MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, February 17, 1998

Metro Council Chamber

Members Present:  Ed Washington (Chair), Susan McLain (Vice Chair), Jon Kvistad

Members Absent:  None.

Chair Washington called the meeting to order at 3:35 PM.

1.  INTRODUCTIONS

None.

2.  CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 3, 1998

3.  RESOLUTION NO. 98-2606, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADOPTING 1998 PRIORITIES FOR FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION LEGISLATION

Andrew Cotugno, Director, Metro Transportation Department, introduced Resolution No. 98-2606. He said the substance of the resolution is the same as that discussed at the previous Transportation Planning Committee meeting. The purpose of the resolution is to adopt a common set of regional priorities for Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) reauthorization, which would cover a six-year time period, as well as those for the next-year’s appropriation.

Mr. Cotugno pointed out two changes the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT) had made to the list since the Transportation Planning Committee last saw it. One of the changes, on Page 9 number 21, simply clarifies the intended meaning. The other change, on page 11 number 3, represents an actual change in the amount of money requested. This change relates to the amount of money the Port of Portland believes it would need to deepen the channel in the Columbia River. Originally the Port had included $725,000. The President’s budget allows $635,000. The Port is comfortable with the lower figure, so the lower figure is included in the document. Both changes are reflected in Exhibit A to the resolution. The resolution with its revised exhibit is attached to the meeting record.

Councilor Kvistad asked whether the list was in priority order. Mr. Cotugno said there are priority groupings, but within the groupings the projects are not in any particular order. The regional priorities group, which starts on page 10, has the highest priority. The second group, Local or Agency Priority Projects, includes projects that someone in Metro’s delegation has requested. The third group includes projects not yet requested but are considered priorities anyway.

Councilor Kvistad asked what the total was for removing the Lovejoy ramp. Mr. Cotugno said he thought is was $15 million. He said he believed the $10 million would be to repair the Broadway Bridge. He said some funds have already been committed to the Lovejoy ramp removal. He said if the $15 million were secured, the money already allocated for the ramp removal could be freed up. The same would be true of some of the other projects in that group.

Chair Washington asked how long it would take to begin the Lovejoy ramp project once funding is approved. Mr. Cotugno said he thought construction could begin within the next couple of years. He said some discussion has already taken place over using a technique called “advanced construction,” whereby a project is begun and paid for by a local jurisdiction, and the jurisdiction is paid back when the federal funds come in. Chair Washington asked if that meant if the federal government did not come through with funding or if it came through with less money than expected, the local jurisdiction would assume the debt. Mr. Cotugno said yes, that’s the risk. He added, however, that rather than the money not showing up at all, most likely it would show up later than expected, and the local jurisdiction would have to pick up the tab for the additional interest.

Councilor McLain will carry the motion to full Council.

4.  PORTLAND METRO AREA COMMENTS ON DRAFT STATE HIGHWAY PLAN

Mr. Cotugno said this letter is the same as that discussed at the last transportation committee meeting, February 3, 1998. No changes have been made to it since then.

Councilor Kvistad asked if the word “underbuild” could be added in line 3 under Highway Level of Service (LOS). Mr. Cotugno said the idea of underbuild is implied. He said those words could be added to make the concept explicit.

Councilor Kvistad said that because the letter represents existing Council policies and positions, it need not be sent to the full Council for approval. It can be signed and sent as corrected.

Mr. Cotugno said he would provide a copy of the final signed letter to the Council office. Chair Washington asked that a copy be distributed to each Councilor, with a memorandum noting the wording change.

Other Communication

Mr. Cotugno brought the committee’s attention to a Business Journal conference on March 19 for which Metro is a co-sponsor. He said he has registration forms.

Councilor Kvistad questioned why Mr. Burton rather than a policy-maker had been asked to sit on a panel discussion of transportation policy issues for this conference. Mr. Burton does not sit as a member of any transportation policy-making board or committee, yet he will be expected to speak on Metro’s transportation policy. Councilor Kvistad said this kind of thing has happened in the past on land-use issues. He said Mr. Burton is often not as familiar with the policy-development process as are those who make policy. He suggested those who plan these discussions be mindful of who the policy-makers are and include them when the discussion is about policy development.

5.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

None.

There being no further business before the Committee, Chair Washington adjourned the meeting at 3:50 PM.

Prepared by,

Pat Emmerson

Council Assistant