 |
Bi-State Transportation Committee |
 |
Below is the meeting report for the Bi-State Transportation Committee meeting, held on Thursday, March 25, 2004, from 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. at the Port of Vancouver, 3103 NW Lower River Road, Vancouver, Washington. An agenda for this meeting is also available.
The meeting of the Bi-State Transportation Committee was called to order by Chair Craig Pridemore, at 7:30 a.m. at the Clark County Public Service Center, 1300 Franklin, Vancouver, Washington. Those in attendance follow:
Committee Members Rex Burkholder, Metro Councilor
Serena Cruz, Multnomah County Commissioner
Jim Francesconi, City of Portland Commissioner
John Fratt, Port of Vancouver, Alternate
Matthew Garrett, ODOT, Region 1 Manager
Lynne Griffith, C-TRAN Executive Director/CEO
Fred Hansen, TriMet General Manager
Larry Haverkamp, City of Gresham Councilor
Mary Legry, WSDOT Alternate
Dennis Osborn, Battle Ground Alternate
Royce Pollard, City of Vancouver Mayor
Craig Pridemore, Clark County CommissionerStaff Andy Cotugno, Metro
Dean Lookingbill, RTC
Mark Turpel, Metro
Diane Workman, RTCInterested Guests Mike Baker, Consultant
Ed Barnes, Washington Transportation Commissioner
Richard Brandman, Metro
Kate Deane, ODOT
Evan Dust, Clark County
Mark Garrity, WSDOT
Bob Hart, RTC
Dale Himes, WSDOT
Jim Howell, AORTA
Robin Katz, Port of Portland
Geoff Larkin, Consultant
Dale Miller, C-TRAN
Greg Miller, Citizen
Rod Monroe, Metro Councilor, Alternate
Philip A. Parker, Citizen
Scott Patterson, C-TRAN
Matt Ransom, City of Vancouver
Dale Robins, RTC
Karen Schilling, Multnomah County
Phil Selinger, TriMet
Steve Siegel, Consultant
Walter Valenta, Citizen
Laurel Wentworth, City of Portland
John D. White, Consultant
Sharon Wylie, Clark CountyThe January 22, 2004 Meeting Report to be approved at the April 22, 2004 meeting.
Matt Garrett, ODOT, introduced Steve Siegel, a consultant working for ODOT on this project. Mr. Siegel highlighted what they plan to do over the next 18 months. He said over the past several years, many have been engaged in the I-5 strategic planning effort, which looked at a wide range of alternatives and concluded with recommendations about alternatives that would be selected for further study. At the end of the 18-month process, they will begin a Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The purpose of these 18 months is to try and make a smooth transition between the strategic plan and the beginning of the DEIS.
Mr. Siegel said when the DEIS is started, one of the most critical sets of decisions that have to be made is the scoping. In scoping they determine the range of alternatives to be included in the DEIS. Once an alternative is included in the DEIS, all alternatives have to be studied at the same level of detail and with the certain level of depth. One of the hard decisions is how many alternatives, and what range of alternatives do you include in the DEIS, because it can become a very expensive and lengthy process. The scoping decision that occurs at the beginning of the DEIS is one that is made through a combination of local decision-making and also federal decision-making. He said that certainly the lead agencies, in this case both FHWA and FTA, are going to be involved in helping to decide what those alternatives are.
When the Strategic Plan ended, there were a number of decisions that were made, or recommendations that were accepted in the strategic plan about the kinds of alternatives. He said that as they looked at the Strategic Plan that was accepted, there is not full concurrence on what that really means or represented. Different jurisdictions may have different answers.
Given that beginning and that ending to this 18 month process, Mr. Siegel said what they are engaged in doing now is essentially four things. The first is to look at the alternatives, the work that has been done in the past, the status of the recommendations and compile that into a technically complete and a policy level complete report that can be used to begin the scoping process that starts the draft EIS. To do so, they will need to look at traffic work, engineering work, environmental issues, etc. to get that prepared. Through the 18 month period, they do not make decisions on the alternatives that go into the DEIS. That occurs at the end of the 18 months. They get the information compiled and the policy decisions compiled that represent what goes into the scoping process.
Part two is tolling. One of the issues that came up during the strategic plan was the possibility that tolling would be involved in this project. The tolling is also one that has to be addressed in the DEIS. Over the next 18 months, they are not making a tolling decision, but are trying to make a decision as to what kinds of tolling options should be presented in the DEIS. That issue was not addressed in the last base study. This is the first hard look by this group at tolling. This will address rate structures, enforcement, where the tolling should occur, basic configurations, etc. This requires us to look at a broad range of alternatives and narrow it down to those that merit consideration in the DEIS.
The third issue to look at is some of the administrative and regulatory issues that affect this project. It is a bi-state project, and that raises complications, not only politically, but also in terms of the statutory elements. There are two different states with two different sets of statutes. State statutes affecting tolling, project development, etc. During this phase, they plan to analyze these kinds of issues and perhaps recommend statutory changes to try and better integrate the authorities of both states.
Fourthly, they want to take a closer look at financing. Again, not with the intent to try and figure out a finance plan, but with the intent to figure out the kind of financial options that need to be explored in the DEIS. Also look at the implications of those financial plans and structures of statutory issues, legislative issues, federal issues, as well as trying to make sure that the options to be presented are consistent with and compatible with those financial plans.
In summary, over the next 18 months, the four issues to cover are 1) screening out of alternatives to go into the scoping process to be carried forward to the DEIS, 2) tolling issues to go into the DEIS, 3) administrative and regulatory issues with the intent to determine any legislative requirements, and 4) finance plan.
There will be a variety of technical products that will come out which will come before this Committee. The actual decision making that occurs is actually fairly limited during this 18 months, because it mostly must occur by law during the scoping process.
John Fratt asked when the 18 months begins. Mr. Siegel said they began February 6, 2004.
Craig Pridemore asked when Mr. Siegel referred to “we” who does that included. Mr. Siegel said he used “we” in two different ways. One way referring to the consulting team and the actual work that will be done. The consulting team will be working closely with the Coordinating Committee made up of the regional staff. He said they had their first meeting a week ago. Mr. Pridemore asked what the outcome product would be of this, if it was the DEIS project. Mr. Siegel said the outcome will be 1) regional bi-state consensus on how to enter into the scooping process for a DEIS, 2) a recommendation on the tolling concepts to be included in the DEIS, 3) a recommendation on any legislation that may be required to advance the project, and 4) a recommendation on financial options that should be included in the DEIS to the extent that that financing strategy is an ongoing effort will also try and coordinate the various regional actions, for example on transportation authorization that may be affected by that finance plan.
Rex Burkholder said regarding the administrative and legislative review it is difficult to look at any structure that we have and try to understand how it fits this project. He said this is a big reason for us all to come together to make those decisions about this bi-state area. He asked the question: how do we create a new system that allows us to deal with bi-state issues in a less cumbersome way for the future? He asked if we should go to Congress or to our legislators and ask for specific legislation to authorize us to act, to help us get around bureaucratic roadblocks.
Mr. Siegel agreed. He said a discussion on decision-making structure is the next topic to bring up. He said that during the S/N Light Rail Study in 1994, a Bi-State Compact was created in the Oregon legislature. The sole of it dealt with light rail but it is not adequate for this purpose.
Serena Cruz said in January when this was discussed, she had some questions about the role of the Bi-State Committee. She said she is still unclear where the Bi-State Committee comes in and their role, and what we think our role is versus what you think our role is. Mr. Siegel said that Matt Garrett is going to address that particular question. He said he was explaining what work is going to be done over the next 18 months and what kind of decisions need to be made so when the decision framework is discussed, that ground work is there.
Matt Garrett said the decision-making process will take a twofold turn. He said he is working with Dale Himes, WSDOT, and distributed two handouts of the decision structure. He said they are working to make this mesh. He said it does reinforce the point that Mr. Siegel made that the two states are in different positions in several areas. The decision-making structures for the two states are different. He said that Dale Himes will take the Committee through those decision structures. He said another set of issues that play into this process is that in the last two weeks, the two Transportation Commission Chairs have met and wanted to present how that will lead into the decision making process and how it impacts the Bi-State Committee. He said bottom line, all the information will come back to the Bi-State Committee. Mr. Garrett referred to the two handouts and introduced Dale Himes.
Mr. Himes said the first of the two handouts is a first draft that WSDOT and ODOT started to look at. The graphic explains the relationship from ODOT to the Regional Coordinating Committee to the Bi-State Coordination Committee on up to Metro. Over the last month, the flow chart has evolved to the much larger chart (handout).
Fred Hansen asked what the Bi-State Coordination Committee was? It was clarified that the Bi-State Transportation Committee is in the soon to be complete process of becoming the Bi-State Coordination Committee. The Bi-State Coordination Committee name is used to refer to the current Bi-State Committee.
Mr. Himes referred back to the charts and said the reason that the chart evolved into the much larger structure is because they began to look at the experience of the much larger Mega projects in the Seattle area (SR-520 and the Alaskan Way). He said those two projects involved a broader participation than had been shown on the first ODOT/WSDOT chart. He said they looked at the model WSDOT had in Seattle and started to include state legislators, businesses, and railroad. As they started to mirror their experience on those two larger projects, they found the participation level increase in terms of the project itself. He referred to the new expanded structure, and said the bottom half reflects the structure that was used by the other two large projects in an attempt to integrate it as to what would happen down here. The bottom line lists the Pre-EIS Phase as Mr. Siegel outlined. The next level would be the Project Management Team or the Regional Coordination Committee. The graphic had additional levels for the regional and state/federal decision-making processes. Mr. Himes said this is a draft and asked for input.
Mr. Garrett said this flow chart is still in the working process. He said using this forum; this is the opportunity to place these types of issues and decisions on the table before they go to the decision-making bodies, RTC, JPACT/Metro, and the Oregon Commission. Mr. Garrett said they found the role of the Washington Transportation Commission is different from the role of the Oregon Commission.
Mr. Garrett referred to the meeting of the two Commission Chairs, Aubrey Davis, Washington, and Stuart Foster, Oregon. In addition to that, Bruce Warner, Oregon Department of Transportation Director, and Douglas MacDonald, Washington State Department of Transportation Secretary, met as well. To that extent, what came out of the several-hour meeting was that they want to be more engaged. With that, a letter from Aubrey Davis and Stuart Foster was sent to Douglas MacDonald and Bruce Warner stating they want to bring a group of working Commissioners together on May 25th to discuss this issue. Copies of the letter were distributed. The letter listed four bulleted topics for discussion. 1) The status of work currently underway in each of the departments on Columbia River crossing planning issues. 2) Expectations of each of the two departments and of the departments working together for the use of federal highway funding that is available to the project. 3) Views on how an inter-agency working agreement between the two departments can best support progress on the project (this might include possible roles for a standing inter-commission committee as well as for the two departments). 4) A summary of how the departments are working with public officials, local government bodies, Congressional staff and interested citizens on both sides of the river on the planning issues surrounding the project. Mr. Garrett said number four would answer Commissioner Cruz’s question of the Bi-State’s role. He said he would be better informed to discuss the role to this Committee after the meeting with the Commissions. He said there are legal obligations that the DOTs have to obtain the money and legal obligations to the MPOs. He said he sees the potential that the Commission may want to use the Bi-State Committee to become a part of the process. As information is worked with senior staff, it would be brought back to this committee. He said he would be better informed to say exactly the role of the Bi-State Coordination Committee after the meeting with the commissions so he would have a better understanding of where they want to go in regards to this project. Mr. Garrett said the role of the Bi-State is the forum to base these issues. He said there is a little question about that. He said the charter, the bylaws, state this is the forum to get the issues on the table, to get the policy calls, and the political calls. Certainly, it is the bell weather committee before they go to the decision-making committees, the OTC, JPACT, RTC, and other appropriate decision-making bodies in Washington.
Mr. Garrett said the May 25th meeting will be somewhere in Vancouver. He said three Oregon Commissioners would be in attendance, which will make a quorum for the Oregon Commission, so it will be an open public meeting. He said a better conversation of the true role of the Bi-State is after this meeting, after he has told the Chair of the Commission that this is the structure of the Bi-State Coordinating Committee that may be a tool to be a part of it.
Craig Pridemore said he appreciated Mr. Garrett’s comments. He said the decision-making on May 25 is a time to begin to define the role of the Bi-State Committee. With that concern, he and Rex Burkholder put together the resolution that was included in the meeting packets and before the Committee. The resolution was attached to a letter from Chair Pridemore and Vice Chair Burkholder expressing the resolution’s intent to recommend the Bi-State Committee’s role. The Bi-State Committee would serve as the appropriate forum for formulating recommendations and final recommendations would occur after coordination with the RTC, JPACT and the Metro Council. Mr. Pridemore said he thought this resolution would strengthen the message to the Commission of our process. He said that Mr. Garrett had asked to postpone this resolution action until after the May 25 meeting, but Mr. Pridemore said this would ensure that at the meeting of the Commission the Bi-State Committee would be heard. Mr. Garrett said he wanted some time, but said he understood that something was wanted prior to May 25th. He would like to spend some time with Stuart Foster and Don Wagner and Aubrey Davis on the structures that are in place. He said a more in-depth discussion is needed and wanted to work with his Commission Chairman Foster. As they move to the 25th, he wants to ensure that he has informed Chairman Foster of all the appropriate folks that are in place, including the Bi-State Committee. He does not want the perception that the DOT’s are leading the group or that they are moving beyond the depth or breadth of what Bi-State is all about.
Rex Burkholder said he has a suggestion in looking at the structure chart. He sees that there seems to be a redundancy between the Executive Committee, which is almost everyone on the Bi-State Committee or someone from their organization, and then further up on the chart the Bi-State Committee is listed. The resolution that is proposed is to say the Bi-State Committee is the Executive Committee, it may have extra people, but that is the intent of the resolution. The Bi-State Committee is already set up to be that forum. If that is in fact what we want to say, then we should send that message to the DOT Commissions. He said we come to this Bi-State Committee representing each of our communities and that is what the Bi-State Committee is about and why we are successful.
Craig Pridemore noted the need for a citizen’s advisory plan, and a process to bring them into and along with the final decisions. It is a piece that is just as important as the Bi-State and elected officials.
Serena Cruz said she agreed with the direction that both Mr. Burkholder and Mr. Pridemore were headed. She said the resolution really helps to clarify what we, as the Bi-State think is our role. It helps to express that directly to the two DOTs. It should not to be a surprise to them. Certainly, she said WSDOT and ODOT Commissioners have been involved from the beginning. She said she does not understand the concern of letting them know our position. She agreed that it seems there is some misunderstanding about who is on Bi-State and what we thought of the committee. If what is being said that some of the important decisions are going to be made in this joint meeting on May 25, then it makes all the more sense that we pass this resolution today since that is our last opportunity before the May meeting.
It was noted that there is an April 22 meeting. Craig Pridemore said he and Rex Burkholder would be willing to hold off on the resolution until the April meeting.
Ed Barnes said at the last Washington State Transportation Commission meeting, the Commission Chair, Aubrey Davis, has informed the Commission that a May 26 regional meeting will be held here in Vancouver, and prior to that on May 25, the Commission will be meeting with the Oregon Commission to define their role in this project. Mr. Barnes said he hopes this process will develop with results and participation as such they were for the I-5 Partnership. That was a good process. He said it is extremely important for everyone, the Commission, the Governor’s office, the individual jurisdictions, and the industry to work together. He said all must work together to benefit from this, and get funding to do the project. No funding will be seen if everyone does not cooperate. It is a region; it is not just Oregon or Washington, or Portland or Vancouver, or a single county. It is a region as a whole that everyone needs to benefit by.
Fred Hansen said the resolution specifics say that we are recommending to the RTC and Metro to send a letter to the Commissions. It does not say RTC and Metro through JPACT, as our bylaws read. The process goes through JPACT before it goes to the Metro Council. Craig Pridemore said we are currently in between. The Coordinating Committee advises to any member jurisdiction, which most everyone has signed on to the Charter. The intent was that this recommendation would go before the RTC and through JPACT to Metro, and the wording would be clarified.
Mr. Hansen referred to the substance of the issue. He said it is very important that the DOTs rely upon this group for much of the work. He is concerned that from a phrase that he uses “Never offend people on form; if you can offend on substance”. What he said he means by that is we have a lot of substance that we will be dealing with on this process and issues that are going to a lot of players. He worries that we start off with a conflict of two of the important players, the DOTs, that maybe some additional time can resolve. He said he would define ways to make it very clear to the Oregon and Washington Transportation Commissions that these are very important issues. If they don’t believe we are at a place to look at, it does not matter how often we recommend to them. Mr. Hansen said he would be inclined to instead of taking the resolution now, to bring it to the April meeting or find other ways and just not quite yet be in the face of the Commissions at this early stage. If the last vote that we have is on the exact recommendation that is different than what the Transportation Commissions want, then we approach it. But not this early in the process.
Jim Francesconi said there is more substance than process, but the process we should be careful with. He referred to the structure chart and said the flow chart does not connect from the Bi-State Committee to the MPOs or to anyone above them. He said that communication between those levels needs to be worked through.
Royce Pollard said he wants to make sure that a clear message is sent to the Commissions of what we think our role should be. If that is not this intent, then he would go some place else. He said his city would have a say in this project. It would either be through this Committee or through some other forum. He felt the message needs to be made clear to them, and does not have a problem with that. It is a difficult process. He said he would support giving some time, but he is concerned of the direction it is going and the role that we think we have.
Fred Hansen said he wanted to clarify that he does think that time needs to be given. He does think part of the problem of why we are here is that the process does look to be ham-handed on the part of the process of hiring the consultants and determining the roles, and how it would be coordinated, but he does not think we should focus on that. We need to focus on the end result, which is what we want and that is good transportation land use, economic development projects.
Mary Legry had some clarification to a couple of the questions. She said members should be well aware of the fact that this Bi-State Committee is the key to the central forum. There have been a number of bi-state solutions over the years proposed, some successful, some not. This is a body that has evolved over time and banded on both sides of the river. It is well established with the first draft of the Charter and good clarifications for the next draft where the land use and economic issues were added to transportation. She said the Washington State Department of Transportation sees that the investments in transportation are so big that they have impacts to the community and will strategize well with those communities. She sees the need to define the roles. She does not see the Bi-State as the project management group. The Bi-State’s role is policy and advisory. The Executive Committee, which is to be equally advised by the Citizens Advisory Committee and the Project Management Team.
REX BURKHOLDER MOVED TO HOLD ACTION ON THE RESOLUTION UNTIL APRIL. SERENA CRUZ SECONDED THE MOTION.
Jim Francesconi said it would be helpful to have more input from the DOTs about what they think they need from this committee to make it more effective for them.
Andy Cotugno said it is important to know what is going to happen between now and May 25. He said he heard Mr. Garrett say that this committee needs to work with him on the structure and the April 22 meeting may be a time to accomplish that. Also said was that you need to work with your Commission. If there is any negotiation between the region and the states on who has what role, this body, the Bi-State Committee should negotiate with the DOT Commissions. The Bi-State Committee would negotiate as a region to the Commissions. So if there are any disagreements on who takes what role, the two Commissions are dealing directly with all involved. That is this body’s role.
Matt Garrett said that is fine, but that he thought there is an appropriate forum to craft that message. He said senior staff can do just that. He said these can be worked to better articulate the flow prior to the May 25 meeting.
Mary Legry asked who we want to do it. Do we want senior staff to have the discussion with the two DOTs and the Commissions or do we have some of the Bi-State members.
Fred Hansen said he had confidence in his senior staff, and would guess others at the table felt the same. They would carry the message. He said he felt the senior staff should be there talking. It would need to be clear that if there was a difference of opinion, it goes back to the Chair and back for us to get involved.
Dean Lookingbill said he was unclear when the communications happens. He said is the staff or the Committee to meet with Commission heads prior to the May 25th joint meeting. When it comes to the actual meeting with the Commissions (May 25th), who will present the Bi-State Committee’s position?
Matt Garrett suggested that both he and Don Wagner are Committee members who sit on the staff committee. He said they can see that this plays itself out. He and Mr. Wagner can share with the Chair and Vice Chair where they landed.
Rex Burkholder asked if the senior staff discussion could be prepared for the April 22 meeting with the decision on the Bi-State Committees role and direction. Matt Garrett said they could have a direction for the April 22 meeting. Craig Pridemore said it would be helpful to know just what role we plan to present to the Commission. Matt Garrett said he thought this Committee’s role was only advisory to the MPOs. He said he heard earlier that this body will now be advisory to all bodies. That is a new role.
IT WAS AGREED THAT NO ACTION WOULD TAKE PLACE ON THE RESOLUTION AND IT WOULD COME BACK AT THE APRIL MEETING.
Kate Deane said given the short amount of time to present, she handed out a Spring 2004 Update on the Delta Park to Lombard Project. She had intended to present more of the substance of the project, but noted the handout listing project accomplishments and an updated schedule. She said the project has been underway for a year now. Some of the accomplishments include: development of purpose and need, goals and objectives; evaluation factors; alternatives development, screening and refinement; work with Kenton and Denver Connector alternative; and traffic and design work nearly complete – by June. She said as for the schedule, the original schedule was very ambitiously set. Given the kinds of alternatives they are looking at, and the processes, they are on a slower track than originally stated and noted the schedule as listed on the update.
Lynne Griffith introduced Dale Miller, Director of Development & Technology and Scott Patterson, Public Affairs. Scott Patterson said that in 1999, C-TRAN’s funding was reduced by 40% with the passage of Initiative 695. C-TRAN responded at time by bring the system down by about 20%, which resulted in the elimination of 78 positions, and has maintained service by drawing on its reserve funds. Money saved to pay for buses and transit facilities is now being spent on daily operations.
One of the tools they have used in examining the long term needs and wants of the citizens of Clark County is to initiate a public opinion survey that they do once a year. Mr. Patterson highlighted some of the interesting comments and findings from the survey.
Dale Miller referred back to the discussion of the I-5 Strategic Plan, and in that Plan, there was a call for basically bumping up the transit systems on both sides of the river. In developing its first ever 20-Year Transit Development Plan, C-TRAN has asked the community to determine how and at what level they should operate in the future. This resulted in six different service and funding alternatives. Following significant public involvement and input, they have narrowed it to two alternatives. One is a default force of action (no new revenue/service reductions). The second is a preferred alternative. They heard the desire of the community, which was basically, what was called for in the I-5 Strategic Plan. What they also heard was some realism in that call. They ended on a first stage toward that level. He said they have had contact directly or indirectly with about 70,000 people in the planning process.
Alternative #1 is no action except to put a ballot measure on the November 2, 2004 election. If there is no sales tax increase they will have reduced service and lose about half of their service. A lot of the services and activities in the community would be gone. More information was available in the handout listing the alternatives.
Alternative #2 is the preferred alternative, Improved County Service, keeps pace with population for about 5 to 7 years; after that it levels off. This would require a 0.3% sales tax increase. It extends service to 10 p.m. and significant increases on weekend service levels. Scott Patterson highlighted some of the benefits Alternative #2 would give to the community. Mr. Patterson said they would be conducting a new round of public outreach at the end of April and early May to finalize the service plan for both alternatives 1 and 2.
Dean Lookingbill referred to the handout at the table titled Intergovernmental Agreement Specifying the Roles and Responsibilities of a Joint JPACT and RTC Bi-State Transportation Committee. When the Bi-State Transportation Committee was initially created, this was the instrument (bylaws and intergovernmental agreement all in one). This pertained only to transportation. Included in the meeting packet is the first draft of the Bylaws of the Bi-State Coordination Committee. The Coordination Committee was first started with the Charter, which is attached to the draft Bylaws. The Charter is the element that recognizes that the Committee needs to not just address transportation but also land use and economic development. The charter has gone out to the various communities and have said yes we want to be a part of this in recognition of both the transportation and land use elements. It is now before the Bi-State Committee with the draft of bylaws to articulate the roles of the group, which is made up of part of the Intergovernmental Agreement and part of the Charter, and the Charter becomes part of the bylaws by reference. The approval process needs to recognize bylaws, on one hand the Bi-State Committee in terms of their transportation role; this is a creature of the two MPOs. Transportation issues that come through the Committee go back to the MPOs, but the other entities weigh in on the Charter. That is the focus to be clarified at this point, certainly when it comes to land use issues. The second paragraph in the Charter states “On issues of bi-state land use and economic significance, the Committee advises the local and regional governments appropriate to the issue. Specifically, in the case for RTC, that is key. RTC does not have a land use role, so it goes back to Clark County. That is a significant and new layer to confirm that all understand. He said no action is being sought today, but open for comment. Staff would bring this back to the next Bi-State meeting for a recommendation to take back to the other entities. The Charter for the Coordination Committee does not include the Bylaws, but should be included in the action in unison with the Charter. How this group operates is up to this group. This would say that RTC and JPACT/Metro have gone through the steps to set up the Charter and various jurisdictions have adopted it, and we are now at the point to address the bylaws as well.
Mark Turpel said there are two issues to address, 1) are the bylaws as they are drafted something that the committee wants to move forward? and 2) what is the process? He said the process on the Oregon side is that JPACT and the Metro Council approved the Intergovernmental Agreement. They also approved the Charter, which authorized these bylaws
Jim Francesconi said to go back to the earlier flow chart, and questioned membership. He said there is the executive committee and there is the citizen advisory committee. He said we need to look at our membership and formalize, what the role of the citizens is in this process for Bi-State. He said he felt that some business folks need to be on this committee.
Fred Hansen said in specific to the Charter, he had some questions. He said in paragraph two of Purpose, he asked what was meant by “significant legislative land use”. It was said that this was to help clarify on the bigger picture, Comp Plan, policy issues, not the individual jurisdictions’ issues. Mr. Hansen said he felt that needed to be clarified. Additionally, he said the word “which” needed to be changed to “that” in the same phrase. He said we want to make sure that the phrase as used means that it may have environmental economic development and environmental justice implications relates back to land use and transportation. He said we create this category called land use and transportation and define the elements under that we are going to be involved in, which is what that paragraph does. He said it needs to be made more clear.
Andy Cotugno suggested that the Charter not be changed, because all of the bodies have approved it. Expand upon these nuances about purpose and define the Charter in the Bylaws.
Fred Hansen said on the second page of the charter listing of membership, there had been discussion of having additional stakeholder involvement. He thought this would pertain to a major project on I-5. We might create something as large as the Governor appointed Bi-State group, 55 people or so, and have a lot of the business people that Mr. Francesconi was referring to. That group would advise this group and we would ultimately make recommendations to JPACT/Metro and RTC. He felt that would be a reasonable approach. He felt that would be more of a subcommittee and could be defined in the Bylaws as such.
Craig Pridemore agreed that situations would make a citizen and or business group necessary, and they could be created for specific projects.
Mr. Hansen said on the last paragraph of the charter there is a difference between the quorum listing of 2/3 of total membership and what is listed in the Bylaws. If that is the case, it would constitute 9 members, and that needs to be clarified.
Matt Garrett said he took the charter and resolution to his Commission. He said he sees this body as advisory to the MPOs, and then on specific land use and economic significance issues advising the City of Vancouver, and Battle Ground and such. He said he doesn’t know what role ODOT plays or the role of the Ports, because that is not mentioned. He asked for someone to articulate just what this means. He said he thought this body was advisory, to put issues on the table. It becomes the bell weather for political, policy type issues that eventually go back to the decision making process. He said he felt the DOTs are usurped by the process.
Dean Lookingbill said the DOTs are members of this body, and members of the MPOs. As the flow chart shows, there are layers of decisions that take place, and a contact for this project that fits into those layers. As MPOs and as DOT members to those MPOs, the DOTs are a part of that body and of the regional decision-making process. That is not by that statute, directly connected to how Transportation Commissions and legislative processes have a state level to make their decision. He said each Commission has a specific charge. Those are separate layers. There is no usurping of power in the sense that at the regional level, these decisions are made. At the statewide level, across the whole State of Oregon or the whole State of Washington, those Transportation Commissions make decisions.
Matt Garrett asked to whom final recommendations go to. He referenced back to the resolution, and asked if that implied that the MPOs and the Transportation Commissions were the ultimate decision-making bodies with legal authority and ODOT had to abide by that. Mr. Lookingbill said the MPOs, a combination of the Bi-State may make final recommendations, but there are also several layers of decisions to be made from the specific number of lanes to build, to funding alternatives and options. Matt Garrett said that means that it is still always an advisory committee when all is said and done.
Craig Pridemore said the Bi-State Committee has no legal authority unless we were to go to congress and get a Bi-State Compact. In terms of issues specific to ODOT and the Oregon Transportation Commission, the final recommendation that comes from the Bi-State Committee is a recommendation. The intention of the Bi-State Committee is to be a forum to discuss issues so both sides of the river know what the other is doing, to keep informed and be made aware.
Andy Cotugno said he thought the Bylaws could be made clear about any issues of any of the jurisdictions to share any information as well. He said there are still ties that go back strictly to JPACT and RTC. An example is say the two DOTs deal with the lift policy on the Interstate Bridge. He said that is an issue of bi-state that is important. He would hope that the two DOTs would bring that back to the Bi-State Committee for discussion. That would be an example of making a recommendation, still advisory, to the two DOTs, on the lift policy of the Interstate Bridge. It never gets to the MPO forum. Mr. Garrett said that is where the Coast Guard would be engaged in the conversation. Mr. Cotugno said that is an example of where the DOTs may have some obligation to remember that this is an issue of bi-state significance, lets take it to the Bi-State Committee for discussion. He said there might be some sort of organization created to go and work with the Coast Guard to deal with that issue, never having come through the MPOs at all, but still an important issue of bi-state significance. He said the level of detail that was shown this morning, they had not seen in the past being strictly through the MPO. He said there needs to be some beefing up. The responsibility of the land use jurisdiction to bring issues to the Bi-State Committee for input is key as well. Craig Pridemore said all the concerns on both sides of the river need to be brought together at this table.
Rex Burkholder said this would be brought back to the Committee at their April meeting for direction regarding the issues that were discussed today.
Walter Valenta an Oregon citizen representative on the I-5 Partnership Committee, said the recommendation for turning the Bi-State Transportation Committee into the Bi-State Coordination Committee had a couple recommendations, which he does not see included. He said they speak to the citizen involvement and that there would be a citizen from each side of the river on the Bi-State Coordination Committee. He said it was a controversial issue, and one of the few issues that there was not full consensus on, but it was recommended. It is not part of this thus far. He said even if a large dynamic committee was put together, it would still not be the same as having a citizen on this board from each side. He has a concern of the need and wanted to remind members of the recommendation.
Andy Cotugno gave a brief summary of the status of the House Transportation Bill. He said it is not final yet, but at this point they believe earmarks include $5 million for Delta Park at Representative Baird’s request, $10 million for the I-5 River Crossing at Representative Baird’s request, $5 million for Delta Park at Representative Blumenauer’s request, and $6 million for the I-5 River Crossing at Representative Blumenauer’s request.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 a.m.
The next meeting will be on April 22 at Metro.
Dean Lookingbill
Transportation Director, RTC
360-397-6067Andy Cotugno
Transportation Director, Metro
503-797-1763
       
|