MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, March 21, 2000

Council Chamber

Members Present:  Rod Monroe (Chair), Jon Kvistad (Vice Chair), Susan McLain

Members Absent:  

Also Present:    Bill Atherton  

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

Chair Monroe called the meeting to order at 1:36 p.m.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 3, 2000, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

2.  RESOLUTION NO. 00-2919, FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPROVING NEW CITIZEN MEMBERS TO TPAC AND THE TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) SUBCOMMITTEE OF TPAC, IN ACCORDANCE WITH RESOLUTION 92-1610.

Andy Cotugno, Metro Transportation Planning Department Director, said the resolution included one appointment to TPAC (Transportation Policy Alternatives Committee). Rick Williams resigned, so they recommended Bill Marris to fill the vacancy. Mr. Marris was the chief financial officer for Market Transport, Inc., the largest trucking company in the region. They handled dispatching for Fred Meyer and operated the company’s large warehouse. Mr. Marris was extremely verse in trucking and transportation issues. He participated with the Columbia Corridor Association and the Leadership Committee for the I-5 (Interstate 5) Trade Corridor group that ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation) convened last year. Mr. Marris was a good business-oriented representative and replacement for Mr. Williams. Mr. Marris would be the second freight representative on the TPAC Committee. The other was Bill Stewart. They debated adding a second. However, Mr. Marris was so impressive. They didn’t see any problems. The other four members represented alternative modes of transportation and still outnumbered the freight operators. Mr. Marris was practical, interested in his community and active with Hayden Island civic activities. His rounded background, which included more than just trucks, made him a good addition.

Mr. Cotugno said several months ago the committee also adopted a reconstituted membership for the TDM (Transportation Demand Management) Subcommittee of TPAC, which included three citizen members. They used the same solicitation to solicit for the three positions. So they were also being appointed by the resolution. The department received a total of approximately 10 applications, and was happy with the quality of responses they received. Mr. Cotugno, along with Councilor Monroe, department staff member Marilyn Madison, and Tony Mendoza and department staff member Bill Barber from the TDM Subcommittee, completed the interview process and recommended appointment of the following individuals to the TDM Subcommittee.

Linda Odekirk was the TDM manager for Nike and one of the founding members of the Washington County TMA (Transportation Management Area). She was very active in Nike and had extensive practical experience.

Frank Orem had an environmental background. He was a staff member of the National Environmental Defense Fund. He also worked extensively on demand management related activities in the San Francisco Bay Area, and therefore had experience from another region that he brought to the Portland area.

Richard Thompson was a Portland community activist in his Southeast Portland neighborhood for a long period of time. He was also extensively involved in TDM activities as part of his job functions at the United States Post Office.

Chair Monroe, as part of the selection process, was impressed with all the candidates, especially the final choices. He seconded Mr. Cotugno’s comments regarding Mr. Marris. He wasn’t just a truck guy, though it was his business and area of expertise. Mr. Marris was also a regional advocate with a multi-modal regional outlook, and would be an outstanding addition to TPAC.

Council Kvistad praised Linda Odekirk’s experience and qualifications.

Chair Monroe agreed. She was impressive and definitely on Metro’s A-list.

Chair Monroe assigned the resolution to Councilor Kvistad to carry to council.

3.  RESOLUTION NO. 00-2920, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENDORSING VOTER APPROVAL OF BALLOT MEASURE 82.

Mr. Cotugno introduced Dan Keeney, from Compman, Fiske and McCormick, who managed the campaign for Ballot Measure 82. The resolution was Chair Monroe’s endorsement of the measure. He recapped what the measure would accomplish, and said it was fairly critical to the success of agenda item 4, which he planned to discuss next. It was a major step forward that would determine how Metro planned to fund all the upcoming transportation projects.

The highlighted portion was the $600 million bond measure that was important for Metro. The transportation department endorsed a list of projects that would be funded by the bond measure. The commission adopted the list, and Metro was compatible with the direction in which the bond measure was headed.

There were several additional goals the ballot measure would accomplish. First, the local governments would receive the first three cents of the five-cent gas tax increase for maintenance of their road systems. Their roads were currently in the worst condition and represented the component of the regional transportation system that was the farthest behind. They desperately needed the funding. Second, ODOT would receive one cent of the increase to maintain their current road system, rather than to simply build new projects. Third, the measure provided counties the local option of an add-on vehicle registration fee. It was an additional $10 per year increment. The county commissions that favored the fee would simply have to vote to request that ODOT collect that fee for them. It was an important component that would help as well. Finally, the measure would convert the truck weight-mile tax to a diesel tax. This created the most controversy. The diesel tax was a combination diesel fuel tax plus a registration fee. It focused on diesel fuel because the difference between what light trucks and heavy trucks pay was very small. They all averaged 4 - 6 miles per gallon. Therefore, the registration fee would be steeply graduated depending on vehicle weight. The heavier trucks would pay a higher rate. There were also various exceptions for special conditions. Unfortunately, the controversy and arguing between the trucking and automobile commuter advocates overshadowed the benefits that would be derived from the measure.

Daniel Keeney, 7745 SW Redhawk Court, Durham, represented Fair Funding for Better Roads and described a major study published in USA Today regarding road conditions in urban areas across the country. (A copy of the article can be found in the record.) Portland was among the worst areas in the country in terms of the condition of its roads. Sixty-nine percent were in poor or mediocre condition. Measure 82 would cost the average Oregon vehicle owner approximately $45 per year (or $3.75 per month). The measure wouldn’t save motorists in Oregon money, but they would eventually pay hidden taxes if it weren’t approved.

Projects the measure would fund included $73 million to extend Milwaukie Expressway across Interstate 205 at the 82^nd Avenue overpass; $24 million for a new connection for Columbia Boulevard and Killingsworth Street at 87^th Avenue; $21 million to widen Highway 217 to six lanes between T.V. (Tualatin Valley) and Sunset highways, and reconstruct interstate on/off ramps in those areas; and $19 million to reconstruct Naito Parkway as a Main street that would emphasize improved safety for pedestrians and include turn lanes, bike paths and sidewalks.

Each year, approximately $61.5 million of the funding would be reserved for local governments. Clackamas County would receive $15.7 million; cities within that county, $7.7 million; Multnomah County, $28.3 million; cities within that county, $31.3 million; Washington County, $17.1 million; and cities within that county, $11.8 million, during the next 6-year period. The money would help local governments catch up on maintenance of their roads, which was a need, the study indicated, that because of under-funding wasn’t being addressed.

There were some controversial aspects of the measure, including the proposed change in the method of truck taxation. However, there were important protections incorporated in the measure as well. This included Measure 76, a constitutional amendment that was approved by state voters in November 1999. It required that all car and truck classes pay their fair share of the tax. To do otherwise, and shift the burden in any way, would be unconstitutional. Also, even if the measure was a complete disaster and didn’t work, it would sunset in six years. Only a super-majority vote of the legislature would authorize it to continue beyond that date. That was why the Governor and the very conservative state legislature approved HB 2082 after it achieved bipartisan support in the last legislative session. He urged the council to support the measure.

Chair Monroe asked how recent gasoline prices increases would affect public support for the measure.

Mr. Keeney said they saw signs and hoped that gas prices, though completely uncontrollable, would start to decrease during the next month.

Chair Monroe hoped prices decreased, because the measure, which was a tough sell before the price increase, would now be extremely difficult to pass. He said the council supported the measure and Mr. Keeney’s campaign. He drafted the resolution and asked that it be introduced because he and the majority of the council felt strongly that unless they satisfied the needs of the region’s transportation infrastructure, the 2040 Growth Concept would not be successful. Therefore, if the council really believed the message it was trying to send to the public, they needed to support the measure any way they could.

Councilor Kvistad said he wanted to be consistent and indicated that he didn’t approve of the council endorsing ballot measures, candidates or other similar issues. However, he would support and vote for Measure 82, simply because it was so important for the region. The measure, though complicated by the truck issue, wasn’t non-winnable, but it would be tough.

Chair Monroe generally agreed with Councilor Kvistad that the council shouldn’t pass resolutions of support for every ballot issue. However, passage of Measure 82 was directly related to Metro’s agency functions, so he thought it was appropriate. Following the vote, the full council would review the resolution on March 30, 2000. He would carry the resolution himself.

4.  UPDATE – STATUS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FISCALLY CONSTRAINED RTP FINANCE PROPOSAL AND FUNDING OF THE STRATEGIC SYSTEM.

Mr. Cotugno said his department reviewed some of the components of the fiscally constrained system at the council informal meeting two weeks ago. One issue that Dave Lowman mentioned at JPACT (Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation) was whether the department should assume money from the federal Borders and Corridors Program for the I-5 Corridor. They reversed, looked at the forecast they completed on the level of federal funds the department already assumed and agreed they ought to include revenues. The department added approximately $50 million - $60 million, which allowed them to include funds for the bridge to West Hayden Island, the Port Marine terminals and approximately half of the I-5 Greely area project. Mr. Cotugno thought it was reasonable to assume those both related to the I-5 Trade Corridor. They consulted with ODOT, the Port of Portland and the city of Portland on whether it was a reasonable set of assumptions to include.

They were almost finished defining the fiscally constrained system. Now, they were creating models and would have information soon regarding whether the air quality emissions were acceptable and what the performance data looked like from that system. They started to move on to the other piece. If the agency region decided it didn’t want to live within the fiscally constrained option, then it needed some optional strategies for funding the RTP (Regional Transportation Plan). He referred to a handout, Strategic Transportation System Funding Options. (A copy of this document can be found in the record.) It was meant to serve as a thought piece to help define a series of alternatives that the department could use to identify what would be required if the region tried to implement the RTP using particular sources. What tax rates would be required? They broke funding for the RTP into five pieces, noted on the handout. He referred to the handout.

He said the baseline represented what Metro had been trying to accomplish, but it was obvious why it wasn’t working. They tried to implement a 2-cent per year gas tax increase through the legislature to fund the first two pieces on the list. The city and county share (50 percent of the increase) would fund their maintenance programs. The remaining 50 percent would fund the state’s maintenance efforts. Therefore, the maintenance need would be met.

However, the region needed another 2 cents per year to fund the modernization of highways. That was when the strategy unraveled. If Measure 82 passed it would satisfy the first 2-cent per year increase. The second 2-cent increase and the modernization piece (which is the RTP) had not been addressed, only maintaining the existing system.

He reviewed Metro’s status quo method of searching for transportation funding. Metro pursued “odds and ends” sources of funding for transit operations. They succeeded in securing funding for Tri-Met for special needs transit that took some pressure off the rest of that agency’s revenue sources, that could now be spend on conventional services. They funded transit capital with federal funding and property tax bond measures. However, the department hadn’t been able to identify any other source of funding to fill the modernization need.

He described options 2 and 3, and said he was looking for feedback regarding the set of scenarios he presented to the council. He also asked if there might be another undiscovered scenario that would be preferable to fully fund the RTP.

Councilor McLain asked if his department had coordinated efforts with the funding committee from MPAC (Metro Policy Advisory Committee).

Mr. Cotugno said he hadn’t been coordinating with them for about a month because of scheduling conflicts, but he had been prior to that time. He had conversations with Clackamas County Commissioner Mike Jordan concerning coordinating discussions between Commissioner Jordan and the council.

Councilor McLain said she kept receiving calls regarding how Metro’s RTP and constrained funding options conversations fit with the urban growth boundary (UGB) decisions. She thought it was a reasonable, realistic question, and that the committee was coordinating its efforts with the growth and transportation departments. She asked him to describe the coordination process.

Mr. Cotugno said the RTP indicated that the system upon which land decisions should be made, whether it was Metro’s UGB decision or a local government zoning decision, was the strategic RTP. It represented the policy conclusion of what Metro was trying to achieve. That level of system should be evaluated for land use efficiency. If a proposed land use action exceeded that system, then something would have to happen. Either one wouldn’t take the land use action or they would add something to transportation to accommodate the need. So he was before the council to determine how to fund the system. That was the way the RTP was structured. It was the system that Metro and local governments made, a policy statement the department was trying to achieve.

Councilor Atherton talked about the strategic system. He asked if it was designed to fund development in the North Stafford area. He also asked if the plan recommended three lanes on I-205.

Mr. Cotugno answered yes to both questions. However, the three lanes were designed to serve North Stafford and all the other growth in Clackamas County.

Council Atherton asked about a maintenance figure for the strategic system. He cited the number listed for City/County OM&P – Existing Funding Shortfall that he had never seen before. He asked if the state highway information included most of the major arterioles.

Mr. Cotugno said anything designated state highway was ODOT’s responsibility. The designation included the freeways, plus some other state highways like T.V., Oregon City Bypass, Highway 212 through Damascus, Highway 213 and 82^nd Avenue. They were all state highways also.

Councilor Atherton asked where he could find the $25 million - $50 million figure shortfall for maintenance.

Mr. Cotugno said the level necessary to continue to maintain the existing infrastructure at status quo conditions was the $25 million - $50 million. The higher number was the funding level necessary to fully maintain the existing infrastructure and process the backlog. Currently, an estimated 77 percent of roads were in fair or better condition. To boost that to 95 percent required spending more money to catch up with the backlog.

Chair Monroe said there was a sufficient number of ideas and funding choices listed on the handout. It was a good plan for moving forward and sorting things out through the JPACT process during the next 2 - 3 months.

5.  UPDATE – TRIP TO WASHINGTON D.C. (TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 2000, THROUGH THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 2000)  

Richard Brandman, Metro Transportation Planning Division Director, provided an update of two meetings some of the delegation hadn’t attended. Several Tri-Met representatives and he visited the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Senate Banking Committee staff that would review the full funding grant agreement for the Interstate MAX (I-MAX) project. The FTA was very supportive of all the region’s transportation efforts. He discussed the South Corridor and the Commuter Rail projects with them. They understood the I-MAX project. But he wanted to make sure they understood the region was still proceeding with its unfinished transit agenda, and planned to complete the southern half of the South-North Corridor and then proceed quickly with the Commuter Rail project.

Mr. Brandman and the Tri-Met representatives received very positive feedback from the FTA, which was now aware of both projects. He and the Tri-Met representatives described how the Commuter Rail project would be a good candidate for funding in the same time frame as the I-MAX project, which would not be simple to complete from the administration’s perspective. The FTA had many projects across the county that they were trying to invest in.

Mr. Brandman and the Tri-Met representatives also met with the Banking Committee staff charged with reviewing the contracts the administration proposed for signatures from the FTA and the local transit agencies. What they heard from the committee staff was very encouraging. The staff were informed about the I-MAX project and approved of it, so they didn’t need a detailed presentation or to ask too many questions. Metro’s lobbying team of Jeff Booth and Peter Peizer did an excellent job. Mr. Booth had obviously built rapport with the Banking Committee staff that was encouraged by the project and wished the region well. They said once the contract was proposed by the FTA in May 2000, it would go before the Banking Committee with an FTA proposal regarding the project. The regional congressional delegation, federal administration and Senate Banking Committee staff were all very supportive.

COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

None.

ADJOURN

There being no further business before the committee, Chair Monroe adjourned the meeting at 2:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Andy Flinn

Council Assistant

Attachments to the Record

Metro Transportation Committee meeting of March 21, 2000

i:\minutes\2000\tranplan\32100tpm.doc