Loading...
Metro - Planning for Regional Parks and Greenspace Intergovernmental Agreement This Agreement is entered into between Metro, a in service district organized under the laws of the state of Oregon and the 1992 Metro Charter, located at 600 N.E. Grand Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-2736, and Tigard, a city, PO'Box 23397, Tigard, OR 97223,hereinafter called "local government." Recitals: 1. Local governments within Metro desire to continue support for Metro planning functions during fiscal year 1993-94 by voluntarily paying local government dues on the same basis as previously required by statute. 2. Metro desires to assure local governments of the allocation of dues to Metro planning functions to identify the services and products.provided with dues assistance. Agreements: 1. Local government agrees to pay $13,443.95 as its 1993-94 share of voluntary local government dues calculated by the same $.43 per capital level utilized for 1992-93 by November 1, 1993. 2. Metro agrees that voluntary local government dues shall be allocated to those Metro planning activities indicated in Exhibit "A" attached. The total budget amount of local dues budgeted at full voluntary local dues received and the percentage of the total activity budget that full dues would fund is indicated on Exhibit'"A:" Nonpay- ment of voluntary dues by previously contributing local governments will reduce the amount of dues contribution and dues share. 3. Metro agrees to review.any nonpayment of voluntary dues with JPACT to determine whether alternative sources of funds are available for the planning activities in Exhibit "A" and for any recommendations to encourage full voluntary dues payment. 4. Metro agrees to involve dues-paying local governments in the Metro planning activities listed in Exhibit "A" through TPAC, JPACT, RTAC, and MPAC. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties'have executed this Agreement on the dates hereinafter indicated. Mro 'sdicti t By: Name: Title: C-Tr-N A0r rti:rsTXATaQ -r+&.Ago 1160 Exhibit A PROPOSED PROGRAM TOTAL DUES DUES BUDGET BUDGET SHARE 1. RLIS/Database Maintenance $8499500 $211,625 24.9% 2. Travel Surveys/Model Refinement $19268,885 $31,160 2.5% 3. Technical Assistance - a. Data Resource Center $68,600 $68,600 100% b. Travel Forecasts $138,600 $11,447 g% 4. RTP Update $365,000 $61,166 $16.8% 5: . Transportation Demand Manage- $76,995 $39063 4.0% ment 6. Willamette Crossing Study $181,000 $10;500 3.6°!0 7. Urban Arterial Fund $391,970 $12,401 3.6% 8. 'Transportation,Improvement Pro- $148,000 $4,000 2.7% gram 9. Congestion Management Plan $160,.123 $1,(M 0.6% 10. RTP Financial Plan $371431 $500 1.3% 11. TPAC1JPACT Coordina- $125,000 $18,036 14.4%, tion/Management 12. Regional HCT Plan $420,000 $4,065 0.9% 13. Region 2040 $1,636,925 $160,000 9.8% TOTAL DUES $597,563 1. RL IS/Database Maintenance-This is an ongoing effort to annually update population, employment, housing and commercial building permits, land use, tax lots, other demographic and economic data and forecasts and the Regional Land Information System (RETS). It is essential-input to many local, regional, state and private studies and provides an economical, ventral.resource for all parties. The costs are shared_ by local governments through the dues, transportation grants, Metro's excise tax and solid waste funds to reflect the different users of the data. This;program simply ensures that the resource is up-to-date and available. The cost of using or retrieving the needed data for a particular user is paid for by the user. Those that help maintain the data only pay the cost of retrieval when accessing the data. Those that don't.pay an add-on fee to the cost of retrieval this database. to contribute toward 2. Travel Survey%odel Refinement - This is an ongoing effort to survey individual travel:behavior in order to understand regionwide travel patterns and better forecast future travel growth. It is unusually.large this year because we have major surveys planned of households, trucks,'travel.into and.out of the region, transit ridership and highway speed and delay. This data is used to update Metro's travel-fore-casting models for use by us and others. It is largely funded by grants with a small portion of match from local dues. This task is particularly important in order to respond to new state and federal requirements to reduce air pollution and vehicle-miles-traveled. Current measuring and forecasting of these are weak. 3. Technical Assistance - This is an account provided to all dues-paying members of Metro to access Metro's two major databases; socio-economic/land use/RLIS data and travel forecasts. This budget is pro-rated into subaccounts for the major users (Portland, each county and its cities, Tri-Met, ODOT, and Port of Portland) and pays for Metro's staff and computer costs to provide these outside users access to Metro's database. a. , Data Resource Center - This technical assistance account provides access to Metro's maps, land use, RLIS, aerials and socio-economic databases. It is fully supported by dues. Non-dues paying individuals, including the public, pay a fee. b. Travel Forecasts. This technical assistance account provides access to Metro's short and long-range travel forecasts. This data is necessary for local transpor-. talion.planning and design of transportation projects. It is substantially supported by transportation planning grants, but dues pay the local match. Major users of these forecasts (such as the Western Bypass Study and others) contract for services over and above this technical assistance account: Access to these forecasts is either directly from Metro or via remote terminals connected to Metro at each of the three counties, Portland, Tri-Met and ODOT. Non-dues paying individuals, including the public, pay a fee. 4. RTP Update- Over the next two years, this program will update the Regional Transportation Plan to meet new federal requirements,promulgated through the• Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act.of 1991 (ISTEA) and new.state requirements promulgated by LCDC through the administrative rule implementing Goal 12 Transportation, If the region does not meet these requirements, federal sanctions could jeopardize federal transportation funding and state sanctions could result in an LCDC enforcement order. All local plans must be consistent with the Exhibit A - Page 2 revised RTP. This program is.largely funded through grants with a share of the local match from dues. 5. Transportation Demand Mana gment -This program is a special subset of the RTP. update focusing on reducing traveldemand. It is:apparent that some methods to reduce demand will:be needed if we are to meet the goals set for reducing vehicle- miles-traveled ehicle-miles-traveled'(VMT) per capita by 20 percent. This program will examine options and recommend elements to.:include in the RTP update. It is largely grant-funded with a portion of the local match from dues. 6. Willamette Crossing Stud-y - This corridor study will focus on the Ross Island and Sellwood Bridges to determine future highway capacity needs. Like previous efforts focusing on the Southwest Corridor, the Northwest Corridor (Cornell/ Burnside) and the Mt. Hood Parkway,.it provides the means to examine options in greater detail with the results to be included into the RTP. It is largely grant-funded with a portion of the local match from dues. 7. Urban Arterial Fund- This is an effort to determine whether Metro should refer a measure to the voters to establish a funding source for improvement to regionally significant arterials. The result of this effort will be to define the potential program of projects in order Wallow regional and local decision-makers to determine whether and how to proceed. Local road, bike and pedestrian projects to be funded with this resource will be the component of this recommended program. This effort is largely funded with grants with a portion of the local match funded from dues. 8. Tranportation Improvement Program - This program involves approving projects for receipt of any type of federal highway or transit funding, consistent with the RTP, applicable federal requirements and in conformance with air quality restrictions. This involves policy concerns dealing with.prioritization and technical concerns dealing with specific federal requirements which may apply. This program is largely funded with grants with a portion of the match funded with dues. 9. Congestion Management Plan This is a new ISTEA requirement to develop a system to monitorcongestion levels and identify methods to address this congestion through a variety.of construction, management or alternative mode techniques. The program is largely grant-funded with a small portion of the local match from dues. 10. RTP Financial Plan -This is a new ISTEA and Rule 12 requirement to have an RTP which is constrained by a:realistic estimate of transportation resources, regardless of source (federal, state or local). 'It will require accounting for revenue sources and planned expenditures not normally addressed:by'Metro in the RTP (such as mainte- nance and local mads). The program is largely grant-funded,with.a-portion of the local match from dues. Exhibit,A - Page 3 11. TPAC/JPACT Coordination and Management- This provides for administrative Procedures related to receipt of transportation planning grants and efforts to effec- tively staff TPAC, JPACT and other local government coordinating committees. It is ` largely grant-funded with a portion of the match from .dues. 12. Reeional High:Capacity Transit Plan- This provides the funds necessary to address implementation of a regional high-capacity transit system =counting the budget for Westside LRT, the Hillsboro extension and South/North Alternatives Analysis(which are funded.separately). It is,largely grant-funded with a small portion of the local match from dues. 13. Region 2040 - This is a major long-range land use and transportation planning program to evaluate alternative urban growth 'forms for the region. It is the program by which Metro is addressing aspects of Rule 12 and the Urban.Reserves requirement of LCDC as well as the new Metro Charter requirements to develop a Future Vision and Regional Framework Plan. It is mostly funded with the Metro excise tax with a portion of the budget from dues. 1160 Exhibit A - Page 4 Chairman Hays June 1, 1993 Page 5 12. Regional High-Capacity Transit Plan- This provides the funds necessary to address implementation of a regional high-capacity transit system not counting the budget for Westside LRT, the Hillsboro extension and South/North Alternatives Analysis (which are funded separately) . It is largely grant-funded with a small portion of the local match from dues. 13. Region 2040 - This is a major long-range land use and transportation planning program to evaluate alternative urban growth forms for the region. It is the program by which Metro is addressing aspects of Rule 12 and the Urban Reserves requirement of LCDC as well as the new Metro Charter requirements to develop a.-Future Vision and Regional Framework-Plan. It is .mostly funded with the Metro excise tax with a portion of the budget from dues.. OTHER OUES'1'IONS RAISED I. Effect on non-paving Jurisdictions-" Two specifically budgeted to Programs are g provide looal governments "tech- nical assistance" in accessing Metros socio,--economic, land use and travel ;databases and forecasts. This budget, will be reduced commensurate with ,the amount of dues underpayment and those local governments will be charged a fee for ser- vice. Like the public,_ this fee will include Metros direct cost to retrieve the data and an add-on to use toward data- base, maintenance. All the other programs must be carried out on a regional basis and .the budget cannot be readily reduced. At the' direction of JPACT, the. Metro budget does not reflect _ underpayment of dues for these programs. JPACT has. com- mitted to-revisiting the question of where these funds are obtained in the event locAl• dues underpayment. does occur. Since these .programs` involve a significant level of 'local government coordination, Metro's staff effort will. pri oritize. coordination with dues-paying members, Other effects. on non-paying.• jursdctons mentioned by JPACT include re-exam nation- of membership on MetroIsAdvisory Committees (such as JPACT, TPAC, MPAC. and RTAC) and reconsideration of eligibility to receive federal transit and highway funds for projects. These. actions are not preferable from MetrooIs perspective but were raised by JPACT because of the concern that some jurisdictions are paying Chairman Hays June 7, 1993 Page 6 dues to help support these functions which would there- fore -represent a subsidy of the non-paying jurisdictions. 2• Is Metro providing sufficient support from the eccise tax? - During the past several years;, the local government dues has been levied .,at 430 per capita. Prior to that, for a period of over 10 years, it was levied at 510 per capita. At 430, local dues-has only increased as a- particular local govern- ment's population has increased. During this same period, Metro's excise tax contribution has increased substantially. This is because the Metro Council and Executive Officer recognize the importance of addressing regional growth management 'issues .and the obligation .of Metro to fund aspects that are clearly. regional in scope. A comparison is as follows: - Dues Excise Tax FY 89-90. $644,773 $ 37,612 FY 90-91 Change from 5554,149 1,086,846 previous year -14$ 4189$ - FY 91-92 578,719 Change from- 1,972,333 _ - - - previous year + 4% + 81% FY 92-93 - Change from 581.,.157 1,917,600 + ,1 $ previous year - 3$ - - FY 93-94 597•563 'Change from 2,175,237 previous year + 34; + 13$ 3. Is the new Metro building unnecessarily increasinar the cost for supaort serve ces to the Planni g Departments Metro uses a "Cost Allocation Plan' to assign support service costs to eachp de artment based upon historical usage of each support service, Certain costs are based upon usage factors (such as square footage or number of accounting transactions) ; other •costs are based upon labor (such as number of hours of graphics or legal services) . . The overall support service cost .is allocated to each Planning Depart- ment project and funding source using an. overall "overhead ate" as an additive to personnel costs on that project. i Chairman Hays June . 7, 1993 Page 7 This is a federally accepted method and provides the means to, charge the grants their , fair share of overhead along with every other source of funds in the Department. During the past several years, this '.overhead rate has steadily dropped. The budgeted rate for FY 93-94, including the cost of the new Metro headquarters, reflects no •change from the prior fiscal year- and a steady decline. over the past four -years. The trend is as follows: Overhead Rate' FY 89-90 . . 48% FY90-91 . . . . . . . . . . . 41% FY 91-92 . . . . . . . . . . 40% FY 92-93 . . . . . . 33� - FY 93-94 33% Compiled as an added percentage to direct -salary cost. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS The two examples you provided as models for possible Metro/local government agreements do not serve the purpose for which these __ . dues are being collected.. One example is a fee-for-service type contract much like a consulting contract. It provides for labor rates, designated staff, etc, The programs 'funded by the dues are regional planning efforts (as described above) , not consulting assistance on local projects. The second example is for local government membership in a COG. It provides for voting rights, committee composition, opt- out/opt-in procedures, etc. These organizational issues are generally dealt with through the Metro Charter which defines local government membership on MPAC and the committee's responsibilities and authoritigaL relat ng 'to Metro Is- decisions. .A suitable substitute is attached. 'It is fairly simple and provides for:, 1. Payment of dues by November 1, 1993 for the FY 93-94`budget - year. 2• Metro's commitment to use the dues on the -specified programs (the work scopes attached to this memo should be an attachment to the agreement) .