COVID-19: City Facilities Reopen for Limited In-person Services

 

Agenda & Minutes

When available, the full agenda packet may be viewed as a PDF file by clicking the "Attachments" button and selecting the file you want to view.

Agendas are posted until the meeting date takes place.  Minutes are posted once they have been approved.

Transportation Commission (View All)

Transportation Commission Meeting Agenda & Minutes - February 27, 2019

Minutes
Wednesday, February 27, 2019

AGENDA
February 27, 2019
3:00 p.m.

Lausmann Annex, 200 S. Ivy, Medford, OR – Room 151


10.       Roll Call
 
20.       Introductions
 
30.       Rules of Procedure
            30.1     Meeting Schedule
            30.2     Elect Chair and Vice Chair
            30.3     Other
 
40.       Minutes
            40.1     None to approve
 
50.       Agenda Items:
            50.1     Transportation Project Budget
            50.2     Cross-sections and Legacy Street Code Amendment
            50.3     Introduction to the Upcoming Concurrency Code Amendment
 
60.       Other Business
            60.1     Boards and Commissions Handbook and Form
            60.2     Local Government Basics Handbook
 
70.       Next Meeting:  March 20, 2019?
 
80.       Adjournment
 

Meeting locations are generally accessible to persons with disabilities.  To request interpreters for hearing impaired or other accommodations for persons with disabilities, please contact the ADA Coordinator at (541) 774-2074 or ada@cityofmedford.org at least three business days prior to the meeting to ensure availability.  For TTY, dial 711 or (800) 735-1232.


MINUTES
February 27, 2019
Lausmann Annex, 200 S. Ivy, Medford, OR – Room 151
 
 
The Medford Transportation Commission (TC) was called to order by Karl MacNair at 3:00 p.m.
 
10.       Roll Call:
 
Members Present:  Dennie Conrad; Al Densmore; Jaime Jordan; Kim Parudcci; Peggy Penland; Jared Pulver; Suzanne Schroeder
 
Members Absent:  None
 
Staff Present:  Karl MacNair, Public Works Engineering; Tim D’Alessandro, Council Liaison; Brenda Barker, Public Works Engineering; Cory Crebbin, Public Works Engineering; Alex Georgevitch, Public Works Engineering; Eric Zimmerman, City Manager’s Office; Kyle Kearns, Planning; Carla Paladino, Planning; Kelly Evans, Planning
 
Citizens Present:  Robert (Bob) Shand, Liberty Park Neighborhood
 
20.       Introductions: The commissioners and staff gave introductions on their roles and interests. Robert Shand introduced himself to the commission and expressed his disappointment that there are no projects on the proposed budget in the Liberty Park neighborhood.
 
30.       Elect Chair and Vice Chair:  The commission agreed to meet monthly on the 4th Wednesday of the month from 12:30 to 2pm, except the meeting will be on March 20th next month due to Spring Break.
 
Dennie Conrad volunteered to be vice chair.  Kim Parducci suggested Al Densmore for chair.
 
Kim Parducci made a motion that Al Densmore be chair and Dennie Conrad be Vice Chair; Dennie Conrad seconded. The commission voted unanimously in favor of the motion.
 
40.       Minutes:  None to approve
 
50.       Agenda Items:
50.1     Transportation Project Budget
Karl MacNair presented the budget materials that were in the agenda packet. Staff would like a recommendation on the budget from this Commission at the March meeting. Al Densmore asked about the timeline and Cory Crebbin said it would be presented to the City Council in the first week of May. Changes can still be made but it will be more difficult to make changes as more time passes. Al made a suggestion that having information about values/filters on budget would be helpful to consider such as resiliency and social justice issues (such as prioritizing bike facilities in lower income neighborhoods with lower levels of car ownership). Suzanne Schroeder suggested prioritizing locations with fatal and injury crashes. Al mentioned the MPO's criteria for project selection. Cory pointed out that with the Transportation Commission just being formed and, unfortunately, it's not great timing to get into all the details and prioritization of all the possible projects. We intend to do that in future budget years but at this point, we want to hear suggested changes for this budget. Many of the projects are in design or grant funded and really shouldn't be removed. Al asked for staff to make it more clear which projects the commission does have influence over at this time. Dennie pointed out that this first year will be a transition year; maybe next year will be more transformational. How do the commissioners understand what has been done to build this project list? Al asked about the programmatic funding for bike and pedestrian projects that was identified in the TSP. Karl mentioned that BPAC has prioritized projects for this funding and he would send BPAC’s recommendations out to the Commission members. Karl offered to provide more background on the projects and address the criteria mentioned today in more detail with respect to the projects on the proposed list prior to the next meeting.
 
Jared Pulver asked about what the zeros mean on the TSP project list. Those were shown as zero in the TSP because they were already in the last budget and were accounted for in the TSP financial projection due to the way the TSP financials were put together.
 
Tim D’Alessandro asked about a glossary and the TSP link being sent out to the commission. Kim Parducci asked for background on why projects were included on the proposed list. Cory stated we need to make it clear what projects have restricted funds and why they are on the list.
 
Jared asked about planning projects from the TSP beyond the next 2 years. Karl pointed out the TSP tier 1 list does identify short (1-5 years), medium (6-10 years), and long term (11-20 years) projects. Staff does plan to bring the long-term Capital Improvement Plan back to the commission for input.
 
Alex Georgevitch pointed out that the commission has through March, and April if needed, to make recommendations for changes. Changes can still be made and staff wants to hear what the commissioners have to say about recommendations for changes to the budget. Commissioners were encouraged to focus on this upcoming budget and any changes they'd recommend. Planning for future budgets will happen after this budget is adopted.
 
Al discussed that he envisions the commission providing input to future grant funding opportunities and help direct the focus on where grant efforts are spent.
 
50.2     Cross-sections and Legacy Street Code Amendment
Kyle Kearns gave a staff report on the proposed code changes. These changes were included in the recently adopted TSP and are now being codified. The level of service standards and new cross-sections are being brought forward into the code. The legacy street standards are also being brought forward into the code which allow for standards to be modified on existing streets where the new cross-sections would not be retrofitted due to constrained right-of-ways. Kyle explained the concept of legacy streets and asked for comments by the following meeting; comments will be included in both the Planning Commission and City Council agenda packets. Bob Shand asked where the idea of legacy streets came from. Karl said it came out of the TSP development and repeated requests to incorporate flexibility from the advisory groups. Al requested an individual meeting to go over legacy streets in detail. Kyle offered to send out an email and meet with any commissioners who would like to.
 
Jared asked about cyclist preference for having on-road or off-road facilities. Suzanne stated that cyclists feel more comfortable and safer when there is a greater separation from traffic. Jared asked about whether frequent road interruptions reduce the effectiveness of off-street paths. The new cross-sections with off-street paths may only get built on the periphery of the City. How do we connect them with the existing system? Suzanne said that as more good facilities are built and more connections are made, more people on bicycles on the system will make everyone more used to looking for bicycles. Karl pointed out that the low volume shared streets can be comfortable also; the need for separation increases with speed and volume. Kyle clarified that comments can be sent via email or by individual meetings.
 
Tim asked if the gutter pan is included in the bike lane dimensions. Karl responded that the gutter pan is included and it is 1-1/2 feet wide within the bike lane dimension.
 
50.3     Introduction to the Upcoming Concurrency Code Amendment
Karl discussed the language in the TSP that directs staff to update Medford's concurrency policy to align with the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). He gave a brief overview of how Medford's code currently requires transportation facilities to have adequate capacity at the time of zone change, but the TPR allows for it to be available by the end of the planning horizon. Staff is working on code language and will bring it back to the commission in the future. The TPR acknowledges that this will result in near term congestion increases, but allows development to continue so System Development Charges (SDCs) and other fees can be collected to fund transportation improvements. It’s the chicken or the egg dilemma. The City Council inserted direction into the TSP for staff to bring forward code changes that align Medford’s code with the TPR. There were some questions about what concurrency means and why it matters. Staff will provide a more detailed explanation prior to diving into the code amendment language.
 
60.       Other Business
60.1     Boards and Commissions Handbook and Form:  Forms were requested to be returned to staff. Please also read the handbook; it has important information in it.
 
60.2     Local Government Basics Handbook:  Handbooks were passed around that detail the rules and responsibilities that commission members take on with regards to conflicts of interests. Eric Zimmerman pointed out to ask staff if you ever have a question about whether something is a conflict of interest.
 
60.3     Rules of Procedure / Meeting Schedule:  Cory asked commissioners to send ideas for topics for future meetings to staff. Staff thanked all the volunteers for their time.
 
70.       Next Meeting:  March 20, 2019 at 12:30pm
 
80.       Adjournment:  The meeting was adjourned at 4:28pm.
 
Respectfully Submitted,
 
Karl MacNair
Transportation Manager
 

© 2021 City Of Medford  •  Site Handcrafted in Ashland, Oregon by Project A

Quicklinks

Share This Page

Back to Top