city, state and KDOT to remove those locations. 
    • Locations
      • The final 20 locations included five highlighted for SS4A, where up to $25 million could be allocated but probably closer to the average of $10 million. Each of the five has a history of fatal crashes and high crash costs.
        • KCK
          • Parallel Parkway from 64th Terrace to 67th Street 
          • Rainbow Boulevard/Seventh Street and  Southwest Boulevard intersection 
          • Choose 1:
            • 18th Street from Ridge Avenue to Interstate 70
            • 55th Street from Metropolitan Avenue to Swartz Road 
        • Bonner Springs
          • Front Street/Loring Lane from Kaw Drive to Stillwell Road 
        • Edwardsville
          • K-32 (which runs along Kaw Drive) and 98th Street
    • Next Steps
      • Marcy and Shafer said their goal was to finalize the Vision Zero plan by April 1. 
      • For the UG to be eligible for SS4A, Vision Zero projects need to be finalized and posted online by June 1.
        • The full commission will need to consider and vote on the matter beforehand. 
      • The UG can then apply for other funding for more projects identified by Vision Zero. 
    • Questions/Comments
      • Ramirez said that the Seventh Street and Southwest Boulevard intersection was “horrid” and that any fixes should ensure that “commuters know where to go.” He expressed gratitude for the work accomplished. 
      • Hill asked whether the UG had received a grant for this opportunity. 
        • Shafer said that they hadn’t for SS4A but that they had for other transportation grants. 
        • Hill asked how government officials running SS4A would know the UG was ready to be eligible.
          • Gallo said the opportunity had emerged since the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law passed. Four years of awards have happened, but last year, applicants in Kansas were awarded grants for the first time. 
          • Gallo said the government officials running SS4A would know when the UG would be eligible by the UG publishing and referencing their Vision Zero plan in its grant application. 
          • Marcy added that an ordinance should be passed by the elected body affirming its support of Vision Zero. 
      • Burns said the 18th Street from Ridge Avenue to I-70 project could cause drivers to miss an exit because of lacking signage, which could affect drivers traveling between Wyandotte and Johnson counties.
        • Shafer confirmed that Burns would prefer the 18th Street project over the 55th Street project. 
  • 4.2 Presentation: Stormwater utility rates / 4.3 Presentation: Sanitary sewer utility rates / 4.4 Presentation: Solid waste utility rates 
    • Troy Shaw and Shafer with the Public Works Department said that these rates had historically been set during budget season but that since that’s a busy time, they brought it up beforehand. 
    • Each presentation reviewed different scenarios based on different levels of service. The levels have different costs. Higher service levels cost more. 
  • 4.3 Presentation: Sanitary sewer utility rates
    • Scenario A (not compliant service level)
      • If status quo is maintained, it would require a 4% increase but still would not be in compliance.
    • Scenario B (Required)
      • Required covers many tasks. Sanitary sewer is the most regulated fund of the three. Required would mean 7% monthly average increase (56 cents to $3.97 per household). Assists with Kaw Point Facility Plan. 
    • Scenario C (Responsible)
      • Keeping up with performance and maintenance. Planning for long-term capital development projects. This means an 8% monthly average increase ($1.13 to $4.61 per household). Treatment Plants 20 and Wolcott would be better supported.  
    • Not Pictured (Resilient)
      • Investment areas increased. Redundancy targeted. Capacity improvements for growth and peak events. This is beyond the UG’s current capacity.  
  • 4.2 Presentation: Stormwater utility rates
    • Scenario A (Required)
      • Fixing emergency drainages without deadlines. Clearing inlets in response to and prevention of flooding. Maintaining 2024 to 2026 rates through 2027. 
    • Scenario B (Responsible)
      • Routine inlet cleaning. Pipe rehabilitation. Watershed planning. Average increase per household between 20 cents per monthly bill in 2026 and 96 cents in 2027. Planning for long-term capital development projects.
    • Scenario C (Resilient)
      • Flood mitigation. Studying rain patterns. Long-term watersheds. Resilience opportunities. Economic development. Average increase of 20 cents per month in 2026 and $2.21 in 2027. 
      • Shaw said stormwater utility rates were calculated from an average of “2,850 of impervious square feet.” If someone has a higher amount of impervious square footage, then that translates to higher costs and vice versa. 
  • 4.4 Presentation: Solid waste utility rates
    • Solid waste utility rates are different due to the challenges of costs in residential rates and costs not being fully recovered due to Bonner Springs and Edwardsville residents paying different fees. 
    • Scenario A (KCK residents fund all services)
      • Services remain the same. 
      • Average monthly increase of $1.31 per household.
    • Scenario B (KCK residents do not fund internal city services)
      • Services could be lost if not allocated from other parts of the budget. 
      • No cost change. 
    • Scenario C (Bonner Springs and Edwardsville pay cost of services)
      • Services remain the same. 
      • Average monthly increase of $1.21.
    • Questions
      • Ramirez asked how much residents were currently paying for solid waste services. 
        • Shaw said it was roughly $669,000 per year, or an average household monthly payment of $1.11.
        • For sanitary sewers, Ramirez asked whether the UG had already approved Scenario A.
          • Shaw said it’s what they approved for 2026 and had historically approved. 
        • Ramirez asked whether, if the UG continued with it, the UG would fail to meet the EPA consent decree.
          • Shaw said it would. 
        • Ramirez emphasized the UG must meet the decree but did not want to propose anything in this committee meeting, instead deferring to the full commission. 
      • Kump asked what the penalties were for not meeting the consent decree.
        • Shafer said up to $5,000 a day. 
      • Hill asked what the average price was to rehabilitate  stormwater pipes.
        • Shaw said that would depend on the extent of rehabilitation and could range from $20,000 to $2 million. The UG hasn’t historically acted responsibly, he said. That’s why they have learned how many fixes need to be made. “We don’t know what we don’t know.”
        • Hill asked, “How much should we be prepared to spend for a responsible budget?”
          • Shaw said the answer lay in Scenario B of stormwater utility rates. 
          • Shafer said, “Quite a bit.” It could cost $500 million to fix deficiencies, according to an estimate from 2019-2020. They understand that UG doesn’t have this financial capacity, but every step toward responsible management helps. 
    • A motion was made individually for each proposal to be moved for further discussion, with no recommendation, to the full commission. All three motions were passed unanimously. 
  • 4.5 Approval: MARC grant funding 
    • Shaw of Public Works explained that MARC releases grants every two years but only gives three weeks to apply. Applications are based on criteria like multimodal transportation, clean air, environmental considerations and more. The UG meets these criteria. Public Works has received permission from the mayor to apply. If the grants are awarded, Public Works will notify the commission. The grants are 80-20 matches but don’t cover design, so the UG would have to spend somewhat more than 20%. If chosen, the UG doesn’t have to accept the grants, which would begin in 2029-2030, leaving enough planning time.
    • Shafer of Public Works concluded by referencing the many MARC grants in the SS4A presentation that were mentioned. Public Works is not in a position to use 2029-2030 funds for projects mentioned in the SS4A presentation, but the department could be for the next two-year allotment. 
• Public Agenda
  • None 
• Adjourned
  • Unanimous

Observations & Follow-Up Questions

• In regard to the projects covered in the SS4A presentation, is there a plan to increase public awareness of the efforts? Community engagement has been done by the steering committee in determining the locations, but what are the next steps for disseminating these potential projects and fixes to the broader public?
• What is the extent of improvements for each of the five projects highlighted? Why wasn’t more time spent discussing the projects themselves? 
• Why were no recommendations made by the committee for any of the proposed utility rates? If this committee is meant to focus on these issues compared to the rest of the full commission, then why have no formal opinions on next steps forward?

Read more about this meeting and see all Kansas City Documenters notes here.