MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, May 16, 2000

Council Chamber

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

Members Absent:

Also Present:

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

Chair Monroe called the meeting to order at 1:39 p.m.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 2, 2000, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

2.  RESOLUTION NO. 00-2948, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TO ENTER INTO A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH TRI-MET REGARDING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE INTERSTATE MAX PROJECT.

Richard Brandman, Metro Transportation Planning Director, said the action before the committee would authorize the Executive Officer to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Tri-Met regarding the use of a right-of-way. The MOU and the right-of-way would be required by that agency for the purpose of constructing and operating the Interstate Max (I-MAX) light rail project. It would also authorize the staff to negotiate a real estate transfer agreement with Tri-Met to further specify the details of the transaction.

Mr. Brandman provided some background. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) required Tri-Met to demonstrate that they had continuing control of property (that included Metro’s portion at the Expo Center), which Tri-Met would need to construct and operate the I-MAX line. Tri-Met had to demonstrate to the FTA that the current property owner would continue to work with Tri-Met to ensure that agency would be able to use the land when it became time for construction.

Mr. Brandman said the MOU indicated Metro, MERC (Metropolitan Exposition-Recreation Commission) and Tri-Met agreed, in principle, to construct and operate the project on Expo property. The agencies would also develop a mutually agreed upon compensation package for the valuation of the land, determined through an appraisal process specified in the MOU. The compensation package that would be paid to Metro had not been determined through the negotiations of the real estate transfer agreement. The actual valuation for the property would be based on the economic value of the land, which would include the lost revenue associated with the loss of parking spaces. The land would either be transferred to Tri-Met or they would be granted a permanent easement for the use of the land.

Mr. Brandman said he also mentioned two other issues discussed frequently during the negotiations with Tri-Met. First, that agency agreed to pay for the construction of a covered walkway (cost estimated at $600,000), from the I-MAX station, currently located at the East end

of the parking lot, to the Expo facilities. Tri-Met agreed that it would be designed by MERC. However, to protect Tri-Met’s interests in the project, Metro agreed that the value of the Tri-Met payment to Metro would be $600,000 for the covered walkway. However, if it cost more, Metro agreed to negotiate the appropriate split of responsibility for the excess cost. The department also agreed the covered walkway should include appropriate artwork. Depending on the actual cost for construction of the covered walkway, art costs would be paid from the construction budget, Tri-Met’s art program and also some cost-sharing efforts, if necessary.

Mr. Brandman said Metro agreed with Tri-Met that the value of land required for park-and-ride purposes would be negotiated as part of the real estate transfer that would continue. He referred to the map in the meeting agenda packet. (A copy of this document was included in the meeting agenda/record.) The orange area represented the area currently estimated to be required for the park-and-ride lot. The MOU stated that land would remain in Metro ownership, but Tri-Met would be able to use it for at least 15 years. The parties would also continue to negotiate through the real estate transfer agreement process for the value of the lost land. Approximately 25 days a year (on Friday of each week, especially during large events), the property was currently used during the time period when Tri-Met would need it for park-and-ride purposes. The burden was to determine the value of the loss of parking during those days of the year. The yellow area on the map was the land required for the construction and operation of the project. The hook at the northern end of the property represented were Tri-Met buses would exit the facility onto Marine Drive. Arrows pointed to pavement that would need to be upgraded to handle heavier loads and wear. The pavement marked the perimeter of the park-and-ride lot at the western and southern edges. It also marked where the Tri-Met buses would access the facility and the station itself.

Mark Williams, MERC General Manager, agreed with Mr. Brandman. However, details of the park-and-ride arrangement had not been negotiated. They would be added to the agreement later. The MERC would retain the ability to charge for the park-and-ride facility. He was present for the negotiations, along with Mr. Brandman and other staff from MERC, Metro and Tri-Met. He complimented the Tri-Met negotiators who were extremely cooperative and put a fair agreement together quickly for all three agencies. Tri-Met, MERC and Metro recognized each other’s needs.

Bob Stecey, a Tri-Met representative, was not on his agency’s negotiating team but was also pleased with the negotiation process and outcome.

Chair Monroe said Councilor Kvistad’s amendment would make certain that the proceeds from Tri-Met for the purchase of the land, construction of the covered walkway, and lost revenue from the park-and-ride and the land that was being used by Expo remain with the Capital Improvement Fund at Expo. The proceeds would be used for Hall D and perhaps future Expo capital needs. (A copy of this document was included in the record.) That was Metro’s intent and he was in agreement with Councilor Kvistad.

However, Chair Monroe had language prepared to modify Councilor Kvistad’s amendment designed to address a minor disagreement. (A copy of this document was included in the record.) Chair Monroe wanted to ensure that Metro received the excise tax of 7.5 percent for the parking revenue. He also wanted to ensure that the money received by Metro that represented a loss in that revenue stream be subject to the 7.5 percent excise tax, but funds Metro received for other purposes (such as construction of the covered walkway, etc.) should not. The language in Chair Monroe’s amendment would be revenue neutral and hold the Metro general fund harmless, but would guarantee the bulk of the revenues (other than the replacement for the lost excise tax) would be dedicated, forever, to the capital fund. Bruce Warner, Metro Chief Operating Officer, drafted chair Monroe’s amendment. Chair Monroe asked Mr. Williams if he reviewed the language in Chair Monroe’s amendment.

Mr. Williams said yes. He suggested a way to accomplish the intent stated by Chair Monroe. He referred to the Monroe amendment. He suggested Chair Monroe clarify the intent of the language by changing it to read “…and 100 percent of all other funds received…

Chair Monroe also corrected “MERC Poled Capital Fund” to read “MERC Pooled Capital Fund.”

Councilor Kvistad accepted the amendment if it was revenue neutral and not additional taxes.

Councilor McLain asked if Metro legal staff saw the Monroe amendment.

Chair Monroe said yes.

Councilor McLain approved the amendment. She referred to the words/term “Real Estate Transfer Agreement”, and asked if it had a definition and referred to a singular agreement.

Mr. Brandman said Real Estate Transfer Agreement was the term Dan Cooper, Metro General Counsel, devised to refer to the type of agreement Metro agreed to with Tri-Met.

Councilor Kvistad said he still wanted to route the I-MAX to the front door of the Expo Center.

Chair Monroe assigned the resolution to Councilor Kvistad to carry to the Metro Council.

Mr. Brandman recognized the work provided by Dave Unsworth and Ross Roberts from his department. They worked with Tri-Met and helped resolve several issues.

3.  UPDATE – REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Andy Cotugno, Metro Planning Director, commented on the RTP (Regional Transportation Plan). He described a newsletter the department sent to everyone on the RTP mailing list. It included the 2000 RTP Final Adoption Timeline and notification that the official Final Comment Period Opened May 15, 2000, on the RTP. (A copy of this document was included in the record.)

Mr. Cotugno said the adopted ordinance would ultimately consist of four pieces. The committee had already seen two pieces. Part I - the RTP compiled in January 2000, based on the resolution adopted in December 1999 and January 2000. Part II - the revisions suggested since then. The combination of the two was what the department was proposing for adoption. Part III - the findings that supported the ordinance that the department was currently researching. They would be completed before the committee considered the document for adoption. Part IV - feedback from the public comment period that would further amend the document.

Mr. Cotugno said the department completed a discussion with JPACT (Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation) regarding financing options. The options were part of the presentation he planned to provide to the committee today. Essentially the purpose of the financing options was to design a menu of possibilities that put RTP financing in terms of manageable bites of revenue that needed to be raised. It was important to recognize all the pieces of the plan that required financing attention. The department provided a document that included information that described how to fund all the five pieces that they identified. Local maintenance and operations, state maintenance and operations, all the state and local road-related modernization, transit operations and transit capital.

Mr. Cotugno said the department suggested options that pursued both state and local funding mechanisms to finance maintenance and improvements for the regional transportation system. The ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation) was required to identify and use state funding sources to maintain its system in the region. However, local, regional and ODOT system improvement projects could be funded by other local or regional sources. He referred to the document 2000 Regional Transportation Plan, Funding the Strategic System. (A copy of this document was included in the record.)

Mr. Cotugno said the region needed to fund either maintenance or capital improvements for the regional transportation system. Historically, the region pursued funding for both at the state level. This strategy was too large and complex to be successful. It was fundamental to decide what the region’s state funding strategy would be – pursuit of maintenance or capital improvements/ modernization-oriented financing (the primary question). The secondary question would be to determine the regional strategy (Metro, county and/or city funding sources). People would start raising these questions on May 17, 2000, depending on the fate of Ballot Measure 82.

Chair Monroe said, regarding maintenance versus modernization, that current ODOT policy funded maintenance, first. In fact, since there was currently not enough funding for both, ODOT planned to finance maintenance. Modernization was being set aside. Modernization projects were more politically popular and sellable to the public, which wanted to see improvements in the transportation system. If the state planned to fund one and the region planned to assume financing responsibility for the other, he would let the state handle the maintenance and the region would fund modernization with whatever fundraising opportunities that might be available.

Mr. Cotugno said there was not necessarily a right or wrong answer, but the region needed to discuss the issue so the jurisdictions all agreed on the approach to pursue. Another argument was that all the street maintenance districts and street utility fees were adopted in the state, to date, as a fee, not a tax by the city councils of the jurisdictions that raised the source (Tualatin, Wilsonville, Roseberg, Medford and other southern Oregon cities).

Chair Monroe asked if fees could fund modernization projects, or just maintenance projects.

Mr. Cotugno said he would have to research that question.

Mr. Cotugno referred to his funding document/presentation.

Councilor Kvistad referred to toll projects as revenue enhancement projects.

Chair Monroe said a penny per mile Household VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) Fee was a lot of money. He calculated a 20 cents per gallon tax for an average vehicle (20 miles per gallon).

Mr. Cotugno said the public thought the gas tax was high, but when compared to vehicle mileage and even other utility bills, it was not much money. Two cars per household that traveled 12,000 miles per year generated approximately $25 of tax a month. If all the projects were funded (including transit, roads and ODOT modernization, everything) it would raise that amount to approximately $50 a month. Therefore, the price tag was still manageable.

Councilor McLain complimented the department on the public comment/RTP timeline newsletter. They did an excellent job with the 1) adoption timeline that illustrated how much time and effort would be put into the process and 2) the citizen input. She referred to the timeline and asked if one public hearing (June 29, 2000) during the public hearing period would be sufficient.

Mr. Cotugno said they proposed one primarily to avoid problems they experienced in December 1999 when the committee considered the RTP for adoption on the same day the committee was accepting public testimony. The department delayed all those comments for a month. Therefore,

the timeline scheduled the public hearing to receive all those comments by June 29, 2000. Then, the process would shift to adoption only, based upon changes that resulted from the public comments received. Comments received from the Metro hot line and fax machines would be transcribed and distributed to the councilors.

Chair Monroe mentioned the JPACT Financing Subcommittee was being reconstituted and would meet next week, Tuesday, May 23, 2000, at 10 a.m.

4.  UPDATE – BI-STATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE – HOV (HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE) FACILITY POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Chair Monroe said the Bi-State Transportation Committee, which had been meeting since September 1999, unanimously passed a resolution that advised the RTC (Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council) and JPACT. Among the recommendations was that the southbound lane WDOT (Washington Department of Transportation) planned to add on Interstate 5 from 99^th to the Columbia River Bridge be an HOV lane. A Washington state rule indicated an existing general-purpose lane could not be converted to an HOV lane. Therefore, construction of a new lane was the time to designate it HOV before it got designated for general purpose. Otherwise, the rule would have to be changed. They also analyzed the possibility of providing an HOV lane across the I-5 Bridge. The technical experts and committee concluded it was impossible, because of lack of space and safety reasons. Therefore, the committee did not recommend an HOV lane across the bridge structure.

Chair Monroe said the committee recommended ODOT grant permanent HOV status to an HOV lane that was currently operating northbound on the Oregon side of the I-5 Columbia River bridge. They also recommended that ODOT consider adding a third lane designated HOV through the Delta Park area. The committee determined a convertible lane for HOV and regular traffic on the Oregon side on I-5 was unfeasible and unsafe. Therefore, they did not recommend it. Instead, the committee recommended separate HOV lanes, one southbound in the morning and another northbound in the afternoon/evening.

Chair Monroe said the committee also considered an HOV lane northbound on the Washington end of the I-5 Bridge. However, they determined the bridge functioned as a bottleneck, and there was no congestion north of the bridge. Therefore, there was no purpose, at the present time, for an HOV lane at that location. The committee recommended a public study and input regarding the HOV lane issue. They also said that when a new or rebuilt I-5 bridge was completed, they envisioned HOV lanes that would travel in both directions for the full length of the corridor.

Mr. Cotugno said the committee did not reach a conclusion regarding whether to designate HOV lanes in the future, but further consideration of HOV lanes as an option would be included as part of the I-5 Trade Corridor Study in conjunction with any bridge modification.

Chair Monroe said this was the first action taken by the bi-state committee.

Councilor McLain asked if discussion and/or a timeline for a replacement or additional bridge across the Columbia River was at the top of the bi-state committee’s priorities list.

Chair Monroe said absolutely.

Mr. Cotugno said the two-year study effort would be effective July 1, 2000. Staff time in the spring was consumed developing the work scope and advisory committees, consultants, etc.

Councilor McLain asked if there was a joint financial strategy with representatives from the state of Washington and who was involved.

Mr. Cotugno said the corridor study was funded by a special $2 million grant from the federal Borders and Corridors program. Both WDOT and ODOT committed $500,000 each. Metro, through the last MTIP (Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program) process, allocated $500,000 of STIP (State Transportation Improvement Program) funds toward the effort that they planned to hold in reserve if the study needed financing to plug funding holes that might develop in the future. The funding was assembled into a project budget that was currently being scoped.

Councilor McLain said the Port of Portland had a scope of work performed recently regarding enlarging the Hillsboro Airport because of capacity issues. They examined the next logical step (more construction at Portland International Airport or another airport somewhere else). During a recent flight, it looked like the pilot was going to land on a bridge. The Transportation Committee needed to study the capacity for an extra lane on the interstate for airplanes in an emergency.

Mr. Cotugno said it was not that unusual. One design criteria for the interstate system was the need for periodic, one-mile sections of interstate to land planes, because it was part of the defense highway system. The issue would be back in front of the council for adoption in June 2000. It would go to RTC, JPACT and then council for adoption.

Chair Monroe said he specifically asked that the committee allow the RTC to take action on it first, JPACT would act, and then it would go before the full council.

Councilor Kvistad asked if Metro was coordinating the bridge study, or if it was ODOT.

Mr. Cotugno said ODOT was the lead, but Metro was participating in the overall study and would be involved in a piece of the work scope.

Councilor Kvistad asked if Metro was holding its funds in reserve.

Mr. Cotugno said yes, the agency had approximately one year to decide whether to spend the money. The other funds they had available would clearly complete most of the work. It was a matter of determining, toward the end, if there was something left undone that had to be finished.

COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

None.

ADJOURN

There being no further committee business, Chair Monroe adjourned the meeting at 2:17 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Andy Flinn

Council Assistant

Attachments to the Record

Metro Transportation Committee meeting of May 16, 2000

I:\MINUTES\2000\TRANPLAN\51600TPM.DOC