Upload
buikien
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
WASHINGTON COUNTY COORDINATING COMMITTEE POLICY GROUP MINUTES
January 9, 2012
Voting Members: Roy Rogers, Washington County Suzan Turley, City of King City Jerry Willey, City of Hillsboro David Hatcher, City of North Plains Mark Ottenad, City of Wilsonville Chuck Van Meter, City of Durham Keith Mays, City of Sherwood Lou Ogden, City of Tualatin Jef Dalin, City of Cornelius Denny Doyle, City of Beaverton Peter Truax, City of Forest Grove Craig Dirksen, City of Tigard Brian Biehl, City of Banks Others in Attendance: Andrew Singelakis, Washington County Margot Barnett, OSU Extension Gus Duenas, City of Tigard Blair Crumpacker, Washington County Andy Back, Washington County Clark Berry, Washington County Gary Stockhoff, Washington County Rob Massar, Washington County Don Odermott, City of Hillsboro Steve L. Kelley, Washington County Kim Haughn, Washington County Robert Davis, Washington County Dennis Mulvihill, Washington County Michael Brown, City of Hillsboro Dyami Valentine, Washington County John Southgate, City of Hillsboro Mark San Soucie, Beaverton City Council James Reitz, City of Forest Grove Alice Rouyer, City of Tualatin Ben Bryant, City of Tualatin Alan Lehto, TriMet John Valley, Senator Merkley’s Office Margaret Middleton, City of Beaverton Martha DeBry, City of North Plains Matt Grady, Gramor Development David Kim, ODOT Kathryn Harrington, Metro Councilor District 4 Deanna Palm, Hillsboro Chamber Richard Meyer, City of Cornelius Rob Dixon, City of Hillsboro Jonathan Schlueter, WEA Will Vanlue, Willamette Pedestrian Coalition Susan Peithman, BTA Tim Shell, KPFF Consulting Engineers Roy Rogers called the meeting to order at 12:00 PM. Agenda Item 1 – Visitors: No visitors chose to speak. Agenda Item 2 – Approval of Minutes August 8, 2011: Minutes from the December 5. 2011 meeting were approved unanimously. Agenda Item 3 – MSTIP 3d: Information and Discussion: Roy Rogers stated that MSTIP 3d is not a new measure but rather a proposed extension of the MSTIP 3 series, funded by a portion of the county’s fixed tax rate. He stated the wholly new MSTIP 4 proposal being discussed several years ago was postponed in large part because of economic conditions. Andrew Singelakis stated that MSTIP 3c projects are expected to be complete by the end of 2013, and that discussions with the Board of Commissioners (BCC) indicate support for an additional five-year, $175 million program with generally the same characteristics as MSTIP 3c. He started that the BCC had endorsed a $175 million five year measure addressing facilities on the System of Countywide Interest, with benefits that are balanced geographically and which includes $250,000 for standalone bicycle and pedestrian projects, $3 million for general project matching funds and $500,000 for intelligent transportation system (ITS) projects. He stated that a draft of
WCCC January 9, 2012 meeting minutes January 30, 2012 Page | 2 a proposed project list is contained in the meeting packet and that the cost of projects has been distributed equally across Commissioner Districts. Mr. Singelakis stated that an MSTIP 3d schedule also is in the meeting packet. He stated that it reflects the addition of a month near the beginning of the process, as some members of the WCCC had requested the previous month. He stated that the review process anticipates an open house in mid March and a virtual open house that extends for a period of time in which people can review and comment on projects on line. He stated that a review by the Committee for Citizen Involvement and the WCCC are scheduled for late-March/early April. Jerry Willey asked why only $167 million of projects are identified instead of $175 million. Mr. Singelakis stated that the lower amount provides some wiggle room and allows minor adjustments to be made on projects and in identified funding categories. Mr. Willey asked whether the program allows for funding MSTIP debt service requirements. Gary Stockhoff stated that funds for debt service are not included in the $35 million annual funding commitment. Robert Davis stated that MSTIP debt service requires about $5 million per year, and that debt was used in some cases to accelerate projects. Keith Mays stated that the areas with projects that were accelerated should bear the cost of servicing the debt. He asked for more specific information regarding how allocations might change if this is considered. Denny Doyle stated that he would like to see some discussion of phasing of the projects. Peter Truax asked that a column be added to the project sheet to identify which Commissioner district each project is in. Agenda Item 4 – Transportation Development Tax (TDT): Discount and Change of Use: Roy Rogers stated that there seemed to be differing views on how or whether there’s a need to address change of use issues, and asked if WCCC members would comment. Keith Mays stated that the city of Sherwood would respond in a manner similar to Tualatin, that the TDT charge didn’t seem to be a large impediment in this circumstance and that the city would lose revenue if a change of use discount was offered. Andy Back stated that the question of the TDT phase in would be back to the Board, and that the ordinance had been modified to include a provision to leave the fee flat until 2015. Andy Back stated that County Counsel had concluded that the TDT could not be different in different cities; that allowing exceptions to the TDT would require voter approval, although whether a partial exception could be allowed is still uncertain; and that setting the level of the tax based on something other than number of trips would not be allowed. Andy Back stated that the change of use table in the meeting packet compared how the cities of Tualatin, Hillsboro and Tigard preferred to respond to the issue. Roy Rogers asked whether other cities would like to weigh in on the level of discount, the building size and whether there should be a minimum age of the building, and, if so, what should it be. Denny Doyle stated that the city of Beaverton would forward a position on the matter to the County.
WCCC January 9, 2012 meeting minutes January 30, 2012 Page | 3 Jef Dalin stated that the city of Cornelius would recommend 5000 square feet but would prefer a 50 percent discount. All uses should be eligible, the discount could be allowed once per year on buildings at least one year old. Craig Dirksen stated that the City Council agreed that something is needed and that they are comfortable with the process but that he had nothing specific to offer at the moment. Jerry Willey asked whether others could be satisfied with the city of Cornelius proposal. He asked for clarification that the amount of the tax could not be tied to the value, and it was noted that as approved by voters the TDT is a trip-based charge and that other methods would not be allowed without voter approval of a modification of the methodology. Lou Ogden stated that, as described in the city’s letter, reducing the TDT for a change of use would have a substantial impact on Tualatin’s TDT revenues. He stated that while he understands the developers’ interests in reducing costs, he hasn’t seen things canceled or not occur because of the TDT. He stated that perhaps WCCC members should look for other ways to provide incentives locally rather than trying to define a single countywide mechanism, as appears necessary for the TDT. Roy Rogers stated that he tends to agree. Denny Doyle stated that the city of Beaverton’s recommendation is likely to be similar to the city of Hillsboro’s. He stated that he has been excited about possible change of use incentives because the city of Beaverton has had immediate and dramatic responses when they’ve waived local frees. Craig Dirksen stated that the city of Tigard considers 3000 square feet a better size for the exemption than 5000 square feet. Roy Rogers asked whether anyone could suggest a way through the issue, as he couldn’t see a way toward consensus. Jerry Willey stated that he didn’t want to dwell on the issue, but he didn’t want to let it die either. He suggested pursuing the course that Jef Dalin suggested and Roy Rogers endorsed. Lou Ogden asked whether others could suggest incentives for development other than the TDT. Jef Dalin stated that the city of Cornelius had discounted its construction excise tax. Roy Rogers stated that perhaps others would feel better about a 75 percent discount than a 50 percent discount and that limiting eligibility to buildings that are five years old rather than one year old might have better support. Jef Dalin stated that it would be good to have the County weigh in on the issue. Roy Rogers stated that the County would send out a proposal and that each city should send back a response, then the WCCC could discuss the results at its February 6 meeting. Agenda Item 5 – MPAC Agenda: Keith Mays stated that Jerry Willey is the new chair of MPAC. He stated that feedback from last year was that members would like more direction and that a letter and a survey are being distributed to the region’s mayors with the intent of helping to more clearly define regional priorities. He said MPAC would continue the discussion its next meeting. Agenda Item 6 – JPACT Agenda and Work Program: Craig Dirksen stated that he could not attend the next JPACT meeting, and that Jef Dalin, the Washington County cities’ alternate, would attend instead. He stated that some modifications to the MTIP list would be considered,
DRAFT MSTIP 3D PROJECT LISTDECEMBER 29, 2011
Map Key Project Title Project DescriptionMSTIP4
Y-N Estimate - $Design
Start - Yr Bid - YrEstimate w/ 8%/yr
Inflation - $Commissioner
District
1 170th (Alexander-Merlo)Widen to 5 Lanes, Provide Bike/Ped Infrastracture N $10,000,000 2014 2016 $13,604,889.60 1
2 Farmington (Murray-E. of 141st)Widen to 5 Lanes, Provide Bike/Ped Infrastracture Y $9,700,000 2013 2015 $12,219,206.40 1
3 185th (Farmington-Kinnaman) Interim 3 Lane Y $10,000,000 2014 2017 $14,693,280.77 1
4 Springville (185th to Joss)Widen to 5 Lanes, Provide Bike/Ped Infrastracture N $10,000,000 2012 2015 $12,597,120.00 2
5 Walker Road (158th to 173rd)Widen to 5 Lanes, Provide Bike/Ped Infrastracture Y $5,000,000 2012 2014 $5,832,000.00 2
6 West Union (185th - Corn Pass) Widen to 5 lanes, Design Only Y $4,000,000 2012 2012 $4,000,000.00 2
7 Walker Road (Murray to 158th)Widen to 5 Lanes, Provide Bike/Ped Infrastracture Y $8,500,000 2014 2016 $11,564,156.16 2
8Scholls Ferry Rd. Curve Realignment
Realign curves to improve safety. (west of Roy Rogers Rd) N $4,000,000 2012 2013 $4,320,000.00 3
9Scholls-Sherwood/Roy Rogers Intersection
Signal warranted to address existing traffic volumes. N $3,000,000 2012 2014 $3,499,200.00 3
10Tualatin-Sherwood (Adams to Borchers)
Widen to 5 Lanes, Intersection Improvements, Bike/Ped N $9,000,000 2012 2014 $10,497,600.00 3
11SW 124th Extension (Tualatin-Sherwood to Tonquin)
Construct interim 2 lane with 8' shoulders and roadside ditches Y $8,000,000 2013 2016 $10,883,911.68 3
12 124th (Tonquin to Boones) Widen to 5 lanes, Design Only N $6,000,000 2012 2012 $6,000,000.00 3
13 Walnut (116th to Tiedeman)Widen to 3 lanes, Provide Bike/Ped Infrastructure Y $4,000,000 2014 2016 $5,441,955.84 3
14Cornelius Pass Road / Cornell Intersection
Multi-modal Intersection improvements N $3,000,000 2013 2015 $3,779,136.00 4
15 Martin Road (Hwy 47 to curves)Match existing improvements in the Martin/Corn-Scheff Bundle N $8,000,000 2012 2014 $9,331,200.00 4
16 NE 25th/Cornell Intersection Add Southbound left turn Y $4,000,000 2013 2015 $5,038,848.00 4
1710th Ave (Cornelius) EB couplet-Holladay
Widen to standard to accommodate freight N $4,900,000 2012 2013 $5,292,000.00 4
18 Baseline (231st to Brookwood)Widen to 5 Lanes, Provide Bike/Ped Infrastracture N $9,000,000 2013 2015 $11,337,408.00 4
19 Cedar Hills/Walker IntersectionAdd double lefts on all approaches and EB right turn; multi-modal Y $4,000,000 2013 2015 $5,038,848.00 2
Bridge Replacement (TBD)Replace bridge on rural countywide significant route N $2,500,000 2012 2014 $2,916,000.00 4
Bridge Replacement (TBD)Replace bridge on rural countywide significant route N $2,500,000 2013 2015 $3,149,280.00 4
DRAFT MSTIP 3D PROJECT LISTDECEMBER 29, 2011
Bridge Replacement (TBD)Replace bridge on rural countywide significant route N $3,000,000 2014 2016 $4,081,466.88 4
20Farmington (E. of 141st to Hocken)
Widen to 5 Lanes, Provide Bike/Ped Infrastracture Y $7,300,000 2015 2017 $10,726,094.96 1
21Pacific Hwy-99W/Gaarde/McDonald Inter.
Multi-modal Intersection improvements. Gap funding to fund total project N $3,000,000 2015 2017 $4,407,984.23 3
2272nd Ave (Hwy 217 to Dartmouth)
Widen to 5 Lanes, Provide Bike/Ped Infrastracture Y $8,000,000 2015 2017 $11,754,624.61 3
23 135th/Walnut IntersectionConstruct Roundabout; Provide Bike/Ped Infrastructure N $500,000 2015 2017 $734,664.04 3
24 Jackson School(Grant - Rogan) Widen to 5 lanes, Design Only N $3,200,000 2013 2015 $4,031,078.40 4
25 Elwert/Edy Intersection Improve Intersection Y $4,000,000 2015 2017 $5,877,312.31 3
26Grahams Ferry (Ibach to Helenius)
Widen to 3 lanes, Provide Bike/Ped Infrastructure N $4,000,000 2015 2017 $5,877,312.31 3
27David Hill Extension (Hwy 47 to end of existing improvements)
Construct to 3 Lanes, Provide Bike/Ped Infrastucture N $6,000,000 2015 2017 $8,815,968.46 4
28 198th (Farmington to TV Hwy)Widen to 3 lanes, Provide Bike/Ped Infrastructure N $19,000,000 2014 2017 $27,917,233.46 1
29 19th (Susbauer Br. - Baseline)Widen to 3 Lanes, Provide Bike/Ped Infrastructure N $3,800,000 4
30Murray, W. Side (Farmington to TV Hwy)
Widen to add bike/ped improvements N $2,000,000 1
31Fanno Creek Trail (Main to Woodard Park)
Complete gap and construct new bridge. N $1,000,000 3
32 ITS (Durham/Upper Boones) Institute Adaptive Signal Coord. N $500,000 3
Match Set Aside (var. grants) N/A $3,000,000 2012 2012 $3,000,000.00Stand-alone Bike/Ped Project Match Set Aside N/A $250,000 2012 2012 $250,000.00
ITS Set Aside N/A $500,000 2012 2012 $500,000.00
TARGET VARIANCETOTAL
REQUESTS $249,009,780 $170,000,000 $79,009,780
District 1 $79,160,705 $42,500,000 $36,660,705
District 2 $39,032,124 $42,500,000 -$3,467,876
District 3 $69,294,565 $42,500,000 $26,794,565
District 4 $57,772,386 $42,500,000 $15,272,386
BANKS RD
US 26HWY 6 MASON HILL
RD
WILSON RIVER HWY
MOUNTAINDALERD SH
ADYB
R OOK R
D
NORTH AVE
WESTGREENVILLE-ROY RDUNION
RD
ROY
GORD
ON
RD
RD GERMANTOWNSUNSET HWY
RD
RDCHURCH RDRDZION
PASS
KEMPARRD HE
LVET
IA
RDTHATCHER
GLEN
C OE
SPRINGVIL LE
KAISER
WEST
CORN
ELIUS
HWY
47
UNIONPURD IN RD JACK
SON
RD
EVERGREEN RDVERBOORT RD
RDHORNECKER RDRD EVERGREEN PKWY
RD
MART
IN R
D
1ST
AVE
US 26
BROOKW
OOD
PKWY
CORNELLST8 AVE
HWY
ST R INGTOWN
RDRDRDSUSB
AUER
RD
CORNELL
143R
D AVE
QUINC
E
CORN
ELIU
S-S C
HEFL
I N R
D
5TH
AVE
WALKERRD CORNELLHWY 8 BASELINEBASELINE ST19TH AVE RD
RDAVE
OAK 216T
H AV
E
185T
H
STRITCHEY
158T
H AV
E
RDBASELINERD 10TH
AVE
1 2TH
AVE
BROO
KWOO
D
R D
DILLEY BARNESJENKINS WALKER
GOLF COURSE RD
RD HWY
219
TUALATIN US 26219T
H AV
E
MERLO R D RD HILLS
RD VALLEYHWY RD
HWY 8
RD
HILL
CEDA
R
CANYON
TONGUE LANE
JOHNSON
FERR
Y
FERN
AVE
BEAVERTONRD
198T
H
AVE
SPRING HILL RD
SCHOLLS
185T
H
AVE
209T
H
AVE
FARMINGTON
SCHOOL DAVIS R D BLVDALLENRDHWY
47
ROOD
BRIDG
E RD
RD
HWY
I OW A
HIL L
RD
ROSEDALE RD 170T
H
RD
DENNEY RDHILL
SBOR
O HW
Y
B LV D
BURKHALTER RD
HART RDGARDEN
217RIVE
R
HALL OLESON
CHARLES ROBINSON RDRD BLV DMURR
A Y
RDRD
FARMINGTON
WEIR RDDIXONGASTON RD
MILL AVE
125 T
H AV
E
HWY 219
RD REUS
ER
RD
G REENBURG
RIVER RD
BLVD
RDTILE FLAT 121S
T A V
E
TIEDMAN
LAURELWOOD STCLAR
K H
ILL
RD
RD 135T
H A V
E
WALNUTR D OLD SCHOLLS FERRY
RD FERRY
I-5
BALD PEAK LAUREL RDSCHOLLS HA
LL
GAARDE ST McDONALD ST AVE
HWY 2
10
MOUNTAIN RDBL
VD
72ND
150T
H AV
DURHAM RD HALL
SCHOLLS
BEEF BEND RD
MIDW
AY R
D
SHERWOOD RDTUALATIN
MOUNTA IN HOME RD
RD
HWY 99W
RD
SAGERT RDSHERWOOD
RD
AVERY STEDY TUALATIN
RD
STHOMEOREGON
ELW
ERT
HWY 2
19
RD
SUNSET BLVD
BROOKMAN RD BOON
ES F
ERRY
RD
AVE
ELLIGSEN RD
Banks
NorthPlains
Helvetia
West Union
Verboort
Aloha
Beaverton
CooperMtn
Laurelwood BullTigardMtn
Scholls
Durham
Tualatin
Sherwood
Chehalem Mountains
ForestGrove
Hillsboro
Cornelius
Gaston
Wilsonville
King City
ROY
ROG
ERS
RD
RD
ELSN
ER
ROY
ROGERS RD
Washington County Functional Classification
Arterials & Select Collectors
This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this
information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information.
Washington County, Department of Land Use & Transportation, Planning Division.
155 N. First Ave., Suite 350-14 Hillsboro, OR 97124 (503)846-3519 Email: [email protected]
C:\GIS_MAPS_TEMP\STAFF\Blair\Arterials_Collectors_bluelines2.mxdDM 6\7\07
±1 0 10.5
Miles
Functional Class - ArterialFunctional Class - CollectorFunctional Class - Principal ArterialFunctional Class - Freeway
Urban Growth Boundary
CitiesUnincorporated Urban Washington County
T:\MSTIP\MSTIP 3d\MSTIP 3d DRAFT project development schedule 013012.doc
Draft MSTIP 3d Project List Development Schedule January 30, 2012
December 5, 2011: WCCC LUT Staff briefing
January 5, 2012: WCCC TAC Initiate development of MSTIP 3d project list; discuss public outreach strategy
January 9, 2012: WCCC Discuss public outreach strategy
January 26, 2012: WCCC TAC Advance draft project list to WCCC for consideration
February 6, 2012: WCCC Review TAC recommendation and provide direction to TAC;
finalize public outreach strategy
Optional Board/Council Briefings by Jurisdictions
Week of February 13: Updates newsletter item publishes; distribute materials to Cities and OSU Ext Service (CPOs) for March newsletters/websites
February 23, 2012: WCCC TAC (if needed)
Consider WCCC direction; potential revisions to list
March 5, 2012: WCCC Advance DRAFT project list for public review and comment
March 6: Media release/distribution of public information March 6‐30: Presentations to CPOs, other groups; city/CPO
newsletters (including MSTIP article) distributed March 12‐26 (TENTATIVE): Virtual open house
March 14 (TENTATIVE): Physical open house (Beaverton Library) March 20: CCI presentation
April 2, 2012: WCCC Review public comments; consider revisions to list; direction to TAC
Optional Board/Council Briefings by Jurisdictions
April 26, 2012: TAC (if needed) Review WCCC direction and consider revisions to list
May 7, 2012: WCCC Review Final draft list, approve and advance to BCC
June 2012: BCC Review and approve MSTIP 3d project list
July 2012: LUT Staff Initiate design of projects for 2014‐2015
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
We are
here
MSTIP 3d – Draft Project List
Washington County Memo dated December 29, 2011
WILSONVILLE STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS
1. Project list should not assume the outcome of Basalt Creek Transportation Planning process is known at this time. (i.e.: projects #11 and #12).
2. Project #12 – 124th Tonquin to Boones title is inconsistent with Project #10736 in the Regional Transportation Plan which defines the project start location at Tualatin-Sherwood Road and ending at Tonquin Road.
3. Over the FY13-FY18 horizon, it may not make sense to build the 124th extension from between Tualatin-Sherwood Road and Tonquin while only designing a new road from Tonquin to Boones Ferry. This approach would likely create a bottleneck between I-5 and Tonquin without addressing improvements to the existing street system on Grahams Ferry Road and Day Street, and Boones Ferry south of Day, for example. Why spend $ designing projects that cannot be paid for?
4. The MSTIP 3d schedule does not seem to accommodate the integration of Basalt Creek Policy Group decisions over the next few months.
5. The Project List map which indicates Project #11 and #12, may not be accurate depending on the outcome of Basalt Creek planning decisions. Project #12 looks like a new arterial road between Boones Ferry Road and Tonquin Road which may not be the decided phasing plan.
6. As a fundamental policy question, does it make sense to invest in building roads in new areas where development pressure and conflicts currently do not exist; while ignoring investments to the existing street network and right-of-way where development pressures and opportunities exist presently? (i.e.: the area between I-5 and Tonquin Road).
7. The definition of Project #12 stopping at Boones Ferry Road seems inconsistent with the short-term phasing strategy and unanimous agreements reached by the I-5/99W Connector PSC and incorporated into the RTP. (See RTP page 6-20.)
Somerville/012612 MSB WA County MSTIP Project List
file:///S|/PLNG/WPSHARE/Traci/WCCC/17MSTIP 3D Cornelius Projects.htm[1/31/2012 8:08:30 AM]
From: Keyes, Terry [[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 5:28 PMTo: Gary StockhoffCc: Blair Crumpacker; Andy Back; Meyer, RichardSubject: MSTIP 3D ProjectsGary,
Thank you for including the Cornelius 10th Avenue project on the MSTIP 3d list. This project, which was part of the originalMSTIP initiative, is a critical project for our city. The purpose of this email is to let you know the status of this project and answer the question posed by Andy Back in hisJanuary 19 memo. Project Description
This project involves reconstructing 10th from Alpine to Holladay in Cornelius and includes the signalized and substandard
intersections of Baseline (Hwy 8 EB), Adair (Hwy 8 WB) with 10th. It also involves two railroad crossings. The 10th project wasincluded in the original county pamphlet that explained the Washington County bond measure passed in the 1990s. ScheduleThe southern half of this project from Barlow to Alpine is at the 60% design phase. For this section we have all the designs forthe private utilities in the corridor and are now contracting with DKS to do the final signal design for the two mainintersections. We expect to be ready to go to bid with this portion of the project this July so that construction can begin inOctober 2012. The northern half of the project is in the preliminary design phase. We feel this portion of the project can be ready for bid inSeptember-October, 2012 with construction starting in December of this year. ROW
The improvements associated with the 10th project all fit within the existing ROW, with three exceptions. Additional ROW is
needed on the SE and SW corners of 10th and Baseline and the NE corner of 10th and Adair. This ROW is needed to increase
the curb radii on these corners. Currently trucks cannot easily turn from Hwy 8 onto 10th, which is a county truck route. The process of acquiring this ROW has already begun and we should have the needed ROW secured within 3 months. CostWhile we are picking up much of the design and ROW costs for this project with city funds, we cannot afford to construct the
project without the assistance of additional funding such as MSTIP. Our cost estimate for 10th is $4,846,000 in 2012 dollars. While this is significantly larger than the $3M estimate shown on your MSTIP 3d project list, we are very confident in ourestimate. Having an former estimator from one of the county’s major construction firms on my engineering staff gives megreat confidence in our estimates.
I hope we can increase the MSTIP funding for 10th to the $4.8M needed. This would allow us to complete this project in aminimum amount of time, thereby complementing the improvements done by Washington County over the past few years onCornelius-Schefflin Road, just to the north. Finally, after listening to the comments voiced at today’s WCCC-TAC meeting, I do want to mention two other considerations.
file:///S|/PLNG/WPSHARE/Traci/WCCC/17MSTIP 3D Cornelius Projects.htm[1/31/2012 8:08:30 AM]
First, Cornelius has another project of county significance, N. 19th (Susbauer Bridge to Baseline), that is critically important to
the city. This project, like 10th, was also part of the original MSTIP proposal. However, we estimate the cost of N. 19th to be$3.8M. In the interest of fairness, we do not think it is appropriate to ask for funding for this second project in Cornelius withthe current round of MSTIP funds. Second, many of the projects being proposed seem intended to serve future development. Projects like the David Hill
Extension to Hwy. 47 and the SW 124th Extension in Tualatin are certainly important for future growth. However, unlessdevelopment patterns change substantially from what we have experienced for the past three years, do we really need tobuilt these projects? Using the currently available MSTIP funds to deal with current deficiencies seems a more supportableapproach.
Thanks again for considering our 10th project and please let me know if you have any questions. Terry W. Keyes, PE City Engineer City of Cornelius 1355 N. Barlow Street Cornelius, OR 97113 503-992-5372 phone 503-357-3424 fax [email protected]
From: BEN BRYANT [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 4:55 PM To: Stephen Roberts; Russell Knoebel; Andy Back Subject: MSTIP Project List
MSTIP Team: On Monday, the Tualatin City Council discussed the draft MSTIP project list. One of the projects that is of importance to the City Council is Grahams Ferry Road improvements between Ibach Road and Helenius Road. There is a slight corner in the road and the sidewalks are not connected. A few years ago, there was a fatality at the corner due to a drunk driver. The Council's main interest was in improving the pedestrian connectivity and safety along this stretch of road. I'm not sure exactly the extent of the improvements that would need to be made and the financial implications. We can discuss this more tomorrow at the WCCC TAC, I just wanted to give you all a heads up! Ben
Change of Use Variables Worksheet
Issue Unit
Hillsboro (Dec 2 letter)
Tualatin (Dec 23 letter)
Tigard Cornelius Proposal
Not Entire Building?
Amount of Space that is allowed the discount
1,500 square
feet
3,000 square
feet
5,000 square
feet
5,000 square feet or 10% of building
(whichever is larger)
5,000 square feet
Limited to smaller
than 5,000 square foot
3,000 square feet
5,000 square feet
Discount Provided
Percent of fee discounted for the space decided above
25% 50% 75% 100% / Exempt
100% / Exempt
None 100% / Exempt
50%
Regulate Abuse
Frequency: Once per X
Once Every
10 years Every
5 years Once per
year Once per
Year Once
Once per year
Type of Use Limited to certain types of uses
General Office to Medical
Clinic Only
Any to Medical
Clinic Only
Any to Institutional
or Commercial
All All Limited All All
Age of Building
How old a building must be to be eligible
20 years 10 years 5 years 1 year 1 Year
1 year
Expiration date? (If permanent, voter approval needed to delete)
Expiration Date
June 30, 2014
June 30, 2015
June 30, 2015 (with
ability to extend)
No expiration
date
No expiration
date
June 30,
2015 (with ability to extend)
City variables based on staff interpretation of City letters – subject to clarification.
More Revenue
Less Revenue
CITY OF HILLSBORO
December 2, 2011 Washington County Coordinating Committee c/o Washington County DLUT Attn: Andrew Singelakis, Director 155 N. First Avenue, Suite 350 Hillsboro, Oregon 97124‐3072 RE: Transportation Development Tax Proposed Ordinance Modification for Tenant Improvements Mayors, Elected Officials, and Agency Representatives: As many of you are aware, the City of Hillsboro has embraced discussions raised by our business and development community with regard to the magnitude of Transportation Development Tax (TDT) assessments levied on a number of small tenant improvement remodels undertaken in Hillsboro since implementation of the TDT Ordinance on July 1, 2009. These projects have related to changes of use in building remodels where the new use is anticipated to generate some measure of additional traffic over that use which pre‐existed. Furthermore, these examples have all involved new building tenants being charged the tax assessment, while the long‐term benefit accrues to the underlying property owner. Coupled with other building permit fees, the disproportionate relationship between permit fees and the cost of the actual constructed improvements makes financing of the projects either extremely difficult if not impossible. For Hillsboro, our historic records indicate that these modest tenant improvements amount to less than 5% of our total TDT and Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) revenue over the past five years, but reflect a high percentage of the staff and administrative time expended in addressing concerns expressed by the business community with regard to the disproportionate assessments relative to the cost of the improvements. The City would like to see vacant tenant space filled and does not view potential lost TDT revenue through some form of ordinance modification as overly significant in comparison to overall TDT revenues and the long‐term costs of vacant buildings on the local economy. Developers are not stating that a tax should not be charged, but rather that the tax should in some way be made more proportional to the costs of the proposed building modification.
150 East Main Street, Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 ⋅ 503/681‐6113 ⋅ FAX 503/681‐6232 ⋅ www.ci.hillsboro.or.us AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Washington County Coordinating Committee December 2, 2011 Page 2 of 4
150 East Main Street, Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 ⋅ 503/681‐6113 ⋅ FAX 503/681‐6232 ⋅ www.ci.hillsboro.or.us AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
The Washington County Coordinating Committee and its Technical Advisory Committee have discussed on numerous occasions a number of policy alternatives which might be considered to temper this situation. Chairman Roy Rogers, following the discussions on November 7th, summarized the open questions to be addressed as 1) whether the waiver would eliminate or reduce the TDT; 2) whether a waiver could be granted only once or multiple times; and 3) whether building age matters. Hillsboro’s Transportation Committee advised that its position on this topic be summarized in written form for distribution to the members of the WCCC and the Board of County Commissioners in order to express its rationale for their policy position in a manner which can be made available prior to the December 5th Policy Group meeting. Following is a summary of the Hillsboro City Council’s Transportation Committee position with regard to considered amendments to the TDT Ordinance relating to “small” tenant improvements: Principal Objective: Encourage small businesses to invest in re‐use of existing buildings, regardless of the age of the structure, by making TDT fees where change of use is likely to increase trip generation reasonable in proportion to the costs of the required building tenant improvements. Size and Cost of the Tenant Improvement: The City of Hillsboro believes that this issue of TDT proportionality is predominantly an issue for redevelopment projects with total remodel costs less than $100,000. Some remodels, while relatively small in building area, have significant costs to construct due to the extent of specialty improvements contained within the building area. In these cases where the TDT fees due remain reasonably proportional to the remodel costs (e.g. less than 10% of the remodel costs where remodel costs do not exceed $100,000), the City believes a discount from the TDT is not a necessity. In the event it is confirmed by County legal counsel that a fixed maximum proportionality limit on the TDT is unachievable, or that the discount or exemption cannot be limited to projects with remodel costs under a set limit such as $100,000, the City recommends that the first 3,000 to 5,000 square feet of a remodel be considered exempt from an increased TDT assessment as an alternative means, or surrogate, for capping the TDT by percentage in order to achieve proportionality. The City of Hillsboro’s rationale is that most uses smaller in scale tend to be primarily dependent upon pass‐by traffic which does not create significant net new traffic on roadways, just turns into and out of driveways. Furthermore, the amount of TDT revenue for uses of this size remains relatively modest (approximately 5% of all TDT revenue). By lowering the recommended rate down to this level, the City believes it will achieve the goal of reducing the TDT owed for small scale remodels to yield greater proportionality while limiting the number of remodel developments which would experience a full exemption from TDT assessment. Locational and Use Considerations: The City believes that these types of situations occur in all zoning areas and thus should not be limited to specific areas of a City or specific land use zones. Similarly, the type of use allowed benefiting from potential discounting or exemption of TDT fees should not be restricted consistent with the principal objective of refilling vacant tenant space. Time Frame for the Discount or Exemption: The City of Hillsboro believes that this situation is not unique to this particular time of recession, but will remain a concern even after the economy recovers. For this reason, it recommends that any Ordinance amendment include the ability to continue extension
Washington County Coordinating Committee December 2, 2011 Page 3 of 4
150 East Main Street, Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 ⋅ 503/681‐6113 ⋅ FAX 503/681‐6232 ⋅ www.ci.hillsboro.or.us AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
of this provision indefinitely, either through initial Ordinance language or through the ability for a simple and systematic periodic review process. The City is comfortable with use of the proposed June 30, 2015, date for the initial date used in the ordinance amendment predicated on the ability to allow for further discretionary extensions. Age of the Structure: The City of Hillsboro would encourage the re‐use of any vacant or under‐utilized space within the City, regardless of the age of the structure, before consideration is given to development of greenfields. Vacant space is both an economic drain on the community as well as creating a negative image for the City as a whole. Waiving some or all of the TDT fees owed on small scale remodels in order to re‐fill vacant space is deemed by the Hillsboro City Council to be a viable economic development tool which does not significantly impair the ability of the City’s TDT program to deliver needed transportation capacity improvements. Regulating of Abuse: The City understands that two forms of “gaming the system” have been discussed by various jurisdictions. The first is the Sherwood example of a building developer declaring the project to be for general office use, paying the TDT assessment accordingly, then subsequently occupying the space with a higher trip generating medical tenant. Hillsboro believes this same “gaming” potential existed under the Traffic Impact Fee ordinance and does not see a nexus between the contemplated discounting or exemption for small scale remodels or tenant improvements under the TDT when related to the initial occupancy and fee payment. Hillsboro believes that the proposed TDT exemption or discount should not be allowed for the initial occupancy or TDT assessment of a building space. This gets at the second form of “gaming” concern expressed by some agencies. Specifically Hillsboro understands that some agencies do not assess the TDT fee until tenant improvements are actually permitted for discreet space within a building shell. The concern we have heard is that the shell may be occupied in a series of 2999 square foot increments (< 3,000 sf) thereby circumventing the payment of any TDT fees. If the ordinance amendment simply states that the discount or exemption is not allowed for the initial building occupancy or initial payment of the TDT assessment, it would seem that this “gaming” problem would be eliminated. Recurrence of Discount or Exemption: The City of Hillsboro believes this economic development tool should not be restricted in the frequency of its use, whether that be for the same exact area of a building which experiences recurring vacancies or for multiple areas of a building which experience periodic and recurring vacancies. The goal of this ordinance amendment is to encourage re‐use of vacant space by softening the impact of the TDT assessment on small scale remodels and tenant improvements. That is not a one‐time challenge. To be truly effective, this tool needs to be accessible as often as necessary to aid in refilling vacant space. For this reason, the City recommends that the recurrence of discount or exemption be set at a minimum frequency of 1 year for any discrete building space.
Washington County Coordinating Committee December 2, 2011 Page 4 of 4
150 East Main Street, Hillsboro, Oregon 97123 ⋅ 503/681‐6113 ⋅ FAX 503/681‐6232 ⋅ www.ci.hillsboro.or.us AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
The City of Hillsboro appreciates your consideration of this information. Attached for reference is the table of amendment alternatives provided by County staff. Unfortunately I will be traveling out of town on business and will be unable to attend the Policy Group meeting on December 5th. If you have questions in my absence, please contact Rob Dixon at 503‐681‐6409 or Don Odermott at 503‐681‐6451. Sincerely, Mike Castillo Hillsboro City Councilor cc: Aron Carleson, City Council President Steve Callaway, City Councilor Nathan Parent, Transportation Committee citizen representative Deanna Palm, Hillsboro Chamber of Commerce Mayor Jerry Willey Michael Brown, City Manager Rob Dixon, Assistant City Manager Don Odermott, Transportation Planning Engineer John Southgate, Economic Development Director
December 23, 2011
Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation 155 N. First Avenue, Suite 350 Hillsboro, OR 97124-3072
RE: Transportation Development Tax (TDT) Change of Use Exemption Proposal
Dear Washington County Coordinating Committee:
On behalf of the Tualatin City Council, I’m writing this letter to highlight the impact to the City of Tualatin of the current Transportation Development Tax (TDT) change of use exemption proposal. Based on the local impact, the Tualatin City Council encourages Washington County to seek a method by which the proposal can be implemented on a city-by-city basis.
In an effort to entice development and assist small businesses during this economic downturn, the Tualatin City Council is supportive of the discounted TDT rate through June 30, 2013. However, the change in use exemption presents a significant financial impact to the City of Tualatin and may result in a substantial reduction of funds dedicated toward local transportation improvements. If the proposal is adopted, the City of Tualatin would be forced to draw from other resources to fund necessary transportation improvements.
In 2010 and 2011, there were 5 changes of use in the City of Tualatin. These changes in use resulted in $103,973 of revenue collected to mitigate the resulting transportation impact. If the current Washington County exemption proposal had been in place, the City of Tualatin would have forgone $101,756 of this revenue. Further, in 2012 the City of Tualatin expects a change in use to occur at a building site from a daycare facility. If this site changes to a medical clinic, the City would forgo $91,155 dedicated to transportation improvements. While the funds generated with the current discounted rates are helpful, the full cost of transportation improvements often exceed the amount collected.
The City Council had the opportunity to select options from the variable worksheet that was presented to WCCC on December 5, 2011. Given the significance of the proposal, the City Council expressed a desire for Washington County to craft ordinance language that would allow each city to implement exemption criteria individually based on local needs.
Much like the City of Hillsboro and Washington County, the City of Tualatin is exploring options to encourage infill development and create a more vibrant town center. However, this proposal aimed to help one local jurisdiction may not be beneficial as a one size fits all approach. If the exemption variables could be implemented at the local level, this would allow each city to meet local needs. Sincerely,
Lou Ogden Mayor, City of Tualatin Cc: Tualatin City Council
Commissioner Duyck Tigard City Council has discussed the modifications to the TDT being considered by the County Commission in January. Tigard would be supportive of an exemption of TDT charges for changes of use up to 5,000 sf, which I believe Washington County and also City of Tualatin support. However, I wanted to share with you a few points raised by our Community Development staff that may be helpful as the exact wording is being considered by the commissioners: It may be more relevant to ask how much of an exemption or discount would
encourage expansion? In that light, exempting the first 3,000 sf of any change of use would give an incentive to all businesses but emphasize/reduce the disincentive for change-of-use for smaller businesses.
You may hear some jurisdiction's experience that change in use exemptions would have reduced their TDT revenue considerably. Tigard’s experience has been different, with collections of just $13,000 in TDT revenue from changes in use for the last two years.
Administratively, Tigard uses the amount of the calculated TDT as a basis for estimating the full impact of a proposed development, so it is important to us that a change-in-use exemption scheme is not implemented as a cancellation of charges, but a temporary exemption that still allows the city to calculate the full TDT to assess rough proportionality of exactions.
I look forward to hearing of the County's final decision. Regards Craig Dirksen
Mayor City of Tigard
Date: January 30, 2012 To: Washington County Coordinating Committee From: Kim Ellis, principal transportation planner Subject: Findings from first phase of Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project
At your February 6 meeting, Metro Councilor Kathryn Harrington and I will share the findings from the first phase of the Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project. The findings report, which is attached to this memo, was accepted in January by the Metro Policy Advisory Committee, the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation, and the Metro Council, and has been submitted to the Oregon Department of Transportation and the Department of Land Conservation and Development. ODOT and DLCD will include it in their joint progress report to the Oregon Legislature tomorrow.
The Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project is a multi-‐year, collaborative effort between Metro and its regional partners. The project is focused on working together to find the right combination of land use and transportation actions (e.g., policies and investments) that will keep communities vibrant and prosperous. The project also helps our region meet state targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from light duty vehicles. The project continues to be as much about jobs, livable communities and public health as it is about a healthy environment.
During Phase 1, a technical work group composed of planning staff from cities, counties and other agencies worked closely with Metro staff to test and evaluate 144 different combinations of various strategies that could help reduce our region’s greenhouse gas emissions. The results indicated that our region and our communities are on the right track with current policies and investments, and that there are many ways to meet state targets to reduce emissions. We also found that achieving the targets will require additional investments and policy commitments at the local, regional and state levels.
In Phase 2 of this project, which will run through 2012, Metro will be working closely with you and other local policy makers and community leaders across the region to define how best to continue advancing local efforts to build livable, prosperous and equitable communities while meeting the region’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction target.
At our presentation on Feb. 6, Councilor Harrington and I will share information about what we have learned and seek your input on how we can best work together to support the aspirations of your communities. Some questions to consider for our discussion:
• How can we best work with you to keep you involved and informed as the Scenarios Project moves forward?
• What actions are you currently taking to create jobs and expand housing and transportation choices that will also help the region meet the state greenhouse gas emissions reduction target?
• What kinds of investments or support do you need to fully realize your community’s vision for the future?
• How do we ensure the region’s approach is inclusive and equitable, reflecting the diverse needs and interests of its people, and not perpetuating disparities, particularly among households of modest income or people of color?
Page 2 January 30, 2012 Memo to Washington County Coordinating Committee members Findings from first phase of Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project • How do we ensure the regional strategy provides greater economic opportunity for everyone,
creating jobs and boosting development and competitiveness? More information about the Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project, including the Phase 1 Findings and Strategy Toolbox, are located on the Metro website at www.oregonmetro.gov/climatescenarios. We look forward to the February 6 discussion, and continuing to work with you as the Scenarios Project moves forward. /attachment
Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Project
UnderstandingOur Land Use andTransportation ChoicesPHASE 1 FINDINGS I JANUARY 12, 2012
www.oregonmetro.gov/climatescenarios
Strategy Toolboxfor the Portland metropolitan region
Review of the latest research on greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategies and the benefits they bring to the region
Climate Smart Communities: Scenarios Project
October 2011
2012 MPAC Tentative Agendas
Tentative as of Jan. 3, 2012
MPAC Meeting January 11
• Climate Smart Communities (endorse Briefing Book and transmittal letter)
• Industrial Site Readiness
MPAC Meeting January 25
• Southwest Corridor Project Update and Land Use Work
• Population and Employment Forecast and Growth Distribution
• Greater Portland Pulse
MPAC Meeting February 8
MPAC Meeting February 22
MPAC Meeting March 14
MPAC Meeting March 28
MPAC Meeting April 11
MPAC Meeting April 25
MPAC Meeting May 9
MPAC Meeting May 23
MPAC Meeting June 13
MPAC Meeting June 27
MPAC Meeting July 11
MPAC Meeting July 25
MPAC Meeting August 8
MPAC Meeting August 22
MPAC Meeting September 12
MPAC Meeting September 19
MPAC Meeting October 10
MPAC Meeting October 24
MPAC Meeting November 14
MPAC Meeting November 28
MPAC Meeting December 12
MPAC Meeting December 19
2012 JPACT Work Program 12/23/11
January 12, 2012 – Regular Meeting
• 2010-13 MTIP Amendment to add the City of Portland Peer-to-Peer Carsharing Project – Action
• RTP & MTIP amendments – Action
o Northbound Cornelius Pass Rd. to Eastbound US 26 Project (City of Hillsboro)
o Construction Phase of Sellwood Bridge Replacement Project (Multnomah County)
o Bike Sharing Project (City of Portland) o Removing Allen Blvd. and Nimbus Ave.
Extension Projects (City of Beaverton) • Climate Smart Communities Scenarios – Accept
of the Phase 1 Findings • Transportation Electrification Executive
Council (TEEC) and Drive Oregon – Information • ODOT Congestion Pricing – Discussion • Federal Authorization Priorities – Discussion
February 9, 2012 – Regular Meeting • Draft Regional Safety Plan Discussion • Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Phase 2
work plan – Discussion • Oregon Sustainable Transportation Initiative
(OSTI) - Information o Statewide Transportation Strategy
(STS) • LCDC Rulemaking on selection of preferred
scenario • Federal Authorization Priorities – Action • ODOT Congestion Pricing – Comments/Action • Briefing on RTO Strategic Plan – Information
March 1, 2012 – Regular Meeting • Regional Safety Plan – Action • 2012-15 MTIP/STIP Approval and Air Quality
Conformity – Action
March 5 to 8, 2012 – Annual Washington, DC Trip
April 12, 2012 – Regular Meeting • FY2012-13 UPWP – Action
RTO Strategic Plan – Action
May 10, 2012 – Regular Meeting • OSTI draft Statewide Transportation Strategy
(STS) – Discussion • Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Phase 2
– Discussion
June 14, 2012 – Regular Meeting
July 12, 2012 – Regular Meeting • Climate Smart Communities Scenarios – Discussion
August 9, 2012 – Regular Meeting
September 13, 2012 – Regular Meeting October 11, 2012 – Regular Meeting • Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Phase 2
scenarios analysis – Discussion • Oregon Sustainable Transportation Initiative
(OSTI) LCDC R l ki l ti f f d
November 8, 2012 – Regular Meeting Climate Smart Communities Scenarios Phase 2 scenarios analysis – Discussion
December 13, 2012 – Regular Meeting
Parking Lot: • Regional Indicators briefing in mid 2011. • Portland to Lake Oswego Transit Project (Winter 2012)
D R A F T A G E N D A F O R N E X T M O N T H
TO : Washington County Coordinating Committee FROM : Andrew Singelakis, Director Department of Land Use and Transportation SUBJECT: MEETING NOTICE DATE: Monday , 2012 TIME: 12:00 Noon PLACE: Beaverton Library Conference Room 12375 SW Fifth St. - Beaverton A G E N D A 1. Visitors comments 2. Approval of Minutes Action
3. Transportation Development Tax Information 4. MSTIP 3d 5. MPAC Agenda Information 6. JPACT agenda Information
7. Other Business: Information Agency Monthly Updates Transportation Advisory Committee Agenda Next WCCC Agenda: Draft
g:\users\blairc\wpdata\wccc\plcyage2.doc