Meeting Minutes. Central Oregon Area Commission on Transportation COACT. May 8, 2014

Transcription

1 Meeting Minutes Central Oregon Area Commission on Transportation COACT Members: Gary Farnsworth (ODOT), John Hatfield (Jefferson County), Alan Unger (Deschutes County), Lonny Macy (Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs), Jack Seley (City of Prineville), Dale Kellar (City of Prineville Railroad), Wendy Holzman (City of Sisters), Jeff Monson (Commute Options), Nick Arnis (City of Bend), Mike Folkestad (Jefferson County), George Endicott (City of Redmond), Ken Mulenex (City of La Pine), Bill Braly (Deschutes County SPAC), Peggy Fisher (USFS Deschutes/Ochoco National Forest), Karen Friend (Cascades East Transit), Gary Judd (Aviation Mode City of Bend), Jeff Hurd (City of Madras), Gus Burril (City of Madras), Charlie Every (Trucking), Guests: Scott Smith (City of Prineville), Benny Benson (Sisters Airport), Andrew Gorayeb (City of Sisters), Kathy Agan (La Pine), Bill Zelenka (Crook County), Michael Duncan (ODOT Region 4), Joni Bramlett (ODOT-Transit), Kelly Coffelt (City of Prineville), Phil Stenbeck (City of Prineville), Hal Gard (ODOT Rail), Hobbs Margaret (Sisters Airport), Pauline Hardie (City of Sisters), Jim Bryant (ODOT), Robert Berg (Madras Municipal Airport), Bill Duerden (Redmond), Keith Witcosky (Redmond), Bob Noble (Redmond Airport), Justin Mason (Dowl HKM), John Condon (ODOT Region 4), Mike Caccavano (City of Redmond) Staff: Scott Aycock and Tami Geiger (Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council) Call to Order and Introductions John Hatfield called the meeting to order at 3:03pm. Introductions were made. General Public Comments There were no public comments. COACT Business a. Approve March 13, 2014 minutes The minutes were approved by consensus. Connect OR V Update a. Ranking and Strategy Process Gary Farnsworth requested the ACT disclose potential conflicts of interest for the Connect OR V ranking and strategy process. The following ACT members stated potential conflicts of interest : John Hatfield, Alan Unger, Jack Seley, Dale Kellar, Wendy Holzman, George Endicott, Bill Braly, Page 1 of 5

2 Gary Judd, Jeff Hurd, Gus Burrill, and Bill Zelenka. Gary explained that they would rank the nine proposed Connect OR V projects in preparation for the region s SuperACT meeting on May 13 th. The TAC met on April 10 th and made recommendations on the rankings. TAC members were given one vote per COACT jurisdiction representative. Gary created two potential outcomes based on the TAC feedback for the COACT to review as they did not make any decision on the rankings. On page one, the projects were sorted by the Economic Benefit Review score. On page two, the projects were sorted by modal ranking. He reminded the COACT that there is nothing in the law or instructions that required them to make a priority ranking; however, they would choose delegates (2 for the 3 ACTs in Region 4) and give them the information the ACT would like carried forward. His recommendation was to start by reviewing the two scenarios, and work to elevate as many of the projects as possible by finding things they wanted to highlight and defining a message to be carried forward. Alan Unger explained that COACT had a history of working together and supporting projects as a united front. His proposal was to focus on geographic equity and economic gain. His proposed ranking was: Redmond Airport, Madras Airport, Bend Airport, Prineville Rails to Trails, Sisters Airport, Prineville Airport and Redmond Homestead Trail. Bill Zelenka asked which project was Prineville s priority. Phil Stenbeck explained that the airport was the priority because the fuel tanks presented a crisis situation. The Rails to Trails project was very good for quality of life; however, they must prioritize emergency planning. Kelly Coffelt added that the airport presents an opportunity for economic gain with the flight school coming in and is an economic driver. The airport is the more urgent project. Phil expanded on the Rails to Trails project. The trail connects a Safe Routes to School route and 1500 homes. People who live in Southeast Prinevile and work in Northwest Prineville often walk along 3 rd street which is a state highway. The mile-long piece of right of way is owned by the City and only requires a paved trail to create bike/pedestrian access and get them off of the road. John asked if there were any consequences to the list being top heavy with airport projects. George Endicott explained that the Redmond Homestead trail would provide Redmond with significant linkages and was important to fill a deficit of trails in Redmond. He proposed the Redmond trail ranked 6 th not 7 th. His proposed ranking was: Redmond Airport, Madras Airport, Bend Airport, Prineville Airport, Sisters Airport, Redmond Homestead Trail, and Prineville Rails to Trails. Jeff Monson commented that the modal committee liked both the trail projects, and ranked Redmond s 3 rd out of 36 statewide. He anticipated there would be questions about why the project was bumped down. Wendy Holzman asked if both Prineville and Redmond own or have the right-of-way for the land the trails would be built on. They both confirmed that they do. Bill Braly added that the Redmond trail would increase safety for bikes and pedestrians who would no longer have to cross dangerous intersections. He asked if there was a way to promote the Redmond Airport project as a statewide project (to be paid for from an additional state pool of funds) without risking its development. If the project were removed from Central Oregon s pot of funds, then they could afford to fund all of the other projects. Gary explained that while he has never participated in the final review committee, there was not a separate pot of funds labeled statewide significance projects. However, there was $20 million that hadn t been committed to the regions yet (each region is guaranteed $4.2 million, for a total of $42 million). He suggested they try to elevate as many projects as possible in the list and garner as much support as possible so that the projects that exceed the region s $4.2 million would be funded out of the $20 million. George added that he had discussed prioritizing the airports for resilience planning and statewide significance at the statewide Resilience Taskforce. However, he felt that expecting the Redmond Airport project to be funded from the $20 million put it at risk because it would be going up against the Governor s priority on the Portland-Eugene rapid transit and other large projects in the valley. Alan added that since the airport is at the top of their list and the modal list it should be high on the overall project list. Mike Folkestad and Bill Zelenka asked if the remaining $20 million would be distributed equitably. There was not an answer to this question. The committee continued with George Endicott s proposed ranking: Page 2 of 5

3 Redmond Airport, Madras Airport, Bend Airport, Prineville Airport, Sisters Airport, Redmond Homestead Trail and Prineville Rails to Trails. Benny Benson requested that they maintain the original tier one rankings and the Sisters Airport be ranked over the Prineville Airport. Phil countered that the Prineville Airport tanks are failing, they are in the ground and the need is very high which accounts for moving a second tier project up to the first tier. Alan asked what accounted for Sisters being ranked over Prineville. Gary explained that a lot of the ranking difference was because of match. Benny added that Sisters was the only project with private match and a private-public partnership. Jeff commented that there should be a trail project in the mix of airport projects. Alan explained that geographic equity and the idea that everyone should have one project before any jurisdiction had two projects removed the Redmond trail project from the top tier. Nick Arnis suggested that perhaps the ACT should request that each jurisdiction only submit one project to prevent this issue in the future. Bob Noble commented that the Redmond Airport did just that. There were several projects for the Redmond Airport that could have ranked highly and benefited the Central Oregon region; however, he held back for diversification in the allocation of resources. He added that the Redmond-Bend airport benefits the Central Oregon region not just Redmond. The project has strong statewide significance, but no one wanted to bump it down in ranking and threaten its funding. Gary added that Chris Cummings had been vague about how the $20 million would be prioritized. They knew connectivity was a priority and Gary Judd had made a strong case for the interdependence of the airports and how they work together as a system (one form of connectivity). The trails projects connect homes to jobs and provide health benefits. Benny requested that the Sisters Airport project be ranked above the Prineville Airport. Phil added that another issue with the failing fuel tanks was that the facility was close to two city water wells and were a hazard to drinking water. Benny commented that the funding is not supposed to be for environmental hazards, it is about connectivity and transportation. Kelly added that the Prineville Airport provides a lot of support to fire suppression activities and if they didn t have fuel tanks it would be extremely expensive to bring in temporary tanks. They would lose tenants and the economic impact of the airport. Charlie Every asked why the Sisters Airport was not FAA. Alan explained that it was privately owned and so did not qualify for FAA match funds. Prineville is an FAA funded airport and the City and County run the fuel concession for the airport. Those funds support airport operations. Charlie explained he was in favor of Prineville Airport being higher on the list due to their description of need. He explained that right now it is one project, but if the tanks fail it would become two projects (clean up the mess). He supported them staying ahead of a disaster. Andrew Gorayeb explained that the Sisters Airport had a huge potential economic impact. It was slated to add 100 jobs over the next months which was 8% of the current employment base of Sisters. He suggested Prineville look into IOF grants and Business Oregon that offer funding to address water quality issues and asked whether they had researched those funds. Kelly answered that they had not. Andrew continued that his understanding was those funds were targeted to help avoid disaster. Kelly added that the Prineville Airport was also slated for significant economic gains including the flight school moving students and 5-8 teaching jobs. He explained that if the fuel tanks became an issue then the businesses would not locate in Prineville. Based on the dialogue, Alan restated the proposed ranking: Redmond Airport, Madras Airport, Bend Airport, Prineville Airport, Sisters Airport, Redmond Homestead Trail and Prineville Rails to Trails. Bill Braly restated his concern with all of the bike/ped projects being at the bottom. Alan commented that it was harder to argue for the trails when they considered economic generators. Gary added that he thought there would be high support for the Redmond trail. Andrew asked whether maintaining the first tier of projects improved their standing, unlike SCOACT that completely reprioritized. Gary answered that he thought it would. Mike Folkestad motioned to accept the ranking as Alan Unger presented. Jack Seley seconded the motion. The COACT continued to discuss the ranking. Nick commented that since the Redmond trail ranks very high in the modal committee is should fare well and end up getting funded. Wendy added that it seemed the tiering mattered. Alan said that the current priority list was the same as was chosen by the TAC. Gary said that the TAC was also split between the Page 3 of 5

4 Sisters and Prineville Airport projects. Gary Judd commented that the rankings from the aviation modal committees were based on jobs, unemployment and how a project impacted that community. John commented that regional equity was challenging them. Benny commented that there should be some consistency in ranking based on the criteria for the application. Gary added that the TAC technically ranked the Sisters project over the Prineville project in deference to the tier rankings from the modal committees. Alan asked if the ACT supported or should reconsider the motion on the floor. George commented that the mention of other potential funding mechanisms for Prineville to pursue for their tanks should be noted. Mike Folkestad withdrew the motion. George Endicott motioned to accept the ranking: Redmond Airport, Madras Airport, Bend Airport, Sisters Airport, Prineville Airport, Redmond Homestead Trail, and Prineville Rails to Trails. Bill Braly requested to register a concern that all of the bike and pedestrian projects were pushed to the bottom. He said that it portrayed the message that Central Oregon didn t care about those projects. Alan responded that they should have a conversation with the OTC about bringing back a designated bike/pedestrian pot of funding. Wendy Holzman and Jeff Monson also registered the concern. Jeff added that the OTC made the bike/ped projects eligible because they were looking for those projects to be in the mix. The motion passed by majority vote. Jeff Monson, Bill Braly, Charlie Every and Jack Seley opposed. Page 4 of 5 b. Designate Representatives for May 13 SuperACT meeting Gary explained that Butch Hanson would facilitate the SuperACT meeting on Tuesday, May 13. There was consensus that Commissioner Unger and Commissioner Hatfield should represent COACT at the SuperACT and Gary noted that Commissioner Unger may be delegated to represent the Region at the final state review committee. Gary commented that he wanted to touch on a few key strategic points from the group. They wanted the Redmond Airport project to be funded statewide and a few notes added to the project list to better illustrate each project s significance. He added that everyone was welcome to attend the SuperACT meeting and applicants were encouraged to attend for question and answer so they could highlight the values of their projects. Wendy requested that Alan make note at the state committee that Central Oregon is not dismissive of the bike/ped projects and they were important to our region. Alan agreed and added that he would advocate for dedicated funding for bike/ped projects. Presentations a. Update of Oregon Rail Plan Hal Gard, the Administrator for Rail and Public Transit Division, directed COACT s attention to the handout of a PowerPoint presentation on the Oregon State Rail Plan. He explained that the process began in January 2013 and used a revised modal plan development process that provided more continuity with other modal plans and the Oregon Transportation Plan. The driver for the update was the Passenger Rail Improvement Act that required all states to have an updated Plan in order to receive federal funds. He added that something new in this Plan was the identification of goals, policies and strategies (he added that the goals were not currently listed in priority order). The Plan does not include a project list; instead the FRA has been satisfied with the state listing a series of priorities. In Oregon, there is not a source of match funds to leverage federal money except for Connect OR and the need is critical. Railroads have had to match TIGER grants and there would need to be a discussion in the future. He explained that the next steps were to present to public bodies and a detailed review by the FRA. The public review period closes June 20 th, they have one final steering committee in July and hope to take the plan to the OTC for their consideration and approval in September. Copies of the plan are available on the ODOT website and they welcome written comments. He asked for any questions, comments or concerns. Alan explained that rail freight is limited locally by two tunnels and a bridge which prevent double stacking. He added that there had been no movement from BNSF to make changes. Hal responded that they had success using TIGER and Connect funds for those type of things and it would be time well spent for leaders to reach out. Dale Kellar commented that they would be in Seattle next Tuesday with

5 BNSF and broach the subject. Alan asked if it would be helpful if the ACT sent a letter. Dale suggested they wait to see the response they receive. Hal added that the state is willing to sponsor good projects for TIGER grants but the railroads would need to come up with the match. Gary commented that they had attempted a Prineville Junction TIGER grant app but weren t ready. Alan asked about grade separated versus at grade crossings when there wasn t enough space for a grade separated crossing. Hal answered that the statutory requirement goal was to eliminate at-grade crossings where possible; however, they were open to discussing alternatives. He requested that if they were not received positively when they contact ODOT Rail to let him know so that they could work through the issues. Gary added that thanks to Hal s support they were able to get the Wickiup Junction project funding and they were hoping to make an evaluation of necessary improvements for an at-grade crossing at Airport Way in Redmond. Hal suggested that they be pulled in early for any plans, and start with Rick Shankle. George asked about the improvements with the railroad running through Salem becoming a quiet zone. Hal explained that they had made significant improvements but it was a lot of expensive work. Gary acknowledged Michael Duncan from ODOT who had been accumulating input from region staff and played a significant role in project development. Page 5 of 5 b. ODOT/Rail Responsibilities for Oil Movement Hal continued with a presentation on rail movement of hazardous products. He explained that rail is a common carrier, and if a commodity is federally legal (US DOT regulates) to haul than they were required to haul it. For certain commodities, there were requirements to notify first responders. Nick added that the Bend Fire Marshall requested to be informed what is being carried. He asked if he should contact ODOT for this information. Hal answered that they recognize the high level of volatility with Bakken crude oil and there was concern with older model tank cars carrying this oil. They were working toward crafting a notification strategy that balanced the public right to know, need for security and a certain level of accountability. Mike asked if the rules were the same for coal as for oil. Hal responded no, since Bakken crude oil is very volatile but coal is not (wouldn t be classified as a hazardous material). Hazardous classification is outside the broader global environmental concerns. Nick encouraged them to concentrate on safety and work out a system for information gathering and distributing to communities. Roundtable Discussion a. June 19 th /20 th OTC Visit to Bend Charter/Update Topics The OTC is coming to Bend June 19 th and 20 th. Gary will do some offline polling to determine how they would like to participate with COACT. He added that they would submit the existing COACT Charter as there were not any necessary changes. The Charter is posted on the COACT website if anyone had any questions. Alan added that Commissioner Baney had shared that they like to interact with the ACTs and so there will likely be an activity. b. Sept 11 th Proposed OFAC/COACT Meeting in Bend Alan explained that the Oregon Freight Advisory Committee (OFAC) advised the OTC about Freight issues. They were looking to have their quarterly meeting in Bend in September the same day as the ACT meeting. This would be an opportunity to have a discussion with a modal committee and educate each other. He asked if a 2pm start time would work to allow for additional time for joint conversation, and that it would likely be in Bend. There were no questions, comments or concerns with the proposal. Adjourn Jeff Monson announced that there was a state PTAC meeting on July 14 th 1-4pm at the ODOT Project Delivery Building in Bend. Meeting adjourned at 5:01pm.