MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING

Thursday, April 4, 2002

Metro Council Annex

Members Present:  Rex Burkholder (Chair), Bill Atherton (Vice Chair), and Rod Monroe.

Members Absent:  None.

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL. Chair Burkholder called the meeting to order at 10:12 a.m. Councilor Monroe was expected to be late.

CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS. None.

3.  RELATED COMMITTEE UPDATES.

•  Bi-State Transportation Committee. Andy Cotugno, Planning Director, told the committee that this group had met the previous week and had significant discussion about the I-5 Trade Corridor recommendation of expanding the role of the Bi-State Transportation Committee to address land use related issues. Although details would need to be worked out, he said he thought the recommendation was positively received. Christina Deffebach, Principal Transportation Planner, added that the committee was still working on what level of detail would be needed and they’re looking for direction from the Task Force members and from other Councilors, as well. Another significant action at that meeting, she said, was that they sent a comment back to JPACT giving general direction of support for the overall I-5 draft recommendation. That message needed to go back to JPACT and then JPACT could decide how they wanted to act on that.

The evolving role of the Bi-State Committee was going to be discussed at the upcoming Community Planning Committee on April 16^th, Ms. Deffebach added. Mr. Cotugno said that the Bi-State Committee was only chartered by JPACT and the Regional Transportation Council (RTC) of Clark County. They would need to be chartered by the Metro Council and Clark County if the land use jurisdiction would be added to its present form. An MPAC connection would be needed as well as the current JPACT connection, he said. To the extent that actions affected each side, that’s where the coordination was needed. There are clearly areas of that which the I-5 Trade Corridor group has flagged, and which will come before the Community Planning Committee. Mr. Cotugno said regulatory and decision making processes were different and it all would need to be looked at carefully.

•  JPACT. This committee would meet April 11^th, Mr. Cotugno said, and he briefly reviewed their upcoming agenda.

•  Southwest Washington RTC Board. Ms. Deffebach said there was a lot going on with Washington’s state law regarding upcoming legislation that was worth keeping an eye on. She touched on a few of the issues and said she would keep the committee informed.

•  South Corridor Policy Advisory Group. Richard Brandman, Deputy Planning Director, said there was nothing to report on this group.

4.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 21, 2002, TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING.

5.  RESOLUTION NO. 02-3178, for the Purpose of Adopting the FY 2002-2005 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) and Consolidating Actions of Resolution No. 01-3029A (2002 MTIP Project Selection Procedures) and No. 01-3098A (Allocation of FY 2004-2005 STP/CMAQ Funds).

Mr. Cotugno explained the MTIP process and the resolution, and said this document before the committee today (Exhibit A to the resolution, distributed and made a part of this record) was the final document of agreed upon projects, that the air quality standards were included in it, as well. There was discussion on the upcoming federal appropriations and how those would affect the region. Mr. Cotugno also explained what would happen in the event of a shortfall. His prognosis, however, was guardedly optimistic. Chair Burkholder told Mr. Cotugno’s it would be good to share this information with JPACT, and Mr. Cotugno agreed.

6.  DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 02-xxxx, for the Purpose of Revising Regional Transportation Management Association (TMA) Policy to Provide Additional Regional Funding Options for TMAs.

Mr. Cotugno reported that this was coming back to the committee after TPAC had revisited it, and they’ve now sent it on with their recommendation; it will go before JPACT April 11^th. He called the committee’s attention to the exhibits to the resolution, and explained them: Exhibit A – ongoing support for existing TMAs, Exhibit B – the declining budget schedule, and Exhibit C – the division of policy related actions that happen at Metro versus contract administration that happens at Tri-Met. The policy conclusion was that $250,000 per year was needed to keep TMAs going, that they need to be restored to that amount, and ongoing support was needed.

Councilor Monroe asked who approved TMA funding levels, which led into a discussion of how the MTIP action controlled how much TMAs received and that usually they were given the responsibility of dividing their funds, although Tri-Met administered the contracts. Councilor Monroe expressed concern on the question of public money and accountability, and asked if having the funds signed off by JPACT and the Metro Council would be in order. Councilor Atherton said one of the key roles of the TMAs was to evaluate. Councilor Monroe said it seemed more prudent to have the TMA recommendation come back to the elected body for their approval. Chair Burkholder agreed that Councilor Monroe’s concern was valid, but he said he felt it was the concern of Tri-Met as they were the contracting agency. Councilor Monroe said he would leave it in their hands to monitor.

No action was requested of this committee on this draft resolution, but it was noted that it would be back before the committee after JPACT approval.

6a.  HIGHWAY 217 CORRIDOR UPDATE. Richard Brandman said he and Bridget Wieghart, Corridor Planning Supervisor, recently talked to the Washington County Coordinating Committee, at their request, to give them an update on the study. It still has not been determined whether the grant will be awarded, but it sounded promising, he said. Metro had an agreement with the staff of Washington County and the cities of Washington County about what work will be done, and he said he would be bringing it back shortly to this committee, and also that there would be a policy committee formed soon. The available options that had been discussed at that meeting, of which there were many, included one of the possible study of tolling 217; a reporter picked up this option and touted it. That explained, he said, why the local news was full of that misinformation.

7.  I-5 TRADE CORRIDOR – Draft Letter of Support. Ms. Deffebach distributed an updated version (April 2, 2002) of the Draft letter regarding the Metro Council’s response to the I-5 Partnership Task Force recommendations, with marked revisions from the March 28^th version (included in the agenda packet). (The April 2^nd letter is included as part of this record.) She asked Chair Burkholder if he would also request that this be placed on the Community Planning Committee agenda for their next meeting so that the entire Council would have the opportunity to review it. The Task Force’s duties would be concluded in June, she continued, and it would be up to the appropriate regional partners to carry the recommendations of the Task Force into their plans. If the Metro Council had any comments, additions or concerns, or something specific that they would like to see included in the recommendations, now was the time to express those, Ms. Deffebach said.

The Task Force recommendations were discussed, as well as the issues Metro set out in the April 2^nd memo. Other issues suggested by the committee and staff for inclusion in the memo were the potential expanding role of the Bi-State Transportation Committee to include land use issues, and adding a paragraph stating that Metro understands that a key part of the recommendation was a continuous three-lane corridor not a continuous four-lane corridor, and the Metro Council thought that was the right direction; they also understand and are supportive of including the widening of Delta Park within the framework of that three-lane section. Mr. Cotugno thought it worthwhile pointing out another area of concern was assuring there are development patterns around interchanges that are compatible, such as Hayden Island, the new 509 interchange in Clark County, and existing interchanges along I-5. Councilor Monroe said that as long the needs on both sides of the Columbia River are mentioned, it balanced. The committee agreed to the above additions.

Chair Burkholder asked who else should receive this letter other than the Task Force. Ms. Deffebach said the interested agencies are represented on the Task Force, and the letter should be addressed to the two chairs, who would distribute it to the Task Force. The timing on when Metro needed to send this letter was discussed, and Ms. Deffebach and Mr. Morrissey said they would determine that. Mr. Brandman said this letter was still in a draft stage and wasn’t ready to distribute to JPACT, it was just the Metro Council’s issue; it was determined that if JPACT wanted to send a letter or comment to the Task Force, it would be as a separate action. If this went to JPACT, it would be as a shared item only. Mr. Cotugno said it had been it was determined at an earlier date that this letter would go to the Community Planning Committee on April 16^th, to the Council Informal on April 23^rd, possibly inviting Clark County Commissioner Craig Pridemore to that Informal.

Chair Burkholder thanked staff for their work.

8.  FEDERAL TEA-21 REAUTHORIZATION WORK SESSION. Mr. Cotugno had two handouts for the committee: an outline only version of the Regional Discussion Draft, Reauthorization of the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21^st Century (TEA-21), Portland, Oregon, Monday, April 01, 2002, and a more detailed version of the same (both included as a part of this record).

Mr. Cotugno explained that this list was a compilation of quite a few reauthorization and related issues staff was trying to sort through and evaluate relative to what’s happening in Washington, D.C., what was bubbling up as key issues in what committees, or what seemed to be pursued by other organizations, etc. Some of these were broad based and are of concern to everyone, some were narrow and things Metro really cared about.

Chair Burkholder said another part of this, besides choosing the key issues that needed to be worked on, would be to develop a strategy for lobbying for these. He asked staff what they suggested the best direction to take to bring people in and how, at the policy level. Mr. Cotugno said he thought this was strictly an issue of how to impact these in Washington, D.C., that the local delegation was fundamentally on Metro’s side so he didn’t think it necessary to “bring people in,” but more of which issues they felt it important to pursue and invest their time in. Some of the issues were discussed in more detail, as well as which federal program funding programs they would fall under. He said staff needed more information than they had now, and they’re working on that. He and Mr. Brandman agreed that it was difficult to give advice until they were better informed.

Responding to Chair Burkholder’s question on how the issues are prioritized, Mr. Brandman said that was what needed to come back to the committee after staff had more information. They would list what they thought and then the committee would weigh in. He said he wasn’t sure of the timetable for this as yet, but that it would certainly be before October/November 2002. The possibility of evening workshops with decision makers was discussed.

Mr. Cotugo said a whole other issue associated with reauthorization was the projects, and what was adopted in the way of a priority of projects. Did Metro want the region to establish a set of priorities, and how would that be determined, he asked. There was discussion on this, and it was determined that JPACT would be asked if they wanted to start talking about project priorities.

9.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS. Chair Burkholder suggested that this committee combine their meetings with the Community Planning Committee until after the May election. He said he’d spoken with Community Planning Committee chair Rod Park, and asked how the other committee members felt. Councilor Atherton was not present for this discussion. Councilor Monroe said he’d rather not combine the meetings, that he’d rather continue the separate meetings so that transportation received the appropriate attention. Chair Burkholder said the schedule would stay as it was.

There being no further business before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 11:34 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Rooney Barker

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF APRIL 4, 2002

The following have been included as part of the official public record:

TESTIMONY CARDS. None.