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: lutplan@co.washington.or.us

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 [tkeyes@ci.cornelius.or.us]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 tkeyes@ci.cornelius.or.us

From: BEN BRYANT [mailto:BBRYANT@ci.tualatin.or.us] 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