MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, May 18, 1999

Council Chamber

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

Chair Kvistad called the meeting to order at 3:43 PM.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF MAY 4, 1999 JOINT JPACT/METRO COUNCIL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

The minutes were not available for consideration at this time.

2.  ORDINANCE NO. 99-802, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING THE FY 1998-99 BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS SCHEDULE IN THE PLANNING FUND TRANSFERRING APPROPRIATIONS FROM CAPITAL OUTLAY TO MATERIALS AND SERVICES FOR THE TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.

Kathy Rutkowski, Budget Coordinator, Financial Planning, explained that this was ordinance was technical to bring the budget into compliance with the outside financial auditor’s opinion, rendered in 1997-98. She said normally, land purchased was capital outlay expense because it became an asset of Metro. However, under the TOD program the lands purchased were to be resold in a relatively short period of time and were never intended to become Metro assets. The auditors therefore concluded that the land should be considered inventory, not assets. The auditors required those purchases to be recoded from “Capital Outlay” to “Materials and Services”. She noted that because the opinion came after the 1998-99 budget was adopted, she was here asking for movement of the appropriation authority for the expenditure.

Chair Kvistad assigned Councilor Bragdon to carry the ordinance to full council.

3.  RESOLUTION NO. 99-2778, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING A BI-STATE COMMITTEE OF THE JOINT POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION (JPACT) AND THE SOUTHWEST WASHINGTON REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL (RTC)

Andy Cotugno, Transportation Director, noted that this resolution was initiated by the Regional Transportation Council (RTC) of Clark County, requesting a more formal and integrated decision making process for transportation related issues between the two sides of the river. He said this bi-state committee would serve and report to both JPACT and RTC and act as a sounding board for anything with bi-state impact. He said it would be a means of recommending actions, projects, policies or improvements with bi-state implications and add a level of approval requirement and provide a means of better cooperation and communication between the two sides of the river. He commented that it would be another forum like the Washington or East Multnomah County Coordinating committees to provide a backup forum for JPACT to get to their concerns in more detail. He explained two changes that had been incorporated on the first section of the exhibit. First, the way it was originally worded, they felt it could have been interpreted as any member of JPACT or the RTC board could refer an item back to this bi-state committee. Correctly, it should read that any member could request referral of an item. Secondly, there was language added to include representation from a smaller city in Multnomah County because they were also impacted by bi-state issues.

Councilor Atherton was concerned that advisory committees should not take votes.

Mr. Cotugno responded that advisory committees did vote but they did not make decisions, only recommendations. He said voting was an appropriate way to express their recommendations to JPACT and the RTC board.

Councilor Atherton agreed, after some discussion, that perhaps more information about what was actually meant by the voting language would address his concerns in that area. He did not want to stall the start-up process by having to send it back to JPACT and the RTC board for amendment of the point.

Chair Kvistad asked Mr. Cotugno who made the final selection of RTC members.

Mr. Cotugno read from Exhibit A, Membership: “Each agency shall select their member for the Bi-State Transportation Committee and shall also identify an alternate member.” He said it did not specify how each agency would determine the appointment.

Chair Kvistad wondered if this would create yet another transportation advisory group that would be making policy, setting agendas, and making pronouncements on issues in a constrained transportation environment that had no direct relation to JPACT other than they would have to bring forward an action item. He noted that in theory, coordination was supposed to happen but it could very well end up with another committee doing their own gig that JPACT would have to react to. He said the group could be a good thing, but how it fit into the process was important.

Councilor Bragdon felt they were safeguarded from that possibility because of the overlapping memberships on the committees. For instance, he did not think the City of Portland would speak with a different voice in this committee than they would at JPACT, nor would the Port or Tri-Met. He noted that the federal government clearly was going to be a partner in a lot of the issues and wondered if they had some advisory place at the table.

Mr. Cotugno said these were all legitimate questions to be discussed, but it was his impression that the group would be predominantly JPACT and RTC board members. Those members may not be the exact representatives, but it was intended to be principally “the JPACT member” and “the RTC member” from this bi-state interest group. They would hash through any issues of bi-state significance and bring them back through JPACT and the RTC. They would not be independent agents and would not speak on behalf of themselves.

Chair Kvistad reiterated that the Metro member had to be one of the 3 members of JPACT, and the same for the representative of Tri-Met or the others.

After discussion, it was decided that a technical adjustment was needed in the Membership paragraph of Exhibit A to make it read: “Membership will be drawn from agencies serving on JPACT and and/or the RTC Board…”

Councilor Bragdon thought a safeguard was that the two bodies could not take action without referring an item for consideration, and their recommendations were not binding on JPACT.

Mr. Cotugno noted another safeguard was the committee had some obligation to report back to JPACT at least every 6 months, although JPACT would expect reports more often than that. He said the committee could be disbanded down the road if they were not accomplishing what had been expected from them. He suggested adopting the resolution and getting it formed, then later, if there were any concerns they could be incorporated into a housekeeping update later on. He suggested a 3 month period for looking at changes and refinements.

Councilor Bragdon said perhaps the Cascadia corridor, intercity city high speed rail would be something they might want to address.

Chair Kvistad assigned Councilor Bragdon to carry the ordinance to full council.

4.  RESOLUTION NO. 99-2791, FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPROVING THE FY 2000 MTIP MODERNIZATION PROGRAM DEVELOPED THROUGH THE PRIORITIES 2000 PROCESS

Mr. Cotugno said this was the end of the TIP allocation process that started last July with the adoption of the criteria and the schedule for considering potential applications. He gave an overview of committed projects and revised recommendations from the 100% balanced recommendation list. He noted JPACT’s changes and said in the final analysis all of the adjustment recommendations as well as the base program came out of JPACT on a unanimous vote.

Chair Kvistad noted again that the $18 million for PDX lightrail was not the “regional contribution for PDX lightrail”, it was $18 million for buses. He wanted to be sure the document reflected what they had voted on.

Mr. Cotugno agreed that the money should go for buses and referred Chair Kvistad to the conditions on the last page, number 5.

Chair Kvistad said he understood that. He said they had been telling people the airport lightrail project was independently funded and the $18 million was for bus acquisitions and if the airport lightrail project did not occur, the bus acquisition money would come back. He said the project before them was $18 million for bus acquisitions. He said it was semantics but someone could come back later and say they were funding that lightrail project. He wanted that clarified .

Mr. Cotugno suggested the attachment on the resolution refer to regional contribution for bus acquisition and that the condition read “the bus acquisition allocation for $18 million returns if the PDX lightrail project is not built”.

Chair Kvistad agreed that was what the committee understood the project to be and the wording had to be fixed to reflect what they voted for.

Councilor Atherton pointed out what he felt was editorial comment on first page of the resolution and after discussion the committee agreed it should be changed to say, “...of which only about approximately $33 million...”

Councilor Bragdon suggested acronyms used should have the full name spelled out at first occurrence with the acronym in parentheses to clarify for those not familiar with them. He also noted that the exhibit table header needed to be revised to indicate that the council was considering the JPACT recommendations, not the TPAC ones for project funding. He noted at TPAC that a citizen representing Washington County felt their road needs were not being attended to by Metro when in fact they were, to the tune of $33 million. He suggested project signage should indicate when funds had been allocated by JPACT so motorists became aware that Metro was allocating funds to projects they wanted in their jurisdictions.

Mr. Cotugno thought that was a good idea but wanted to check with the federal highway folks to make sure it was okay since it really was not Metro money.

Chair Kvistad directed Mr. Cotugno and his staff, depending on the review by the federal transportation folks, to craft a branding ordinance or resolution for work in this committee within 60 days.

Mr. Cotugno suggested, since they needed to notify the successful jurisdictions and applicants that they had been awarded funds, they could include in the letter that they wanted Metro on any signage identified for the project.

Chair Kvistad said if it was permitted by the federal government, he would rather have something in place stating that the branding process was a requirement if a jurisdiction received money allocated by Metro or a Metro committee. He said there would be a more general discussion about branding in 2 weeks at the next meeting.

Councilor Bragdon agreed.

Chair Kvistad, in response to a question from Councilor Atherton, explained that Metro was the MPO and JPACT was the body within Metro that was allocated the responsibility of the MPO. He explained the requirements.

Chair Kvistad said he would carry the resolution to the full council.

Mr. Cotugno reminded the committee of the joint JPACT/Metro Transportation Planning Committee public hearing on the Willamette River Crossing recommendation on June 14.

5.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATION

Chair Kvistad said there would be a general discussion about branding on the next agenda.

ADJOURN

There being no further business before the committee, Chair Kvistad adjourned the meeting at 4:31 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Cheryl Grant

Council Assistant