MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, February 8, 2000

Council Chamber

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

Chair Monroe called the meeting to order at 1:34 p.m.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 18, 2000, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

2.  RESOLUTION NO. 00-2894, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR PERSONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS(S) FOR DESIGN SERVICES AND TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS FOR THE FIRST PHASE OF THE SOUTH CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES STUDY

Richard Brandman, Metro Transportation Planning Division Director, described the resolution. A copy of this document can be found in the permanent record.

Chair Monroe asked if the resolution would be discussed by JPACT (Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation) on Thursday, February 10, 2000.

Mr. Brandman said no. It would go straight to the council. He didn’t know where it would fit among the department’s federal priorities, so they took it off the list.

Councilor McLain said she wasn’t clear exactly what the council was considering.

Councilor Kvistad said they were discussing the study the committee had already agreed on. The committee had allocated the money for the study. They were releasing the RFP (Regional Framework Plan) to get the proposals back for the study itself. The next item was the priority listing. That was where the problems were. He offered to walk her through the process, with assistance from Andy Cotugno, Metro Transportation Planning Department Director.

Councilor McLain asked if the study was wide open.

Mr. Brandman said yes.

Chair Monroe asked if the steering group would meet, for the first time, on February 16, 2000.

Mr. Brandman said yes.

3.  RESOLUTION NO. 00-2892, FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPROVING PORTLAND REGIONAL FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES

Mr. Cotugno described the Draft No. 8 version of the Portland Regional Federal Transportation Priorities. He started with section 1. A copy of this document can be found in the permanent record. The underlined, or unmodified, text in Draft No. 8 is the version that was in the packet. The highlighted amendments were still under discussion as possible amendments. The base document was mailed to the committee members. The amendments represented the changes in Draft No. 8. For formatting purposes, he indicated that the Clackamas County Commission requested the italic and underscored text. On the entire last page, the bold text was language that had been requested by C-Tran. And the very big bold text where it said “Proposal” represented what he suggested the committee should have adopted, based on ongoing conversations between Washington and Clackamas counties. He thought he had an understanding of how the counties would respond, but Mr. Cotugno said he wouldn’t know until Thursday if he was right or not.

Essentially, the approach was to secure a funding contract for the next 5 years. Following last Friday’s announcement of the President’s federal budget recommendations, it was clear the department was well on the way to securing that contract, which would establish the basis for Metro’s annual appropriations. Each year for the next five years, starting with the current year with 2001, they planned to request $50 to $70 million dollars from the federal government to construct the I-MAX (Interstate MAX) project.

The approach described in the document was to not ask for a South Corridor appropriation. Instead, they recommended that Metro join a request for a statewide program of bus projects. They put together a strategy that enabled the whole delegation to support a complete statewide program, of which, the department’s piece in this region was the South Corridor bus program ($3.5 million for the Milwaukie transit station and the Milwaukie park and ride lot). Tri-Met met with the other transit districts and they all agreed to a strategy that defined specifically which transit agency was going to ask for what amount of money. The strategy produced a $16 million funding request list for the statewide bus program.

Politically, the strategy would work better during the appropriations process. If both senators and all five House members that represented Oregon in Congress supported one program, it would be easier to move through the federal appropriations process. He reminded the committee that at the same time, they were carrying an I-MAX appropriation. That was what he meant by the careful balancing of what was feasible in the congressional process and what was feasible in the administrative process. The department thought it was feasible to have asked for a $16 million statewide bus program. But they didn’t think it was feasible to ask for a South Corridor improvement, because the federal government would ask, “What was your priority?” They’d have to say I-MAX was the department’s priority. In that case they would have had to wait on the South Corridor project.

There was some gambling involved but the department was trying to be very strategic in how they asked for the funds through the congressional appropriations process. He thought the strategy would work but there were no guarantees. If they were united, the process would probably work. But if they disagreed, Congress could tell Metro and the state agencies to resolve their differences. Again, the federal government might ask the department to explain its priorities. Therefore, it was important to settle any disagreements between Washington and Clackamas counties. A unified delegation could send a clear message to Congress.

Councilor McLain said she considered the approach - which was a complete system again with buses, light rail trains and commuter rail - an easy sell. The hard sell at JPACT, according to Washington and Clackamas counties, would come during the hard times, if they had to pick one project instead of another. She asked what the order of priorities would be then. She paraphrased Mr. Cotugno and said it would be the (1) I-MAX, the (2) South Corridor and the (3) commuter rail.

Mr. Cotugno said the strategy they brought before the committee was that for the next five years the department would be looking for big chunks of money to fund I-MAX.

Councilor McLain asked if the department would seek big chunks of money for all three.

Mr. Cotugno said first for I-MAX. Then in that same time period, they would be looking for small chunks of money derived from the department’s allocation from the federally funded statewide bus program. When the committee is done funding I-MAX, they planned to ask for big chunks of money to fund the larger parts of the South Corridor project. However, until the department received sufficient funding to complete I-MAX, they couldn’t ask for big money for other projects. Still, if appropriated, the cash flow could begin as soon as the I-MAX was fully funded. That was why, in the meantime, the department planned on asking for bits and pieces of funding to finance smaller projects. The department initiated alternatives analysis and EIS (Environmental Impact Study) work to define what the new project would be in the South Corridor. When they have completed the next TEA-21 (Transportation Efficiency Act) authorization bill in 2003, the department would be in a position to present their project, whatever it would be, $100 million. The department would be asking for that amount to be authorized in the next bill. In addition, in Part 3, the department was looking to secure $25 million appropriated during the same 5-year period to fund the I-MAX project.

Councilor McLain understood and praised the department’s approach.

Mr. Cotugno said she was exactly right in her comments. If the department were asked who or what priority came first, whoever or whatever came second wouldn’t be happy. The idea was to advance all three projects at once so the department wouldn’t have to determine who was first.

Councilor McLain agreed and said she liked that strategy also. But she said it would take the council to coordinate that strategy so that people understood that everyone would move forward together or not at all.

Councilor Atherton paraphrased that when Councilor McLain said Metro was doing the best it could with the approach, she was referring to the statewide approach. He asked if that was a correct interpretation.

Mr. Cotugno said her remarks applied to all three approaches: the (1) statewide approach to get the south bus funding, the (2) I-MAX financing strategy and the (3) commuter rail funding approach. The statewide approach represented only one of the three pieces.

Councilor Atherton asked if the statewide bus approach was a $60 million appropriation.

Mr. Cotugno said no. It was $16 million. That amount was easier for Congress to approve.

Councilor Atherton asked if it was part of a new start category.

Mr. Cotugno said no. It was part of bus discretionary, a second category.

Councilor Atherton asked if federal gas tax revenue was the source of the federal funds.

Mr. Cotugno said it was a mixture of federal gas tax revenue and general fund money. He estimated that roughly ¾ of the total transit authorization amount of $5 to $6 billion a year for all the transit programs nationwide was derived from gas tax revenue.

Chair Monroe directed the committee’s attention to the amendments and Mr. Cotugno’s suggested language for each. Then they would vote on whether they would accept or modify the staff recommendations on the language.

Mr. Cotugno said he wasn’t sure if JPACT was going to approve his proposed language. But he thought they were close and approval would be soon. However, he expected changes at the JPACT meeting. So he suggested the committee recommend something to council. Then, if JPACT recommended something slightly different it could be reconciled by the council. He recommended not coming back through the committee with the amendment for timing reasons. They needed to complete things. If there was a difference, it could be reconciled at the full council meeting.

Chair Monroe agreed and said that was how he wanted to handle it.

Mr. Cotugno said the opening paragraph was written essentially to explain the department’s attempt to facilitate three projects at once. The Clackamas County Commission requested the underscored and italicized language. In his opinion, it reinforced that principle. He proposed that the language be adopted as part of the package. He hadn’t heard any objections from anyone concerning the clarifying language. This amendment was not a problem, but there were others that were.

Chair Monroe suggested the committee consider the entire package of recommendations at once and then adopt them with one vote, provided there were no objections.

Councilor Kvistad said the committee would probably agree on most of the packet, but there were a couple of the amendments that concerned him. Therefore, he suggested the committee consider the recommendations one at a time. It would at least make the process cleaner.

Chair Monroe approved of that process.

Mr. Cotugno said the section 1, subsection A described the approach for a 5-year contract for the I-MAX project. Section 1, subsection B was the South Corridor suggested language.

The final bullet was a request from Clackamas County for a commitment that operating funds would be available for the South Corridor project once it was built. The department was seeking capital money from the federal government to build the project through the strategy. He believed that Tri-Met’s decisions regarding what it would commit it’s operating funds to was a local issue, not a federal issue. Therefore, the discussion didn’t belong in the packet. Tri-Met indicated they were prepared to make a commitment to Clackamas County, but they would not commit their operating funds until they knew what the South Corridor project would be, and they knew what the financing to operate that project would consist of. That was expected to happen during the 12 to 18-month period Mr. Brandman mentioned. He recommended that the committee not add the clause to the base document, based on the premise that Tri-Met and Clackamas County needed to have a separate communication on that issue.

Councilor Kvistad agreed. He suggested the committee be proactive and indicate that they voted on the issue and decided not to include the language request from Clackamas County in the base document.

Councilor McLain said she agreed with the decision, but requested that the record indicate the committee’s reasoning. They decided not to include the language because it should have been reserved for a local discussion and, therefore, didn’t belong in a federal document, not necessarily because they disagreed with the intent of the language.

Mr. Cotugno described the amendment in subsection C. A couple things in the document concerned him in the request for amendments that Clackamas County submitted. He cited the text that read “The region will seek new start funds up to $25 million during federal fiscal years 2001 to 2003.” He saw no problem with the “up to” clarifying language. However, limiting the time frame to 2001 to 2003 would compromise flexibility at the federal appropriations level. It would be too difficult to narrow the appropriation for the $25 million target figure to the 2001-2003 time frame. To avoid a potential problem, he recommended language in the document in bolded text that indicated the department wanted to secure the $25 million as soon as possible. He said it should be acceptable to Clackamas County and would provide the necessary flexibility. The region needed to get in, get the $25 million and clear the deck by the time the South Corridor project was ready to proceed. Then, when the region approved a project like the commuter rail and was ready to proceed, they would not be competing for funding in the same time frame with other regional projects.

“As soon as possible” was adequate. It reflected the principle of their efforts and would provide flexibility if the region needed an additional amount in 2004 to complete the $25 million. Plus, the region was not committing itself to exactly which years. This would also work for the commuter rail project as well. They would like to get in, get out and get a simple project up and running quickly. The region was moving in the right direction. However, he didn’t know whether all the parties involved agreed with him yet. He believed the region agreed with the up to $25 million figure, but they didn’t agree on the time frame. Washington County was concerned about the commitment to the 2001-2003 period. He wasn’t sure whether they would agree to a broader time frame.

Chair Monroe asked if Mr. Cotugno advised replacing the fourth bullet with the new language that Mr. Cotugno recommended.

Mr. Cotugno said yes.

Councilor Kvistad said he had a conversation with Washington County Commissioner Roy R. Rogers yesterday. The commission still questioned the language. Councilor Kvistad was uncomfortable proceeding until he knew Washington County agreed with Mr. Cotugno’s new language. He asked if the other language was from the Washington County amendment or from the Clackamas County amendment.

Mr. Cotugno said the next bullet that was underscored and italicized was a Clackamas County request. He believed the last big, bold, bulleted item, which was Mr. Cotugno’s suggestion, was acceptable to both Washington and Clackamas counties as a compromise.

Councilor Kvistad said the committee had tried their best to mitigate the dispute. Washington County and Mr. Cotugno had also done a good job trying to proceed with the issue, but certain officials in Clackamas County didn’t understand that the money was not available to do what they wanted and they tried to prioritize it differently. They pushed the envelope a little past what was acceptable to JPACT. He recommended not doing anything more with the language if it might upset Washington County.

Chair Monroe asked Mr. Cotugno if he believed the language he proposed was objectionable to Washington County.

Mr. Cotugno said he didn’t know because he hadn’t talked to them about it yet. He talked to Clackamas County about his revised language, though.

Chair Monroe asked Mr. Cotugno if Clackamas County was still uncertain about his language.

Mr. Cotugno said yes. He talked to one commissioner who wouldn’t comment for the others.

Councilor McLain suggested forwarding the two pieces of language to JPACT for discussion.

Chair Monroe said the committee needed to clarify the language as much as possible, with the understanding that there may be additional changes.

Councilor Kvistad agreed. He didn’t think it would be a problem for Washington County. They were very sensitive to the issue because they felt they had bent over backward to the point were it was almost uncomfortable to develop a compromise, but they weren’t willing to do that anymore. It would probably be better to put Mr. Cotugno’s language in the document. If JPACT wanted to make a change, the committee wouldn’t have an issue with what they wanted to do. He asked Mr. Cotugno why Washington County might object to the language.

Mr. Cotugno said he thought Washington County would accept the language. The real issue was the sensitivity that Councilor Kvistad mentioned earlier. They were just concerned about how many more times they will be asked to compromise.

Mr. Brandman added, in response to Councilor Kvistad’s question, that Washington County would embrace the language. At their last steering committee meeting for the commuter rail project, everyone asked, “Can’t we do this sooner than later?” The language suggested getting it done as soon as possible.

Councilor Kvistad said the sensitivities were moving along faster than the results.

Mr. Cotugno said the italicized and underscored language in the next item was confusing.

Chair Monroe said he read it twice and still didn’t understand it.

Mr. Cotugno said the attempt to try to indicate what Clackamas County was looking at simply reiterated that the region would ask for $25 million through the federal new starts funding process because it was part of that streamlined process. He said any project that might need funding above that $25 million threshold should consult other non-discretionary federal transportation or other federal sources that might be available.

Chair Monroe asked Mr. Cotugno if he was correct to believe that $25 million was, in fact, the most that the region could ask for under that particular process.

Mr. Cotugno said it was the most the region could ask for under the streamlined process. If the region wanted to go through the whole competitive process…

Councilor Kvistad said the language indicated there were other funding sources.

Chair Monroe asked if it was saying the region could pursue other funding sources, but they couldn’t increase the $25 million. It was his understanding that the region couldn’t do that anyway under the streamlined process. He approved the language.

Councilor Kvistad said this amendment was very confusing. He recommended not doing anything with it. There was no reason to correct the language Clackamas County provided. He didn’t think they had an agreement about exactly what it means to the parties. They would be amending an amendment that wasn’t even on the table. They would have to vote for the amendment and then substitute the amendment below it for the amendment. It was already very clear in the document where the region was with the South Corridor bus issue. The committee had done everything to let them know Metro would support and fund the project, and that it was on the list. They secured the funding to do the work. The language was extraneous and would create an issue if it were included in the document. He didn’t support putting it in the document at all, either version. If JPACT wanted to add the language the committee could deal with it then, but he was going to recommend to them that they not include the amendment. But he said he would talk about it.

Chair Monroe wanted to reach agreement.

Councilor Kvistad said they’d been trying for months.

Chair Monroe said he knew that, but if they didn’t reach agreement, the likelihood was that the federal government wouldn’t authorize the funding. A split delegation on the issues going to Washington next month would not be good. He said he had been supporting Washington County’s position all along, be he didn’t think the language hurt their position. If it made Clackamas County a little more comfortable then it was worth amending.

Councilor Kvistad said Clackamas County didn’t understand. So he didn’t think the committee could make them more comfortable. The JPACT member from Clackamas County didn’t understand that the allocation for the I-MAX came from the regional pot of money collected from funding for Multnomah, Washington and Clackamas potential projects and programs. It wasn’t in his district or county, but they made a regional determination. That person didn’t understand they were not suddenly entitled to $20 million or the first money the region gets back. He said explaining it had been very difficult. They tried everything: meetings, etc. They wanted promises and language on top of language that wasn’t necessary and instead caused more friction. He understood the split delegation where the county goes to their congressperson. There probably wouldn’t be a split but it would be possible. He didn’t want the region to deal with a situation where if one party didn’t get what they wanted they’d consistently sabotage the process. They’ve done the best they could and they were finished. They would still be there to support the program. They would complete their projects. He said it was exactly what he planned to tell JPACT, if necessary. He planned to vote against the Clackamas County language, not because he didn’t support their proposal but because it made some people uncomfortable.

Chair Monroe said he opposed the Clackamas County language also, but the substitute language that Mr. Cotugno recommended was appropriate. If it gave Clackamas County some additional comfort, although it really wouldn’t do anything in terms of changing the thrust of the document, he was willing to approve it. He didn’t see anything in the language that harmed Washington County. He asked Mr. Cotugno if it made any difference whether the committee adopted it today or whether somebody made it a motion in JPACT on Thursday, February 10, 2000. Waiting until Thursday would offer an opportunity before the JPACT meeting to research whether the language was acceptable to both counties.

Mr. Cotugno said the committee was scratching at the margins of what was really necessary. The language from Clackamas County didn’t add much to the document. He wasn’t sure if both counties would support it, but they might. It wouldn’t hurt the situation to include or exclude it from the document. The best thing to do today was not recommend anything and wait and see what resulted from the JPACT meeting. Then council could act on the results of the meeting.

Councilor McLain agreed with Councilor Kvistad and said it was time to be proactive. If the language from Clackamas County didn’t add to the document, she questioned why the committee should leave it on the table and not comment on it. If she had to vote, it would have been for Mr. Cotugno’s language in the large print. But she didn’t see the benefit of either one. She recommended not including either in the document. It was fine if someone wanted to introduce one of them at the JPACT meeting. They could also vote on it at JPACT.

Chair Monroe said if the committee received word, between now and JPACT, that either piece of language gave additional comfort to Clackamas County and was not objectionable to Washington County, the committee could add it to the document.

Councilor Kvistad agreed with Councilor McLain. The committee should indicate they chose not to add any additional language to the document.

Mr. Cotugno described sections 2 through 12, which consisted of various projects around the region, including the I-5 Trade Corridor and Columbia River Channel Deepening projects. There were no amendments recommended. The set of recommendations was stable a while.

Councilor Kvistad commented on the Columbia River Channel Deepening Project. The committee facilitated the Port of Portland bringing forward the channel deepening and had tried to be supportive since then. He received telephone calls and letters from the fishing industry, and residents on the lower Columbia and in Astoria concerned about the fact that the committee had supported the project. The committee facilitated the matter but it was the Port’s issue. He requested adding a sentence that wouldn’t change number three. It would essentially say, “The region is sensitive to the concerns of the fishing industry and communities of the lower Columbia, and will seek to help mitigate any negative impacts.” The language indicated the committee supported the deepening of the channel, but also recognized the dredging and salmon recovery issues that concerned these people. It would give those concerned an additional level of comfort.

Chair Monroe asked how it would differ from language that was already in the document.

Councilor Kvistad said it would deal directly with issues that were sensitive to the concerns of the fishing industry and communities of the lower Columbia. It would speak specifically to them, rather than simply referring to the Endangered Species Act and the salmon recovery effort.

Chair Monroe said it didn’t add anything to the document. He said Metro already mentioned the fact that the agency agreed to undertake ecosystem restoration activities, and would address the Endangered Species Act for salmonoids in the Columbia River. The language was already very clean.

Councilor Kvistad said he talked to staff from the Port of Portland about industry and community concerns. He also brought it to and moved it through JPACT.

Chair Monroe asked if the Port of Portland and Port of Vancouver looked at the language.

Councilor Kvistad said no, but they didn’t necessarily need to. He brought it before the committee so they could have a discussion at JPACT later. The calls he received concerning this issue were important. It had been a sensitive issue for them for quite some time. He wanted to give them comfort and indicate Metro was sensitive to these issues. It didn’t promise that Metro would do anything other than put additional language in the document. He wouldn’t mind deleting the “help mitigate any negative impacts” active language if necessary. But he wanted to include language that indicated the committee was sensitive to concerned industries and communities.

Chair Monroe said his real concern was the “negative impacts” language because critics claimed the dredging project would kill eagles and salmon, and all kinds of other evil things. He supported the project and didn’t want to provide ammunition to its enemies.

Councilor McLain suggested a compromise. The committee should always be sensitive to the public’s concerns. The language simply indicated they would be sensitive. She agreed with Councilor Kvistad’s suggestion that the committee delete the “negative impacts” language.

Councilor Kvistad agreed, and offered to change the language to, “The region recognizes concerns of the fishing industry and communities of the lower Columbia River.” Eliminating the “help mitigate any negative impacts” language was not the issue for him. He just wanted to recognize public concerns and avoid any political problems.

Chair Monroe agreed, with the caveat that Councilor Kvistad brief the ports of Portland and Vancouver about his amended language. If they didn’t object, Chair Monroe would support the language. If they did object, he would support them and ask that the language be removed at the JPACT meeting.

Councilor Kvistad agreed. It was simply his attempt to recognize the committee’s concern for the record. The language would be: “Where appropriate in section 3, the region recognizes the concerns of the fishing industry and the communities of the lower Columbia.” The “recognizes” could also be replaced with “is sensitive to.”

Mr. Cotugno described sections 13 through 15, which consisted of the requested acknowledgement of C-TRAN’s proposed language that the department, in effect, supported their efforts to pursue this funding from their delegation.

Chair Monroe asked if adding the Clark County proposals would undermine, in any way, Metro’s efforts on behalf of the Oregon proposal.

Mr. Cotugno didn’t think so. Metro would make their request to their delegation, while Clark County would be making their request to their delegation. The appropriations committee would ask Metro what their priorities were and would ask C-TRAN what their priorities were. However, C-TRAN would have to compete with Seattle.

Chair Monroe asked if support from the Clark County congressional delegation, Brian Baird and the U.S. Senators from Washington state might help C-TRAN and the Metro region.

Mr. Cotugno said it probably would.

Mr. Cotugno asked if Councilor Kvistad wanted him to present language to JPACT that recognized the concerns of the fishing industry and lower Columbia communities.

Councilor Kvistad said no. The committee would amend the language. But he planned to discuss the matter JPACT.

Mr. Cotugno asked if Councilor Kvistad wanted him to incorporate something in the paper that indicated it was a proposed amendment from the committee.

Councilor Kvistad said yes. The committee amended it. If JPACT wanted it removed, he would be willing to discuss it. But he wanted to contact representatives from the Ports of Portland and Vancouver, and brief them concerning the language. He didn’t anticipate the ports would have a problem with the language.

4.  TPAC AND TPAC TDM CITIZEN MEMBERS’ SOLICITATION PROCESS

Mr. Cotugno discussed the Appointment Timeline for the TPAC (Transportation Policy Alternatives Committee) and TPAC TDM (Transportation Demand Management) Subcommittee. A copy of this document can be found in the permanent record. They had one citizen vacancy on TPAC and three citizen vacancies on the TPAC TDM subcommittee. In the past, council committee was the forum for soliciting, interviewing and selecting those citizen members to serve on those committees. The positions for the TDM subcommittee citizen members had never been filled before. This was a first for those seats. The TPAC citizen member positions had been filled quite often in the past. This would start the process. In the past the committee decided on the procedures. Usually the chair, one other committee member and Mr. Cotugno were the interview panel. He said the committee might want to add a member of the TDM subcommittee to the panel. There were already appointments on that committee from some other jurisdictions, which included Tri-Met, the city of Portland and the Port of Portland. Staff would be available to process the applications and assist with the interview process. However, before they could proceed with the advertising of positions and processing of applicants, they needed the committee’s agreement and approval of a process to follow to determine who would sit on the panel.

Chair Monroe suggested that Councilor Washington join him and Mr. Cotugno on the panel.

Councilor Kvistad agreed.

Mr. Cotugno said the TDM subcommittee asked whether they could assign a member to the interview panel. The subcommittee was sensitive to the qualifications of the individuals and what they needed to be prepared for.

Chair Monroe said neither he nor the other committee members had objections.

Councilor McLain said the March 23, 2000, meeting was cancelled, so the meeting date would have to be changed to March 30, 2000.

COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

Councilor Kvistad said the funding issues would come to a head at the next JPACT meeting. However, they should proceed. They simply couldn’t wait any longer. The RTP (Regional Transportation Plan) meetings were also scheduled to start soon. He recommended coordinating the council and JPACT approach because there would be a lot of work to do.

Chair Monroe said there was no council meeting on March 23, 2000. Whether there would be a council meeting on March 30, 2000, was still uncertain. He would check with Presiding Officer Bragdon. (Ordinarily, there was no council meeting on the fifth Thursday of a month.)

Councilor McLain challenged the committee to look at rural roads that were being used for urban purposes. It seemed unique to her. She wanted department staff to at least examine the design of the Verboort Road/Martin Road interchange, as a sample, and present findings to the committee for RTP related discussion. The committee should examine some of the associated issues and problems for farmers and the urban users. It was an issue that was left to be finished between now and the ordinance for the RTP. The situation shouldn’t be overlooked without some discussion on that specific project or perhaps just the issue in general.

Mr. Cotugno said the specific project didn’t concern him as much as the issue in general. However, he didn’t see it feasible, considering the compressed time frame they had to create a final RTP, to decide which roads in the rural area surrounding the region were or were not appropriate as traffic oriented streets. Yes, the committee created language in the RTP policy section that said certain roads should serve traffic in the rural area and others should be protected from such use. But going the next step and actually making those decisions was a much larger task.

Council McLain said she didn’t disagree, but the roads were being used to facilitate traffic by default. If individual projects and jurisdictions were handling it by default on a case by case basis, then it had become a much bigger problem than she started with. Even if he didn’t think it could be decided now, she still thought the committee should keep talking about the issue. They also needed to decide where to address it, and how and when to get it on the work plan. It was not a non-issue. She asked Mr. Cotugno to tell her what the committee should do.

Councilor Atherton said it was time to establish regional standards for roadway noise and air quality. They should be in the committee’s work plan. He said it was a perfectly acceptable role for a regional agency to establish such standards, at least for regional facilities if not local streets. Some people were currently living in unhealthy areas. Some of the areas were even designated for new growth. These were inhospitable, unhealthy places in terms of traffic congestion. In Clackamas County, there were violations to the level that required compensation - noise, dust, smoke, and houses that vibrated. He said regional measurements, conducted in remote, rural areas of the region, didn’t reflect the unhealthy conditions that existed near the major traffic arterioles.

Mr. Brandman said the eight years of intense planning the committee performed for the South-North and I-MAX light rail projects came to some fruition recently when the Clinton Administration recommended that Metro be included in their budget for next fiscal year. They also recommended that the Federal Transit Administration award a full funding grant agreement to Tri-Met for the I-MAX project, which the committee worked on the entire time. The Clinton Administration recommended 12 new projects. They also recommended that the Portland project receive the largest amount of funding of the dozen. In his phone call, the Secretary of Transportation in Washington D.C. praised the region and the work done on the project. He said it was the model for the nation.

ADJOURN

There being no further business before the committee, Chair Monroe adjourned the meeting at 2:42 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Andy Flinn

Council Assistant

Attachments to the Record

Metro Transportation Committee meeting of February 8, 2000

I:\Minutes\2000\TranPlan\020800tpm.doc