MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, October 17, 2000

Council Chamber

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

Members Absent:  

Also Present:    David Bragdon    

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

Chair Monroe called the meeting to order at 1:38 p.m.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

2.  RESOLUTION NO. 00-2990, FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE FY 2001 UNIFIED WORK PROGRAM.

Andy Cotugno, Metro Planning Director, referred to the proposed amendment to the Unified Work Program to change the projects that received some of Metro’s grant money. Each spring the Metro Transportation Department submitted a comprehensive Unified Work Program (UWP) to the federal government to allow the grant funds to flow. It was basically consistent with the Metro budget. There were other things, besides the Metro budget. But the department’s portion of it was the grant portion of the Metro budget. The UWP and the Metro budget were originally adopted, with initiating a Highway 217 corridor study as the next major corridor effort the department planned to undertake. The corridor study was proposed to be funded approximately half with the normal planning grants the department received and the other half with funding they proposed that Washington County and ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation) would contribute since they were major stakeholders in the corridor. Neither was currently ready to adopt the corridor study now. Therefore, the department proposed the study not be initiated if it could not be done completely and with their partnership. So, the department proposed that Metro redirect the portion of Metro’s budget to other purposes and address other needs that surfaced and required attention, instead of performing a Highway 217 study. He referred to a series of recommendations, Exhibit A, Resolution No. 00-2990, FY2000-01 Unified Work Program, that were included in the committee meeting packet. (A copy of the recommendations can be found in the permanent record of this meeting.) Some of the recommendations represented reprogramming the funds to other purposes. And some represented making some corrections and refinements to the UWP that was adopted. He referred to the Exhibit A documents.

Chair Monroe referred to the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Business Partnerships. Since the initiative came from Washington County and the Washington County Business Coalition, and the Highway 217 corridor that was being replaced was one of their projects, it should be funded here.

Again, Mr. Cotugno referred to the documents.

Chair Monroe said the Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot Program (TCSP) was interesting because the committee received a letter from representatives from the

development community that expressed concern regarding Metro counting the Pleasant Valley area in the agency’s buildable lands inventory, since there was currently no infrastructure or funding for infrastructure in that region. The TCSP started the process of meeting that concern.

Councilor McLain asked about Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS). She said Mike Hoglund, Transportation Planning Manager, promised her a report or presentation so she would have a better understanding of the group of work. She hated the ITS signs and didn’t think they were effective. She tried to find something valuable. She asked if the department was describing signalization or the timing on the signalization. She also asked what the standards were.

Mike Hoglund, Metro Transportation Planning Manager, said everyone needed the briefing she described. There was an entire compendium list of ITS approaches that were developed nationally. The reference to the national architecture was the wording that resulted from the new regulations that were still proposed. However, the ITS language was likely to remain. The idea was that in order to spend federal funds for ITS, the federal government wanted to ensure there was some consistency between jurisdictions and between issues that were active at the national level. That explained why the language was there. He talked to ODOT and its ITS region-wide steering committee. They were preparing to provide an overview of ITS to TPAC (Transportation Policy Advisory Committee), JPACT (Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation) and the Metro Transportation Planning Committee, if the councilors requested it. At least once, maybe more. The department was scheduling that presentation for next month.

Councilor McLain said she was concerned. The $200,000 was not a lot of money but it was budgeted for something she did not feel was effective. She referred to other worthy, funding-starved projects. There was no agreement on what the Highway 217 Corridor Study should or would be. That bothered her. It was a major element in the support system for the Washington County area. Even Washington County did not know what they wanted the study to be. She asked why the region was not using the $200,000 to determine what they wanted the study to be and reach at least some agreement. Instead, it was reprogramming the money to ITS, which was questionable in terms of validity for better transportation systems in the region. They knew for certain there would need to be a corridor study there and additional work done on Highway 217. The interchange at Interstate 5 and Highway 217 would not be able to solve the problem there.

Mr. Cotugno said approximately 1 and a half years ago when the department moved through the MTIP allocation process, Clackamas and Washington counties applied for funds to develop an ITS master plan. They reached the conclusion that it was a good idea, because Portland spent a lot of money to define its computerized signal control system. And they were well down the road toward implementing much of that system. The ODOT spent a lot of money on the freeway management system, which included the signs, ramp metering and patrol cars to clean up accidents. There was practically nothing in Washington and Clackamas counties. There was very little coordination of the signal system. They were stand alone, not interconnected, especially with any freeway ramp system. Resolution No. 00-2990 was intended to allow the counties to get their systems more up to speed so the region would have a good definition of the right things to implement down the line. That, in particular, was important to spend money on because they were the kind of small projects that the region could achieve a high return from as small financial investment. In the current environment of limited transportation funds, it was difficult to imagine when the region could generate funding to build the $100 Highway 217 corridor. It was easy to imagine funding a $100,000 - $200,000 signal interconnection system down the road. The resolution was necessary to set that in motion. It would not reprogram Metro’s money from the Highway 217 corridor study. Instead, it would allow the money already allocated to the two counties to proceed toward performing the ITS master planning.

Councilor McLain asked if it was staged. It was put on a list of items Metro could or should fund. She asked if the agency removed the Highway 217 corridor from the list.

Mr. Cotugno said they were two unrelated issues. As part of the regional MTIP (Metropolitan Transit Improvement Program) allocation, Metro funded a variety of projects, including boulevards, transit expansion, Interstate MAX, bicycle paths, roads, etc. Among those items were the two master plans. In order for the counties to access the money, the funding had to be in Metro’s UWP. That was what the resolution would accomplish.

Councilor McLain asked if both items were on the original list.

Mr. Cotugno said in the UWP his department proposed Highway 217 to be the department’s next major corridor study. However, Washington County and ODOT were not ready to address it. Therefore, the department proposed to reprogram its money to do the business support activity, which both Washington County and ODOT said Metro had to do right now.

Councilor McLain asked if Metro would use money to do more education with the business world regarding the importance of transportation funding instead of performing a corridor study.

Mr. Cotugno said yes.

Councilor McLain asked how Metro planned to oversee the funding process.

Mr. Cotugno was encouraged by the conclusions of the transportation summit held on October 12, 2000. They agreed business needed to lead the funding effort. Metro should support their effort. Business needed to decide what made sense in the RTP and what needed to be changed. Metro wanted to be responsive to that effort. The resolution would allow that.

Councilor McLain asked what the money would fund.

Mr. Cotugno said it would fund the staff time to help them understand the information.

Mr. Hoglund said the resolution was exactly what Council McLain hoped for because initially ODOT planned to buy many a lot of the signs and the $300,000 reader boards. He agreed with her that ITS did not seem as effective a strategy as if they had thought about it. The signal interconnectivity and other ITS strategies seemed more effective. They were preparing to begin a new corridor initiatives study. A document should result from the initiatives program that provides all the answers to the questions Mr. Cotugno raised regarding feasibility and financing. He though Highway 217 was likely to be the result, but with more of a Metro Council and JPACT agreement that it would be the priority corridor to examine. They were also working with the TGM (state Transportation Growth Management) program to find ways to fund it.

Councilor Bragdon said the figures were similar to what Metro spent on MLK Boulevard and Barbur. It was a lot more than the signs, but also the signals. The figures were very reasonable compared to what the other jurisdictions had adopted. In terms of results of the process, alternative financing proposals were not mentioned, despite being one of the big topics that business said they would help develop. It was not stated as one of the objectives of the group.

Mr. Cotugno said the work program that was already adopted had a task for dealing with financing. Therefore, they did not want another duplicate task. The summit discussed the issue.

Councilor Bragdon asked if the process would continue.

Chair Monroe said the final decision at the summit was to continue and have an ongoing program to analyze financing options. That process would continue after election.

Councilor McLain understood the major issue in getting the RTP built was achieving acceptance for what the program. She referred to the document Exhibit A, RTP, No. 3 and 4. Metro had

already done part of that. She agreed with Mr. Hoglund regarding signalization. There was no coordination between some parts of the region, which was necessary. What she worried about was the priorities assigned to all the work. A basic corridor study for Highway 217 was taken off the list again. It took 3 tries to get anything built. The design was put aside until they finally found an engineering solution that would be feasible. There were many delays. It bothered her if, again, they could not even decide on where the Highway 217 corridor study would fit. Metro knew where it fit and that it had to be done because of the region’s prior commitment to Highway 217 improvements that would make the RTP work. Metro created the model that way. She did not understand how it could be taken off the list or reallocated to another project. It was not listed in Exhibit A as part of the work plan proposal. She wanted that to make sense.

Mr. Cotugno said they did not debate the importance of the Highway 217 corridor study. In fact, they advocated it be included from the beginning. The department proposed this year’s budget through the Spring 2000 adoption process on that premise. They did not have enough money. Therefore, the department offered to provide Washington County and ODOT with the money Metro had if Washington County and ODOT also provided some funding. But they said they were not ready to start down that path. The ODOT did not know how they could raise funding to implement the project. Therefore, they asked why they should “waste” money designing something without knowing when they could build it. That was consistent with the direction the transportation commission had been advocating for the past 5 years. Because financial resources are so limited, use them to build projects, not for development. The precedent was probably more important than the Highway 217 corridor. The ODOT was spending $30 million - $50 million developing projects, which now goes to construction. Washington County decided not to finance an ODOT facility without funding assistance from ODOT. Therefore, Metro was stuck.

Councilor McLain countered that Washington County was willing to help finance an ODOT facility on the Sunset Highway. There was no precedence set there. It was confusing. There were 2 major facilities (the Sunset Highway, and the Highway 217 interchange and corridor) that had to be addressed in Washington County to make the system work with Metro’s modeling. They needs of Highway 217 were not going to disappear.

Mr. Cotugno said absolutely. The department still had Highway 217 plans to be defined and implemented. They did not suggest ignoring them but simply did not have the money.

Councilor McLain said Highway 217 was major. To ignore it was like the ostrich with its head in the sand. She did not want the region to get behind by taking it off the list.

Chair Monroe said Metro offered to commit money but they did not. Metro was not the ostrich.

Councilor McLain understood but suggested Metro take more of a leadership role. Metro needed to find ways to avoid damaging or violating its RTP.

Mr. Cotugno said she mentioned the same fundamental problem the Washington County Business community raised with the RTP in the first place. It was not just a Highway 217 problem. The region did not have the funding to implement the entire RTP. The problem included the rest of the system, too.

Councilor McLain said the news was depressing.

Mr. Cotugno said it was old new news.

Chair Monroe agreed it was depressing. Transportation resources throughout Oregon were so depleted compared to other states, even Washington after Ballot Measure 695. One silver lining for the region was the willingness and ability of the business community to declare the situation

unacceptable and find solutions instead of just relying on government. He was very impressed with the regional business community leadership and the whole Summit 2000 process.

John Houser, Metro Senior Council Analyst, asked if any of the programs with funds redirected to them would have ongoing fiscal needs beyond the current fiscal year.

Chair Monroe asked whether Metro was committing itself to MTIP expenses in the future.

Mr. Cotugno said there were implications that the work program had activities that would either continue or be triggered into the next year. He cited the TCSP work, and work in the Damascus area for the next year and a half associated with periodic review. The resolution was part of a program that was connected to the 2002 periodic review time schedule. It would need to continue in next fiscal year’s budget. The business outreach was determined by their calendar. Metro should be responsive. He could not imagine they would be finished by the end of the fiscal year fiscal year. There would be some type of continued support activity, but he did not know what it would be. The corridor initiatives was intended to say how the region would handle corridor studies to possibly identify a priority order to fund and undertake them. The department hoped that would result in some regional agreement on what would be next, so they could start a corridor study. He presumed it would be Highway 217 but he did not want to predetermine that it would be next. A just hoped a clear “next” project would result. It did not predetermine any allocation process, but it would be connected to those decisions when Metro considered them.

Councilor Kvistad asked if there was any way Metro could leave the language in the work program that stated it was an unfunded project and area of interest on the priority list rather than deleting the language and the project. That way it was there, but Metro could allocate the money separately. He suggested reallocating the resources but also leaving the project defined. It was a matter of semantics. It shows the project is valued but unfunded. Removal sometimes is perceived as a lack of interest or concern in the long term. Maybe they could reprioritize or recategorize instead of deleting the project.

Mr. Cotugno said it was not a project list but rather a Metro work program. The department was not doing the work this fiscal year. They might be able to add language to the Highway 217 corridor study that indicated the work activity was proposed to be differed for the fiscal year and Metro should reconsider whether to initiate the corridor study in future budget years.

Councilor Kvistad was more comfortable with that than a deletion. It would satisfy concerns in his area.

Richard Brandman, Metro Transportation Planning Director, was the one who had the majority of the discussions with Washington County regarding Highway 217. They were in the odd situation of trying to push Washington County and ODOT into cooperating and sharing with metro in the effort even though Metro pledged the bulk of the money, which was very unusual. They did not want to move forward. The ODOT said they did not have the resources and they did not have the construction resources down the road, so they did not want to stack any more projects in the queue. That left Washington County to assume the entire match or let the project go another year or two. The chose the latter.

Councilor McLain never knew Washington County to turn down financing unless they had a plan. They must have though they were getting something they needed in the short term. That was their analysis and they would have to live with it. She agreed with Councilor Kvistad. She was considering more than just the short term. Everyone knew that Highway 217 would never not be a crucial element in the RTP. She felt more comfortable leaving the language in with language that explained why it was an important part of the RTP but was not funded in this year’s work plan. The other reason to retain it was the need for Metro to take on some responsibility to

be a regional leader to counteract short term decisions made by local jurisdictions that the region cannot live with. Leaving the language in accomplished that and would get her vote.

Chair Monroe cited the unified Washington County Metro Transportation Committee delegation. The resolution had to move out of the committee today, go to JPACT on Thursday morning and then the Metro Council on October 24, 2000. It would be appropriate to move it forward with the language change the committee suggested and finalize it for JPACT and Council adoption.

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

3.  RESOLUTION NO. 00-2991, FOR THE PURPOSE OF MODIFYING THE EXISTING INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT SPECIFYING ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE BI-STATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE.

4.  RESOLUTION NO. 00-2994, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (MTIP) TO INCLUDE $370,000 OF STATE TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT FUNDS FOR THE PORTLAND GATEWAY PROJECT.

Mr. Cotugno said TPAC recommended both resolutions for adoption at their meeting approximately three weeks ago. However, they were scheduled to be considered by JPACT this Thursday, October 19, 2000. The Metro Transportation Department was a little out-of-sync from the normal chain of events because JPACT delayed their meeting a week.

Mr. Cotugno said the resolution amended the Bi-State Transportation Committee by-laws. When they were established approximately 1 year ago, there was a request to revisit them once they had been operational for a while. They recommended some amendments based on 1 year of experience working with the by-laws. The Bi-State Committee recommended the amendments, which were also being considered by the Regional Transportation Council (RTC) in Clark County.

Mr. Cotugno said the amendments basically were intended to resolve any misunderstandings regarding how members were appointed and their responsibilities. He referred to Exhibit A to Resolution 00-2991, Intergovernmental Agreement: Specifying the Roles and Responsibilities of a Joint JPACT and RTC Bi-State Transportation Committee. (A copy of this document can be found in the meeting packet.)

Chair Monroe addressed the issue of the Bi-State Committee initiating its own agenda. It was always the intent and how the Bi-State Committee operated. The original bi-laws indicated that all items that affected transportation in that corridor that were before JPACT or the RTC had to be referred to the Bi-State Committee. However, the bi-laws were silent regarding whether the Bi-State Committee could also initiate topics of conversation. The amendments clarified that issue.

Councilor Bragdon said the department had done a great job reporting Bi-State Committee and other issues to the Metro Council. But neither the by-laws nor amendments required reporting to the Council in the future, in addition to JPACT. That requirement should be added formally. He benefitted from the reports along with other councilors who were not JPACT members.

Chair Monroe said JPACT and the RTC Board created the Bi-State Committee. That explained the direct line of authority. Because JPACT was an agency and subsidiary of Metro and the

Council the reports automatically flow through the committee to the Council as well. Formal language for the Council would necessitate the same for the Council’s equivalent in Washington State. However, there was no equivalent.

Councilor Bragdon agreed. But he believed councilors who were not JPACT members benefitted from the Bi-State Committee briefings and wanted them to continue.

Mr. Cotugno told Councilor Bragdon that the councilors who were JPACT members were also obligated to inform the rest of the Council regarding JPACT and Bi-State Committee issues.

Chair Monroe agreed that was one of his responsibilities and was something he had done.

Chair Monroe assigned himself to carry the resolution to the Council. The resolution would also be considered at the JPACT meeting on Thursday morning, October 19, 2000.

4.  RESOLUTION NO. 00-2994, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (MTIP) TO INCLUDE $370,000 OF STATE TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT FUNDS FOR THE PORTLAND GATEWAY PROJECT.

Mr. Cotugno said this resolution amended the MTIP to add a project. He referred to documents that described agenda item 4. (These documents can be found in the committee agenda packet.)

Chair Monroe said he had driven through Linnton on several occasions and understood how people, pedestrians in particular, would have a problem. The highway was very wide and moved fast at that point. Some additional community gateway treatments in that region would be helpful.

Chair Monroe assigned Councilor McLain to carry the resolution to the Council.

5.  UPDATE – PROPOSED MTIP PROCESS AND SCHEDULE

Mr. Cotugno said in the spirit of limited resources the department was preparing to begin the next MTIP allocation process. If Metro had more money the process the agency would normally follow would be to adopt a resolution that established the process and criteria, solicit applications and then start an application ranking process. The department suggested there be some discussions regarding what sort of process the agency wanted to follow before they actually started the process. Therefore, the department wanted to solicit some direction from the committee. He referred to a document, FY 2002-2005 MTIP/STIP Update, JPACT Informational Packet. (A copy of this document can be found in the permanent record of this meeting.) Available funding was cut back from $75 million to $18 million - $19 million – a much smaller number. It now made more sense to have a more limited allocation process, instead of adding new projects. He referred to the document.

Chair Monroe asked if otherwise Metro would be in non-compliance with its own plan.

Mr. Cotugno said otherwise Metro would not have a TIP that the federal government could approve. They could only approve a plan with air quality conformance. Whatever Metro allocated funding for was ineligible until they approve the plan. He referred to the document.

Councilor Bragdon asked on the revenue side when TEA-21 passed, if it was federal money, why the amount was getting smaller. He thought it was the one piece of the pie that was bigger.

Mr. Cotugno said for the last allocation Metro covered the 4-year period 2000-2003. Every time they funded a 4-yer program they funded 2 years and added 2 years. That was what the department was doing now. They already funded 2002 and 2003 and were adding 2004 and 2005. Last time the department estimated the amount they could allocate was a small number and TEA-21 was a big number. The amount the department already programmed was a small number. Therefore, they got a windfall they programmed. Now they were just continuing 2 years worth of funds and can’t take advantage of a second windfall. He referred to the document.

Chair Monroe asked if the staff recommendation was to first examine the ongoing programs and then the 150 Percent Cut List and possibly increase program funding if there are additional resources. He accepted and supported the staff recommendation.

Mr. Cotugno said yes.

Councilor McLain also supported the staff recommendation. It made a lot of sense. Metro was trying to finish something. The difficult part would be writing the resolution or accompanying document regarding what was still subjective. She agrees a jurisdiction should be able to remove a project if it no longer met one of their needs or if they have a replacement project that would be more effective in supporting their system. But that was the tricky part. If Metro did not want to open the process they should not open the process. It is either open or not. There is no in between. With Greenspaces, Metro used the original criteria and any new project had to meet the original criteria. The same thing had to happen here. There was no other way it could work.

Chair Monroe said the department did not say that additional new projects would be added. However, if some jurisdiction found that a project in the 150 list did not meet their needs it could be withdrawn. There was a distinction. He would not support adding new projects.

Councilor McLain agreed. But the reality is the motivation behind a withdrawal is usually to replace it with something else. She could not support it unless there was a qualification that it would necessitate the original process, public involvement and criteria.

Mr. Cotugno said they recommended allowances for substituting projects. However, they agree that any replacement projects should be ranked based on the same original criteria

Mr. Hoglund said they heard from some of the jurisdictions that their 150 percent list was way below their target, which the department set last time. Therefore, it was not quite an even playing field. Therefore, it was one area they wanted to evaluate before they forward a recommendation, which the committee would consider action on next month to determine the process. The rules were not being set today. The department just wanted to solicit ideas. The committee might want to question whether the playing field was level for all the jurisdictions. He suggested keeping things understandable and simple based on limited financial resources.

Councilor McLain said she felt strongly that what she heard from staff was that they agreed that if Metro was not going to have a new process. They planned to stick to the ranking and criteria of the original process, which was reassuring. She knew the if the meaning was not certain, staff would have trouble reducing the list. Then staff would be criticized and the Metro

committee/Council would have to support the original criteria, work and public involvement. She agreed with 99.9 percent of their comments. She looked forward to what they planned to create.

Mr. Cotugno said their proposal was to have a resolution that established the requirements to cover everything. He noted the 150 percent list amounted to $42 million. Metro only had $20 million to allocate. They could only fund approximately half of the list at the most. The issue was scheduled to be discussed by JPACT on Thursday.

COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

Councilor Kvistad commented on the Bi-State Transportation Committee issue. His concern was with allowing a subcommittee to set their own agenda often caused the dissidence Metro was trying to avoid. Metro had some problems with subcommittees and he was less concerned with the Bi-State Committee than with other committees.

Chair Monroe said Councilor Kvistad might be correct. He did not consider the Bi-State Committee a subcommittee. It was an entity created jointly by JPACT and the RTC and had representatives from all of the jurisdictions in the bi-state area. The redraft would accept what had been the practice for more than a year.

Councilor Kvistad said he did not oppose the change in how the Bi-State Committee decided their membership. But he was not sure it was healthy for Metro to allow another subcommittee or adjunct committee to begin setting a potentially separate agenda. He did not support that. His opposition had been consistent for a long time, not just with the Bi-State Committee.

ADJOURN

There being no further committee business, Chair Monroe adjourned the meeting at 2:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Andy Flinn

Council Assistant

Attachments to the Record

Metro Transportation Planning Committee meeting of October 17, 2000