MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING

Thursday, July 2, 2002

Metro Council Chamber

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

Members Absent:  None.

1.  CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL. Chair Burkholder called the meeting to order at 11:05 a.m.

2.  CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS. There were none.

3.  RELATED COMMITTEE UPDATES.

•  Bi-State Transportation Committee. Councilor Monroe said the Bi-State Transportation Committee met June 27^th and discussed at length the transition from their current makeup into the Bi-State Coordinating Committee. That process was continuing, he said. The committee also heard the I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership Task Force’s Recommendations and expressed support of those recommendations.

•  JPACT. JPACT would be meeting July 11^th, Councilor Monroe reported.

•  Southwest Washington RTC Board. The meeting scheduled for today had been cancelled, Councilor Monroe said, as there was a short agenda and it was taken care of in a conference call.

•  South Corridor Policy Advisory Group. Councilor Monroe reported that this group met June 24^th and received a report on how the EIS process was moving along, and there was discussion of possible funding sources, particularly for the I-205 light rail line. Also they discussed the many available options on the Milwaukie/McLoughlin and downtown Portland alignments. No policy decisions were made at the meeting, he said.

Chair Burkholder mentioned an e-newsletter from Congressman Blumenauer’s office that mentioned the Bi-State Coordinating Committee as being noteworthy to share with the country as it was cross-border committee. Councilor Monroe said he appreciated that Congressman Blumenauer was aware of it.

Councilor Atherton asked Councilor Monroe about funding sources for the I-205 light rail alignment as well as the alignment itself, and there was a committee discussion of this that included Mike Hoglund, Regional Planning Director, and Richard Brandman, Deputy Planning Director.

4.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 20, 2002, TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING.

5.  ODOT STIP – INTERIM PROJECT ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AND PRIORITIZING FACTORS. Mr. Hoglund began by stating that, ideally, the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) and State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) should be developed simultaneously, but because of Metro’s review process, they got off schedule with ODOT, and staff was coordinating now with them. ODOT’s interim criteria for the available Modernization and Preservation and Bridge funds was included in the agenda packet, which Mr. Hoglund reviewed with the committee. The eligibility criteria was based on the OTIA process, he said.

There was a short discussion, prompted by a question from Councilor Atherton, on the amount of funds this entailed, and Mr. Hoglund also referred the committee back to the pie charts used at the June 20^th committee meeting that showed all transportation dollars spent in the region.

Chair Burkholder expressed concern about some of the eligibility criteria missing from some local ODOT projects, and specifically mentioned the St. Johns Bridge, a designated major pedestrian and bicycle route as well as truck and motor route. Looking at criteria 7. on p. 6 of 7 in the material, he said he did not see any requirement to comply with the local TSP regarding Oregon Highway Plan policies applicable to preservation projects. Glaring to him in its absence, he said, was factor 4B (consideration of alternative passenger modes) (see p. 7 of 7) and he said he didn’t know if this applied to bicycles and pedestrians or not in this case. He said factor 2D (public involvement) also was missing. Neither of these had requirements for findings and his experience was that there were no significant changes being made to improve bicycle or pedestrian passage on the St. Johns Bridge even though it’s a major route for these and provides access to jobs as well as to Forest Park. He said he’s seeing the same problems with the Ross Island Bridge and with the MLK viaduct. He was concerned that the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) was not looking at ORS 366.514, the Bike and Pedestrian Bill, that required alternate modes to be considered any time a reconstruction occurred. He was not aware that ODOT had taken comments on this and asked Mr. Hoglund if there was a way Metro could weigh in on this before the next round of STIP projects.

Mr. Hoglund said he didn’t remember looking at that project, but ODOT did say these were interim criteria (as presented in the packet) for this round of STIP funding and they wanted to look at them again to make them permanent criteria but were in a time crunch as these needed to be released. He did say he believed that in the fall Metro and JPACT would be asked to comment on the STIP, as Areawide Commissions on Transportation (ACTs), and that would be the time to include some comments and possibly testify to that effect with these concerns. Mr. Hoglund said he wasn’t sure exactly how ODOT interpreted factor 2D public involvement criteria, but he said Metro could certainly ask that it be included. Chair Burkholder said he would like to work with Mr. Hoglund in crafting a letter or a way to present testimony to the OTC. He commented that there may be many more projects lacking these criteria, but his knowledge was limited to those within this district. Mr. Hoglund suggested that this discussion occur again at the next Transportation Committee meeting, and that he could deliver a letter to the next STIP hearing in, he believed, late August. He said the OTC would probably appreciate the input. Chair Burkholder said he looked forward to working with Mr. Hoglund on this.

8.  REGIONAL DISCUSSION DRAFT – REAUTHORIZATION OF THE TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21^ST CENTURY (TEA-21). Chair Burkholder asked Mr. Richard Brandman if the Discussion Draft was a compilation of comments from different agencies or if it had been vetted into a consistent regional strategy to be pursued, and if Mr. Brandman could address that as he made his presentation. Mr. Brandman said these had been put forth by ODOT, some by Metro, some by Congressman Blumenauer, by the Port of Portland, by the City of Portland, etc., and this was everybody’s initial wish list. This was by no means a final report, though, he added. The Discussion Draft in the agenda packet, which was a redlined version, was replaced by Mr. Brandman for this discussion with a clean version (distributed and made a part of this record) and he outlined the major funding and policy issues for the committee. An interesting comment Mr. Brandman made, and that he

said Metro needs to pay quite a bit of attention to was the possibility that the federal government may be looking at giving more funds directly to the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) instead of the states.

Mr. Brandman said he was looking for the committee’s reaction and input on the Discussion Draft, then he hoped to have a good session on it with JPACT, possibly at a special session, and he asked Councilor Monroe, as chair of JPACT, for his assistance in that discussion. He said he’d like to have this document in final form by September/October this year. Any feedback this committee could give him over the next few weeks was welcome, he added.

Chair Burkholder pointed out that the I-5 Trade Corridor information on p. 13 was outdated, and Mr. Brandman said that would be updated. Councilor Atherton commented on the railroad portion, and a short discussion took place on that. Chair Burkholder thanked Mr. Brandman for the update.

6.  RESOLUTION NO. 02-XXXX – For the Purpose of Adopting the Policy Direction, Program Development and Evaluation Criteria for the Priorities 2003 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) Update. Mr. Hoglund distributed an updated version of this resolution (renamed Resolution No. 02-3206 and included in this record), and reminded the committee that this had been before them previously so he didn’t want to review all the options again. He asked to quickly update them on the progress and on TPAC’s contribution, saying it would go to JPACT July 11^th, back to this committee July 16^th with staff recommending it be advertised to receive public testimony at that time, and then to the Metro Council on July 23^rd for adoption. Chair Burkholder agreed to hold the public hearing on this item on July 16^th. Metro would not be soliciting for projects until the end of August because there were a lot of details yet to be worked out first with the local jurisdictions, Mr. Hoglund said.

He then called the committee’s attention to the recommendation on the overall policy direction in Exhibit A to the resolution (specifically p. 3, IV.). Starting with p. 5, the charts were the next area Mr. Hoglund explained and discussed with the committee. In summarizing the recommendation that came out of TPAC, Mr. Hoglund directed the committee to the $26 million chart on p. 7 (Regional Flexible Funds) and said TPAC recommended pursuing the proposal outlined in this chart, which included the UGB concept areas, the Centers, the industrial areas, and the TOD, green demonstration and planning functions at a 90%/10% match ratio, with other eligible Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) projects competing at a 70%/30% match ratio.

Mr. Hoglund recapped the TPAC discussion for the committee. Chair Burkholder asked if they were planning to pull in some of the information gleaned from the Leland/Arrington/Brinkerhoff Centers Study in terms of readiness for projects, local leadership, investment, etc., and Mr. Hoglund said the subcommittee would meet twice to work on that. This was discussed and Chair Burkholder said he had wanted to hear that. Mr. Hoglund said they were thinking of using Leland recommendations for industrial areas, too. Chair Burkholder said he was very excited about where this has gotten to, and that it would also be discussed at the Council/Executive Officer Informal at July 9^th. A critical question that would be discussed at the Informal as well was the 70%/30% for other areas, and whether Metro Council support this. He said this concern was to go to the full Metro Council in order to get a direction on their position to take to JPACT. Mr. Hoglund said they may want to put a cap on the 70%/30% list. Chair Burkholder said he would tell the Council that the committee sentiment was that the 70/30% match be dropped for areas outside the key priority areas. Mr. Hoglund said he would send all the councilors an e-mail on this, outlining the pros and cons, before the Informal.

Mr. Hoglund pointed out some outstanding issues related to the Evaluation Criteria (on p. 9) that needed to be taken back to the MTIP subcommittee, and he explained those to the committee. In closing, he said he was looking to this committee and the Metro Council for agreement on the broad policy goals and objectives, and in the administrative criteria that they be clear regarding the points which did not mean there was not a project the policy makers could not say they wanted funded, as long as the project was in the RTP.

Chair Burkholder said he was very pleased with the progress of this and very excited that so much of it was done by education and how the funds fit into that. He said this had been a very effective strategy, very focused and it let people know why it works. Councilor Monroe agreed that this was sound work, and he also agreed with Chair Burkholder that education was they key. He said Chair Burkholder deserved a lot of credit for the way that happened.

7.  OREGON HIGHWAY PLAN AMENDMENT ON DESIGNATION OF SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION AREAS (STAs). Mr. Hoglund said he thought this subject would come up at the next OTC meeting in August, and that Metro’s notice was late on this. He then reviewed the agenda material, the memo to TPAC from Kim White, and said this was going to JPACT on July 11^th and that comments were due to the OTC by July 15^th. After discussion and with the committee’s consent, Chair Burkholder said these were good proposals, and the committee endorsed the staff recommendation. He added that one of the councilors could be available, if needed, at the OTC meeting, and thanked Mr. Hoglund for the briefing.

9.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS. There were none.

There being no further business before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 12:52 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Rooney Barker

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF JULY 2, 2002

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

TESTIMONY CARDS. None.