De fining State wide Signific anc e Oc to b e r 22, 2018 State - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

De fining State wide Signific anc e

Oc to b e r 22, 2018

State wide signific anc e intr

• duc e d for

Par t 2

T e rm partially de fine d in sta tute

• Ce rta in c o nside ra tio ns in sta tute spe c ific to mo de

(a ir, ma rine , ra il) he lp fle sh o ut wha t the se pro je c ts wo uld do

• (d ) “Sta te wide sig nific a nc e ” me a ns a tra nspo rta tio n

pro je c t tha t:

(A)Benefits the regional and statewide economy; and (B) Sustains employment within the community or region in which the transportation project is located beyond the employment associated with construction or implementation of the project.

Sta te wide sig nific a nc e introduc e d for Pa rt 2, c ontinue d

• Do e sn’ t c a pture the sc a le diffe re nc e b e twe e n lo c a l,

re g io na l o r sta te wide sig nific a nc e

• Se ve ra l po ssib ilitie s fo r b e tte r de fining the se te rms:

– Minimum a nd ma ximum pro je c t size ($) – T

ying it b a c k to po lic ie s fro m OT P, OF P a nd Mo da l Pla ns

– E

c o no mic a na lysis/ pro je c tio ns sho wing impa c ts b e yo nd lo c a l a re a

– T

he se c o nc e pts c o uld b e mixe d a nd ma tc he d

1st Conc e pt: De fining by gr ant size

• Ba se d upo n a ssumptio n

tha t la rg e r g ra nt size = mo re sig nific a nt pro je c t

–

I n Co nne c t Ore g o n 6, pro je c ts ra ng e d fro m $170k to $12.9 millio n

–

I nte rmo da l de dic a te d pro je c ts we re ~$25 millio n

• Ca n a lso b e sc a le d

–

e .g . $1 in the Po rtla nd me tro do e s no t g o a s fa r a s $1 in E a ste rn Ore g o n, this c o uld b e sc a le d b y Co unty, Distric t, o r Re g io n size

• Cle a r de line a tio n b e twe e n

Pa rt 1 a nd Pa rt 2 pro je c ts

5

1st Conc e pt: E xa mple la ng ua g e

(g) For Part 2 Projects, the project size must meet the following thresholds: (A) In counties with a population less than or equal to 20,000, a capital investment of $4,000,000; (B) In counties with a population greater than 20,000 but no more than 60,000, a capital investment of $6,000,000; (C) In counties with a population greater than 60,000 but no more than 120,000, a capital investment of $8,000,000; (D) In counties with a population greater than 120,000 but no more than 320,000, a capital investment of $10,000,000; (E) In counties with a population greater than 320,000, a capital investment of $12,000,000;

6

1st Conc e pt: Cha lle ng e s

• De line a tio ns c a n b e a rb itra ry

–

Re mo ve s re vie w c o mmitte e s/ OT C disc re tio n fro m de te rmina tio n o f sta te wide sig nific a nc e

–

T he se c uto ffs c o uld b e use d a s a c o nside ra tio n, a fa c to r fo r sc o ring pro po sa l a nd no t a ha rd c ut o ff

–

Ho w do we ha ndle a pro je c t rig ht b e lo w a thre sho ld?

• Do e s no t ta ke into a c c o unt tha t the c o st o f a pro je c t re la tive to

its sig nific a nc e is diffe re nt fo r a ir, ma rine , o r ra il pro je c ts

–

Co uld ha ve diffe re nt sliding sc a le s b y mo de , ho we ve r b e twe e n this a nd po pula tio n, it c o uld g e t unwie ldy

7

2nd Conc e pt: T ying it to Adopte d Polic ie s

• E

nsure s tha t a g ra nt b e ing a wa rde d is to wa rds furthe ring a n a lre a dy a do pte d po lic y fro m the OT P, OF P, mo da l pla ns

• Puts the o nus o n the a pplic a nt

to de mo nstra te ho w the ir pro je c t is sig nific a nt in the c o nte xt o f sta te wide po lic ie s

• Co mmo n re q uire me nt in o the r

pla nning c o nte xts, e .g . ma jo r la nd use a c tio ns/ po lic y upda te s

8

2nd Conc e pt: E xa mple la ng ua g e

(9) For Part 2 projects, the Commission will consider all of the following in its determination of eligible Projects to approve for receipt of funds from the Connect Oregon Fund: (a) Are transportation projects of statewide significance as defined by: (A) Consistency with policies and strategies of the Oregon Freight Plan, Aviation Plan, Rail Plan, Transportation Plan or other applicable modal or topic plan elements of the Oregon Transportation Plan.

9

2nd Conc e pt: Cha lle ng e s

• Ma y b e diffic ult fo r a pplic a nts witho ut stro ng po lic y

b a c kg ro und

–

Re q uire s re se a rc hing po lic ie s, stra te g ie s a nd a c tio ns fro m multiple pla ns

• Po te ntia l fo r a “kitc he n sink” a ppro a c h

–

Applic a nts ma y try to c ite a s ma ny stra te g ie s a nd po lic ie s tha t a re pla usib ly c o nne c te d to the ir pro je c t a s po ssib le

–

I nte ntio n wo uld b e fo r the m to fo c us o n a limite d numb e r to c ite a nd e xpla in why.

• Mo da l/ to pic pla ns ha ve

diffe ring fo rma ts, no

• ve ra rc hing Sta te E

c o no mic Pla n fo r c ita tio n

3r d Conc e pt: Ge ogr aphy of e c onomic impac t

• Re q uire s a pplic a nt thro ug h a na lysis o r o the r me a ns to

de mo nstra te tha t the re will b e a n e c o no mic impa c t b e yo nd the lo c a l a re a .

11

3rd Conc e pt: E xa mple la ng ua g e

(9) For Part 2 projects, the Commission will consider all of the following in its determination of eligible Projects to approve for receipt of funds from the Connect Oregon Fund: (a) Are transportation projects of statewide significance as defined by: (B) Whether a proposed transportation project results in a measurable economic benefit outside the site’s county or region as specified in OAR 731-035-0070(2).

12

3rd Conc e pt: Cha lle ng e s

• Wo uld re q uire a n e c o no mic a na lysis

–

Co sts o f a na lysis to b e do ne b y e c o no mic pro fe ssio na ls

–

T his wa s a re q uire me nt fo r the De dic a te d pro je c ts

• Still a le ve l o f sub je c tivity in c o mpa ring pro je c ts

–

E .g . so me pro je c ts ma y e c o no mic a lly impa c t la rg e r a re a s, b ut with a lo we r

• ve ra ll ma g nitude