Below are the minutes for the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council Board of Directors Meeting, held on Tuesday, May 6, 2003, at 4:00 p.m. at the Clark County Public Service Center, 1300 Franklin Street, Vancouver, Washington. The agenda for this meeting is also available.
I. Call to Order and Roll Call of Members
The Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council Board of Directors Meeting was called to order by Chair Craig Pridemore on Tuesday, May 6, 2003, at 4 p.m. at the Clark County Public Service Center Sixth Floor Training Room, Vancouver, Washington. Those in attendance follow.
Board Members Rex Burkholder, Metro Councilor
Bill Ganley, City of Battle Ground Council Member
Lynne Griffith, C-TRAN Executive Director/CEO
Mary Legry, WSDOT (alternate)
Arch Miller, Port of Vancouver Commissioner
Betty Sue Morris, Clark County Commissioner
Royce Pollard, City of Vancouver Mayor
Craig Pridemore, Clark County Commissioner
Judie Stanton, Clark County Commissioner
Bob Talent, Skamania County Commissioner
Kay Van Sickel, ODOT Region One Manager
GuestsEd Barnes, Washington Transportation Commissioner
Richard Brandman, Metro
Bob Byrd, Identity Clark County
John Fratt, Port of Vancouver
Kristin Hull, Metro
Dale Miller, C-TRAN
Rod Monroe, Metro (alternate)
Philip Parker, Citizen
Ellen Rogers, Port of Ridgefield
Bill Stewart, The Oregonian
Alison Winter, Citizen
Bill Wright, Clark County
Sharon Wylie, Clark County
StaffLynda David, Senior Transportation Planner
Bob Hart, Transportation Section Supervisor
Dean Lookingbill, Transportation Director
Dale Robins, Senior Transportation Planner
Diane Workman, Staff AssistantII. Approval of April 1, 2003, Minutes
ARCH MILLER MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 1, 2003, MEETING MINUTES. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY LYNNE GRIFFITH AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
III. Citizen Communications
Philip Parker with the Labor Roundtable of Southwest Washington stated a community forum would take place on Wednesday, May 28, 2003, 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.. The topic is Light Rail/Economic Development - Does it Pay? Mr. Parker distributed a handout with the information.
IV. Consent Agenda
- May Claims
- Federal 2003 Transportation Appropriations MTIP Amendment #10, Resolution 05-03-09
- Vancouver Multi-Corridor VAST MTIP Amendment #11, Resolution 05-03-10
JUDIE STANTON MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA, MAY CLAIMS, RESOLUTION 05-03-09, AND RESOLUTION 05-03-10. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BILL GANLEY AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Chair Pridemore stated that Commissioner Morris was not yet in attendance and wanted to be included in the discussion of agenda item V. The meeting skipped to agenda item VII and followed with items V and VI.
Dean Lookingbill noted the revised agenda for the meeting. Other distributed documents included: a memorandum for agenda item IX, and a resolution for agenda item XI that was added to the agenda. A handout with information about a forum being put on by the Greater Vancouver Chamber of Commerce titled “What’s the cost when I-5 chokes? Regional Economic Effects of the I-5 Corridor/Columbia River Crossing Transportation.” The forum is Thursday, May 8, 2003, 7 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. at the Red Lion Hotel at the Quay. Registration forms were attached to the information. One last handout was a carryover from the April RTC Board meeting. This memorandum followed up on the discussion of the Columbia River Bridge crossing with clarifying information.
V. Update I-5 Partnership Project and Bi-State Land Use Accord
Dean Lookingbill presented PowerPoint slides for this discussion. There were three objectives of the I-5 Partnership Project and Land Use Accord discussion - 1) review the package of I-5 Partnership Study conceptual recommendations, 2) update the RTC Board on I-5 planning progress, and 3) address 179th Street as the northern boundary.
The December 2002 RTC Board endorsement of I-5 Partnership recommendations represented a policy statement in support of the recommended highway, transit, demand management, land use, and environmental justice improvements. With this endorsement it was recognized that specific implementation strategies would be dependent upon future Metropolitan Transportation Plan amendments. The RTC Board endorsed the recommendations as they had come out of the Task Force with one exception. The boundary for the coordination of land use was to be up to 179th Street. Mr. Lookingbill highlighted the other RTC Board endorsements, and they were listed in the memorandum included in the meeting packet.
The recommendations in the I-5 Partnership Study to establish the Land Use Accord recognized that while Metro had both land use and transportation decision-making authority, RTC only has regional transportation decision-making authority. Hence, the I-5 Partnership recommendation called for Clark County to be the partner in regard to coordinating the land use element. The recommendation also called for the existing Bi-State Transportation Committee to expand its role to include interchange plans and land use issues of bi-state importance. The new committee would be called the Bi-State Coordination Committee and involve RTC, Clark County, and JPACT/Metro in coordinating issues of bi-state significance for transportation and land use.
Since December, the existing Bi-State Transportation Committee has initiated a process to develop the Land Use Accord and establish the Bi-State Coordination Committee. To accomplish this task, a Steering Committee was established. The Steering Committee met for the first time on April 14, 2003. Meeting participants included: Clark County Commissioners Craig Pridemore and Betty Sue Morris, Vancouver Mayor Royce Pollard, Battle Ground Mayor John Idsinga, Metro Councilor Rex Burkholder, Portland City Commissioner Jim Francesconi, and Multnomah County Commissioner Serena Cruz. The issue of contention was the boundary for which the interrelated land use and transportation recommendations for the I-5 Partnership Study would be coordinated. The RTC action recommended that the I-5/179th Street interchange be the northern boundary. While this had been a part of RTC's action and C-TRAN's action, it had not been a part of the action taken by the other agencies who had adopted the I-5 Partnership recommendations (most of these agencies took action prior to RTC's action).
Craig Pridemore said key to today’s discussion are two issues: 1) address the geographic boundaries and 2) the membership on the Bi-State Coordination Committee.
Betty Sue Morris said when members of the Steering Committee first met, she was taken by surprise because the members from Oregon were unaware or had not taken to heart Washington’s commitment to only go to 179th Street for the Land Use Accord. Commissioner Morris said RTC’s position to only go to 179th was not shown in the minutes or conveyed to the Bi-State Committee. She said the Bi-State Committee had already mapped out the work the Steering Committee would do. The consultant’s work was to do a survey of stakeholders. The Steering Committee was to review the consultants and to comment on the people to be interviewed in the stakeholders. Commissioner Morris said the group felt undecided about the fact that 179th was our boundary in the Land Use Accord. She said she would like RTC to reaffirm that Washington’s position to have the Land Use Accord be crafted to only go as far north in the I-5 corridor as 179th Street. This would make it clear to the Bi-State Transportation Committee and the Steering Committee that is Washington’s position.
Craig Pridemore said when the I-5 Task Force made their recommendations last June, there was much discussion and compromise to reach the set of recommendations. They were then forwarded to the various entities for their formal agreement. RTC responded affirmative, however, we stated and the Bi-State Committee clearly understood that RTC felt the boundary should be to 179th Street. He said that was recognized. He said in formulating the Steering Committee to help guide the process, the idea was that the Steering Committee would oversee the consultant who would be interviewing many stakeholders around the community to document the issues and come to an agreement and understanding and formulate a draft proposed agreement of the various jurisdictions. Craig Pridemore said the 179th Street was RTC’s input in the discussion, and it is an important one. He said from his perspective, drawing the boundary to 179th Street was not a deal killer. However, as the discussions go forward, and the stakeholder discussions go forward, those concerns should be documented so it is clear why the various jurisdictions feel 179th Street is appropriate.
Betty Sue Morris said in discussions of the Land Use Accord, we made an assumption about the south side. She said we originally thought that the south boundary to address land use issues would be to the southern intersection of I-405 and I-5. She said discussions also thought that the boundary was actually the northern intersection of I-405 and I-5. Also, at the same time, we said if we are to go all the way to the Woodland border, then why not have the Oregon side be all of the I-5 corridor within Metro’s boundary. Betty Sue Morris said that it is her final position that we will only go for this discussion as far as 179th, because that is a simple area to deal with for complex issues of land use for RTC as the transportation planning organization, the City of Vancouver as the land use manager inside city limits, and there is Clark County as the land use manager outside the City of Vancouver. On the southbound side, there is Metro, City of Portland, and Multnomah County, which are three jurisdictions that are dealing with lands that are essentially already developed. RTC is leading these discussions, but has no land use authority. This land use discussion can take place outside of an RTC discussion. If the borders are moved to Woodland, or to the south end of Metro, this adds more jurisdictions. The more jurisdictions there are, the more likely it is to craft the Land Use Accord that not all are comfortable with.
Rex Burkholder said the goal is to get a forum together to discuss the I-5 corridor. The forum is not intended to make land use decisions for one body or another. It is an opportunity to discuss and review plans. He said the issue of the boundary is not a deal killer as Commissioner Pridemore said. On the Oregon side, there are decisions that Metro makes in Wilsonville that affect the I-5 Trade Corridor. This is an opportunity to bring these issues for discussion. He said the real goal is to get started. It can be narrowed down a bit to start and be cautious, but the decision needs to be made early on as to the boundary so the consultant knows the limits.
Royce Pollard said he sees Commissioner Morris’ point. He said it is important that before we begin, we need to be clear of our positions. He is very supportive of this.
ROYCE POLLARD MOVED TO REITERATE TO THE BI-STATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE THE DECEMBER 2002 ACTION OF THE RTC BOARD WHERE THEY ENDORSED THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS WITH THE ONE STIPULATION, THAT THE BOUNDARY ON I-5 WENT TO 179TH STREET.
Bill Ganley said the issue that Battle Ground had was the boundary to be at 179th. It began as a bridge issue and does not need to be expanded bigger.
BILL GANLEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
Craig Pridemore clarified the motion asking if the motion means that RTC does not want any discussion what so ever about anything north of 179th, and if that is the case, do we also want to make a recommendation in terms of the southern border?
Mayor Pollard said he did not think we should shut off all discussions and close the door. This is how we feel right now, but we are willing to talk about it in the future. It is the responsibility of others to show us why we need to rethink that. It restates what RTC agreed upon, a boundary of 179th.
Betty Sue Morris clarified her point. She said that the Oregon side made it clear to her that the discussion of the Land Use Accord will involve land south of the I-405 interchange in the I-5 corridor. If the boundary for the consultant interviews of stakeholders stops at I-5/I-405, she feels that we need to specifically say not further north than 179th. She said she would not approve anything further than 179th and felt that was the best way for us to advance. They should not interview any stakeholders north of 179th Street, not unless they interview stakeholders south of I-405, and then it all gets too big.
Royce Pollard said he understood Commissioner Morris’ concern. He said he felt there needs to be some flexibility for further discussions. If we are not allowing the interviews beyond a certain point, then that was not the intent of my motion.
Bill Ganley said he agreed with Commissioner Morris. He felt that there is a boundary and that is where it all ends. He said he would prefer 134th, but can settle with 179th. He did not feel that the City of Battle Ground should be a stakeholder in this process.
Rex Burkholder said there could be major changes over time. This is just to review and share information. If it is 179th, then that is a place to start.
Betty Sue Morris said this would not preclude a discussion of other elements of 179th, but there would not be any review authority. She said the proposal of the Bi-State Coordination Committee can actually ask for plans.
Rex Burkholder said this is just for review. There is not authority for either side to take any action, only to share information.
Royce Pollard said that his intention in the motion would allow for some flexibility. If there was no flexibility at all, he would withdraw his motion. He said we need to be able to go beyond the discussion if both sides are willing.
Bill Ganley said he seconded the motion with the intent that there was a hard line, with no discussion.
Betty Sue Morris asked Commissioner Pridemore why he was so concerned about the hard defined line at 179th. Commissioner Pridemore said he did not see the necessity to limit the discussion at 179th, and the fact that Battle Ground would not even be interviewed as a stakeholder concerned him greatly. They have a lot of citizens that have an impact on the I-5 corridor and the I-5 corridor has a large impact on them. Betty Sue Morris said this is going to be a huge project. If the limited boundary of I-5/179th and I-5/I 405 works and is successful, then we can look at it again in the future.
Mayor Pollard said that he wanted it to be on record that his motion was based on a desire to establish a foundation on which discussions could be held on both north and south of that line, and what the impacts may be on future plans of both our communities. That was his interpretation, a place to start.
Bill Ganley said his interpretation was a limited defined line of I-5/179th and I-5/I-405. He said if that defined boundary is to change, that would come back at a later time.
WITH THE DEFINED BOUNDARY OF I-5/179TH AND I-5/I-405 BEING A LIMITED DEFINED BOUNDARY, MAYOR POLLARD WITHDREW HIS MOTION.
BETTY SUE MORRIS MOVED THAT RTC REDEFINE THEIR POSITION THAT INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS BE CRAFTED TO COVER GEOGRAPHY SOUTH OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER ALONG THE I-5 CORRIDOR TO THE SOUTHERN I-405 INTERSECTION AND NORTH ALONG I-5 TO THE INTERSECTION OF I-5 AND 179TH STREET. WITH THAT BEING THE GEOGRAPHIC AREA IN WHICH WE PLAN TO CONDUCT STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS AND TO CRAFT INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS. THIS WOULD BE THE BASIS OF THE BI-STATE LAND USE ACCORD. BILL GANLEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
Judie Stanton asked for clarification of how far east and west of I-5 this would go. She said significant development that happens off of the interchange has impact on the freeway. That is what this discussion is about, how significant development that is happening will impact I-5. Battle Ground could easily develop with a lot of commuters to Portland, and that is as big of an impact as putting any development at 179th or 219th. She said the scope of this needs to be more rough around the edges than a set defined line.
Rex Burkholder said the consultant needs to start somewhere. To gather the information in looking at the traffic will be a frayed boundary, and we can ask what the consultant can afford. We are trying to get information from the community.
Arch Miller said it seems that the actual agreement is the key. He said as a Port Commissioner, he is concerned of this issue. He said an example is that they have been working on the Port’s Gateway Project since 1988. They hope to get an EIS out next year. He asked if they then would need to go to the other side of the river for approval? He said that they have had enough time for input from everyone without starting that process all over again. Unless this defines the corridor, there could be some concerns. He said this looks to be a huge burden for staff to deal with comments from both sides of the river.
Dean Lookingbill said the purpose of writing the Interlocal Agreement is to define the specifics of the review process, but he said that in going back to the intent of the original I-5 Partnership recommendations, it was to create a forum to make the information available for discussion, not to establish another checkpoint.
Lynne Griffith said that C-TRAN is not involved in land use, but she reiterated that the C-TRAN Board action on the I-5 Partnership Recommendations did limit the border to 179th Street. She said in being on the Task Force for the 18-month process, the emphasis was really freight mobility along the corridor. She said if you are really concerned about impacts, Commissioner Stanton referred to a key element of those impacts. In living in Battle Ground, she sees everything that is going on in development there has some affects on I-5. She said there is no way to limit this. This needs a place to begin and then build as it takes its course. It is not just what is in the corridor, it is also everything in the area to each side of the corridor.
Rex Burkholder said this is about a new bridge across the river and a huge investment. This land use discussion is how to protect that huge investment and not throw it away. It’s a forum for discussion.
Rod Monroe said work on this began a year ago, and he said would hate to see decisions made that did not have general consensus behind them. He would like to see this get started, and if the boundary needs to be limited to get started, then get it going with everyone on board.
Craig Pridemore said the motion stated was in the acceptance of the I-5 Task Force Recommendation, to define the boundary limits for the interviews, discussions, and review of land use issues be set on I-5 between the southern interchange of I-405 in the corridor and north to I 5/179th Street. This would be RTC’s position and the basis for the Land Use Accord for the Bi State/Steering Committee.
In order to confirm member votes, a roll call vote was taken as follows:
Rex Burkholder Abstain Bill Ganley Yes Lynne Griffith Yes Mary Legry Abstain Arch Miller Abstain Betty Sue Morris Yes Royce Pollard No Craig Pridemore No Judie Stanton No Bob Talent Yes Kay Van Sickel Yes THE MOTION WAS APPROVED.
VI. Locally Preferred Alternative for Metro's South Corridor Project
Richard Brandman, Metro, distributed flyers on the South Corridor Project along with copies of the PowerPoint slides from his presentation. Mr. Brandman said the South Corridor Project is an outgrowth of the South/North Project. They went through various reiterations of the South/North Project, and they resulted in the IMAX project to be constructed to the Expo Center in the I-5 corridor. After that they went into a process for something in the south part of the corridor. It was a non-light rail study, with a variety of alternatives studied. In the end, light rail was added as a result of significant community support. The six alternatives studied in the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) included no-build, bus rapid transit (BRT), busway, Milwaukie light rail (LRT), I-205 LRT and combined light rail (Milwaukie and I-205). A SDEIS was completed last December, and that compares impacts, benefits, and costs of all the options. They had hundreds of community meetings over the past 18 months, resulting in a very significant response from the general public. Over 300 written responses were received with more than 95% in support of light rail on I-205 with Portland Mall alignment and Milwaukie LRT with Caruthers Bridge. There was no support for busway and BRT. This response was much different than was received in 1998. The locally preferred option recommendation was to do a two-phased project. First project: I-205 light rail with Portland Mall (light rail in the I-205 corridor from Gateway down to Clackamas Town Center including light rail on the transit mall in Portland on 5th and 6th Avenues). The second project: Milwaukie light rail.
The I-205 project already has the right of way that was set aside for a transit improvement when the I 205 freeway was constructed in the 1980s and has very few impacts. It also connects two regional centers and a town center. The combined LRT would have over 6 million new transit trips per year compared with the no-build in 2020. Mr. Brandman said this will create many new construction jobs, and highlighted some of the many benefits.
Not all of the financing for I-205 is resolved. They are hoping to get 60% of their resources from the federal government going through the FTA process, which is how the previous projects have been constructed. They hope to find enough local resources without going to a vote to build both the I-205 project and the Mall project. They will use a variety of local resources to match the anticipated federal dollars, but they do have a fall back option if they can’t find enough local money to match the amount of federal money that they are requesting. In the first phase they hope to help the existing transit dilemma that is in Milwaukie and relocate the on-street transit center to Southgate with park-and-ride. Mr. Brandman further highlighted phase 1 of the I-205 and Portland Mall alignment. He also highlighted Phase 2 the Milwaukie light rail that will begin after I-205 is completed. Mr. Brandman noted the next steps and additional work that needs to be done.
Betty Sue Morris asked what their financial options were in order to not go to a vote. Mr. Brandman said for example on the Interstate Max project, resources are from Tri-Met and the City of Portland and Metro has used STP funds, which they can allocate. They have also asked other partner governments who are interested in the project. He said right now the private sector is getting involved. Portland State University seriously desires that the first phase of this project gets all the way to PSU. They are asking if they can contribute.
Rod Monroe said to ask what is in it for Clark County, and he said the answer is quite a bit. When the alignment is built to downtown and to PSU, the Interstate Max line being constructed now, will likely connect into it. People getting on the Interstate Max and ultimately in Vancouver will actually connect colleges in Vancouver to Portland State. This will benefit Vancouver folks as well as Clackamas folks.
VII. FY 2004 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), Resolution 05-03-11
Lynda David used PowerPoint slides in the presentation of this agenda item. This resolution requests the adoption of the FY 2004 UPWP, and along with it the continuation of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Local Funding Agreement, endorsement of Metro's FY 2004 UPWP, and the revision of the federally-required Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between RTC and Metro. Copies of the Draft 2004 UPWP and excerpts from Metro's 2004 UPWP describing work program elements on bi-state interest were included in the meeting packets. Metro's UPWP was actually adopted by the Metro Council on March 20, 2003. A revised Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was also included in the meeting packet. The MOU between Metro and RTC is a federal requirement of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (1991).
The UPWP is a federally required document that describes transportation planning activities anticipated in the next federal fiscal year. The FY 2004 UPWP covers the year from July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004. The 2004 UPWP has been reviewed and endorsed by RTC's Regional Transportation Advisory Committee (RTAC) that includes membership from Metro. The document was also reviewed by officials from Federal Highway Administration (Washington and Oregon state divisions), Federal Transit Administration, WSDOT, and ODOT at a meeting held at RTC in late March.
The UPWP has a description of key transportation issues facing the region. The UPWP needs to reflect the emphasis areas identified by US DOT and Washington State, and has four major sections. Those sections are 1) Regional Transportation Planning Program, 2) Data Management, Travel Forecasting, Air Quality, and Technical Services, 3) Regional Transportation Plan Coordination and Management, and 4) Transportation Planning Activities of State and Local Agencies including C-TRAN. The final page of the document is a revenue summary spreadsheet that shows the revenue source that will support each work element.
The action requested is adoption of the FY 2004 UPWP, continuation of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Local Funding Agreement, endorsement of Metro's FY 2004 UPWP, and revision of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between RTC and Metro. Adoption will also mean that the Transportation Director is authorized to file applications for federal funding, to execute grant agreements, and to file any assurances or required documentation relating to the FY 2004 UPWP.
Arch Miller said this is a lot of material, and that he found it to be good work.
ARCH MILLER MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 05-03-11, FY 2004 UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY ROYCE POLLARD AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
VIII. Implementation of I-5 Partnership Planning Recommendations, Resolution 05-03-12
Lynda David presented PowerPoint slides of the discussion. She said the I-5 Corridor final Strategic Plan was published in June 2002. In December 2002, the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) for Clark County was updated to include a strategic element that incorporated the recommendations of the I-5 Partnership. The next major step for the I-5 Partnership will be work on implementation of the recommendations and to develop an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This proposed Board resolution would allow RTC to work on preparatory steps needed to initiate the implementation of planning recommendations and to prepare for developing an EIS. The action requested is to authorize the RTC Director to enter into a local agency agreement with WSDOT Local Programs for Implementation of I-5 Partnership Planning Recommendations.
The workscope that was attached to the Resolution outlined three work areas that RTC will be involved in: 1) Preparation for the DEIS Planning Process in the Bridge Influence Area on I-5, 2) Work on a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Strategic Plan for regional MTP purposes and a more specific TDM Plan tailored for the I-5 Corridor, and 3) Initiation of the prescribed Federal Transit Administration (FTA) New Starts Process for light rail and planning.
This Resolution would obligate $110,000 of federal STP funds with a 13.5% local match ($17,168) provided from RTC’s local MPO funds. The federal STP funds are already programmed in the adopted 2002-2004 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program and the work element was also included in RTC’s adopted 2003 Budget.
LYNNE GRIFFITH MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 05-03-12. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY JUDIE STANTON.
Betty Sue Morris asked at what point the discussion of light rail will have a large scale public involvement program. Dean Lookingbill said RTC has an application to Federal Transit Administration for $2 million for light rail discussion. If we are successful in receiving funds to do the study, the community involvement process would take place at that time. Today’s action is only to begin the background staff work. Mr. Lookingbill said the large funding request is for 2004 as part of the transportation reauthorization bill. Mary Legry said light rail was very much a part of the ongoing public process for the Partnership process.
Arch Miller asked if the 13.5% match was part of the $110,000. Lynda David said the $110,000 is 86.5%, local funds 13.5% with total funds at $127,168.
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
IX. Update on Transportation Legislation in the 2003 Washington State Legislature
Dean Lookingbill provided a PowerPoint presentation and distributed a memorandum with an update on transportation legislation. The legislature passed a ten-year $4.2 billion transportation revenue package. This actually includes two bills. In addition, other bills were passed that will impact our regional process. One is ESB 5245, which will involve legislators in the regional transportation planning process and also SSB 5748 the transportation Performance Audit Board.
ESHB 2231 provides the financing of the $4.2 billion 10-year package of projects. This bill directs revenue to the new “nickel account” which funds the 10-year list of projects. This is a five-cent per gallon increase in gas tax that starts on July 1, 2003, a 15% increase in gross weight fees, and a 3% sales tax increase on motor vehicles.
ESHB 1163 is the budget bill that establishes the dollar amount for the various funding categories and includes the list of projects. Mr. Lookingbill referred to the memo listing the funding for projects in Clark County and highlighted those projects
ESB 5245 said that any member of the house of representatives or the state senate whose districts are wholly or partly within the boundary of the RTPO are considered ex officio, nonvoting policy board members of the RTPO. This adds 12 ex officio members to the RTC Board. It also states when voting on matters solely affecting Washington State, an RTPO must obtain a majority vote of the Washington residents serving as members of the RTPO before a matter may be adopted.
SSB 5748 creates the Transportation Performance Audit Board (TPAB) that would direct a two-step performance review and audit process. The TPAB would develop schedules and methodology for conducting performance reviews of transportation agencies.
X. Obligation of Federal Transportation Funds: Project Status Report
Dale Robins said with this year the final year of the current transportation funding act (TEA-21), it is important to meet our obligation levels as soon as possible. Mr. Robins referred to the memorandum included in the meeting packet listing the current status of 2003 programmed projects. There is approximately $14.1 million in federal regional transportation funds that are programmed in 2003. Of the total regional dollars programmed in 2003, $4.6 million has been obligated as of the end of March. This leaves $3.8 million to be obligated this year and $5.6 million will be delayed to 2004. Overall, our region is doing well in obligating funds. To meet our regional obligation levels, the region would need to obligate an additional $174,000 of STP funding and $690,000 of CMAQ funding.
XI. WSDOT Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program Amendment #12, Resolution 05-03-13
Dale Robins said this MTIP amendment was added to the agenda and copies of the resolution distributed. This is a result of the Legislature passing the 10-year transportation package. In that list of projects, there are two projects that are immediately ready to proceed, the I-5 Salmon Creek to I-205 Widening, $34 million and SR-500/112th Avenue Interchange, $23 million. The projects were previously included in air quality conformity analysis, so that does not need to be amended. This resolution would amend the proposed projects into the 2003 element of the MTIP in order to receive the funds.
JUDIE STANTON MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 05-03-13. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY LYNNE GRIFFITH AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
XII. Other Business
From the Board
From the Director
Mr. Lookingbill noted that earlier during the Legislative Session an attempt was made to meet with our Legislators. He asked if Board Members wished to try and schedule a breakfast meeting post session or since they become ex officio members, is the meeting still needed.
Betty Sue Morris said she felt there was no reason to hold a breakfast meeting, but possibly offer a briefing to new members if they wish. Now that they are a part of the Board, they should know what goes on at RTC.
Arch Miller said a letter welcoming them to the RTC Board and a time set up when staff could brief them on the policies of the Board and how we operate.
Lynne Griffith asked what their role would be as ex officio. Mr. Lookingbill said the legislation did not go beyond what was stated. It just states they will become ex officio non-voting members. Lynne Griffith said a work session may be appropriate to clarify their roles.
Mr. Lookingbill noted on June 10, 2003, RTC will host an ITS Forum focusing on Advanced Traveler Information Services at the Water Resources Center.
The next RTC Board meeting will be held on June 3, 2003 at 4 p.m.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
Regional Transportation Council
1300 Franklin Street, Fourth Floor
Vancouver Washington 98660Tel: 360-397-6067
Fax: 360-397-6132
E-mail: info@rtc.wa.govPublic Service Center served by C-TRAN Route 3.
Officers' Row served by C-TRAN Route 32.
If you have special needs, please contact RTC.
       
|