Clark County Washington
Home Find It! A-Z Index Departments & Programs Jobs Contact Us
     
Board of Clark County Commissioners > The Grid > Columbia River Crossing Light Rail Tolling Project Resolution


Find us on Facebook
Facebook icon

Follow us on
Follow ClarkCoWA_PH on Twitter

 

Columbia River Crossing Light Rail Tolling Project Resolution

The “Whereas” statements of the Columbia River Crossing Light Rail Tolling Project Resolution (PDF) are numbered so that associated supporting documents can be easily referenced. The following table lists files with brief descriptions to indicate their source and relevant notes.

The “Whereas” statements are numbered so each associated reference document starts with that number. The “Whereas” number is followed by “w” to indicate that the referenced file is the whole document. Otherwise, the number is followed by “e” to indicate that the referenced file is an excerpt of a larger document.

- Reference list - printable version (PDF)

*All documents are PDF files unless otherwise noted.

WHEREAS #1
1w1 Integrity definition
Honesty, soundness, trustworthiness to fulfill commitments, truth-loving, worthy of belief or reliance, trustable, believable, forthrightness, good for one's word, a reliable witness to the truth, worthy of reliance or trust

See letter from Majority Coalition Caucus of Washington State Senate calling for a formal independent investigation of the CRC
WHEREAS #2
2w1 Tiffany Couch curriculum vitae (CV), experience and qualifications
WHEREAS #3
3w0 Tiffany Couch, Acuity Forensic Certified Accountant testimony
3w1 Forensic Report #1 - Open Public Meetings White Paper
- Video interview detailing Report #1 - couv.com
3w1ex1 Forensic Report #1 - Exhibits
3w2 Forensic Report #2 - Contract and Task Order Analysis
- Video interview detailing Report #2 - couv.com
3w2ex1 Forensic Report #2 - Exhibits A-M
3w2ex2 Forensic Report #2 - Exhibits N-Z
3w3 Forensic Report #3 - Ruby Junction and Steel Bridge Costs
- Video interview detailing Report #3 - couv.com
3w3ex1 Forensic Report #3 - Exhibits
3w3ex2 Forensic Report #3 - Ms. Boyd's testimony
3w4 Forensic Report #4 - Funding Plan White Paper
- Video interview detailing Report #4 - couv.com
3w4ex1 Forensic Report #4 - Exhibits A and B
3w4ex2 Forensic Report #4 - Exhibits C - K
3w5 Forensic Report #5 - Contractor Analysis
3w5ex1 Forensic Report #5 - Gleason Summary and Exhibits
3w5ex2 Forensic Report #5 - Kitchin Summary and Exhibits
3w5ex3 Forensic Report #5 - McCaig Summary and Exhibits
3w5ex4 Forensic Report #5 - OTHER Exhibit
3w6 Forensic Report #6 - Cost Allocation Discrepancies
3w6ex1 Forensic Report #6 - Exhibit A - Base Cost Estimate - Deck Truss Option - Phase 1
3w6ex2 Forensic Report #6 - Exhibit B - CEVP Report Summary
3w6ex3 Forensic Report #6 - Exhibit C - CRC Cost by Component Map Per CEVP
3w6ex4 Forensic Report #6 - Exhibit D - Base Cost Estimate Summary
3w6ex5 Forensic Report #6 - Exhibit E - CEVP to Base Cost Reconciliation Allocation
3w6ex6 Forensic Report #6 - Exhibit F - Escalation of Base Costs to CEVP Report - 60% Confidence
3w6ex7 Forensic Report #6 - Exhibit G - Escalation of Base Costs to CEVP Report - 90% Confidence
3w6ex8 Forensic Report #6 - Exhibit H - Reallocate Overpass Costs to Bridge
WHEREAS #4
4e1 Excerpt from page 44 of the 4w2 document which incorporated C-TRAN Board Resolution BR-08-019 “Any means chosen to finance operations of the HCT component of the CRC project shall be submitted to impacted C-TRAN voters for approval.”

- The same can be found in C-TRAN staff report #13-023, page 35, marked page 32
4w2 Whole CRC Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA)
- http://www.columbiarivercrossing.org/FileLibrary/IRP/IRP_TabG.pdf

- The LPA is also found on the Columbia River Crossing website.
4w3 C-TRAN Board Resolution BR-08-019
WHEREAS #5
5e1 Excerpt from page 56 of the 4w2 document which incorporated the Regional Transportation Council (RTC) Resolution 07-08-10 which added the following requirement to the LPA: “Any means chosen to finance operations of the HCT component of the CRC project shall be submitted to impacted C-TRAN voters for approval.”

- The same can be found on page 16 of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan for Clark County
5e2 The minutes of the RTC meeting where RTC resolution 07-08-10 state “the bottom line is that we all have said that the voters need to approve this.” and “Mr. Stuart said 81104, the legislation that would be used to bring high capacity transit to Washington does require a vote on the system plan and financing.”
- http://www.rtc.wa.gov/meetings/board/brdminutes.080722.htm
5w3 Whole document where the 5e2 excerpt can be found (within 80% of the bottom)
5e4 Regional Transportation Council (RTC) Resolution 07-08-10 which was incorporated into the LPA states: “Any means chosen to finance operations of the HCT component of the CRC project shall be submitted to impacted C-TRAN voters for approval.”, excerpt from page 63 of 5w5, Locally Preferred Alternative resolutions
5w5 Locally Preferred Alternative resolutions, whole document, page 63 is referenced by 5e4
WHEREAS #6
6w1 C-TRAN Board Resolution PBD-015 - Prohibits using any of the 0.7% voter approval sales tax revenue for any aspect of the CRC project.
- http://c-tran.com/assets/Board/Board_Policies/PBD-015_CRC_Project_Policy_REVISED_Sept_10_2013.pdf
6e2 Excerpt from CRC_FEIS_Chapter4 Financial Analysis, Page 4-31 of 6w3 states “C-Tran’s existing revenues are required for meeting C-TRAN’s fixed-route and paratransit service costs”, not available for HCT.  HTC funding would require voter approval.”
6w3 CRC_FEIS_Chapter4, Financial Analysis, whole document referenced by 6e2
-http://www.columbiarivercrossing.org/FileLibrary/FINAL_EIS_PDFs/CRC_FEIS_Chapter4.pdf
-http://www.columbiarivercrossing.org/ProjectInformation/ResearchAndResults/FinalEIS.aspx#FEIS
WHEREAS #7
7e1 C-Tran staff report #13-024 states that the purpose of PBD-015 was to reassure voters that any sales tax revenue that was already approved by the voters, would not be used to fund the CRC project. Page 237 of 7w2 (page 179 of PDF file)
7w2 Whole document – May 21, 2013 Agenda - Page 237 (page 179 of PDF file) shows 7e1 excerpt
- http://www.c-tran.com/board_meeting_files/May_21_2013_agenda_no_QandA_.pdf
WHEREAS #8
8e1 2011 Voters’ Pamphlet - Page 76
8w2 Complete 2011 Voters’ Pamphlet referenced in 8e1
- http://www.clark.wa.gov/elections/documents/2011/2011GeneralVotersPamphletpamphlet.pdf
WHEREAS #9
9e1 Expert Review Panel, C-TRAN HCT Plan
http://highcapacityerp.com/about.html
WHEREAS #10
10e1 C-TRAN High Capacity Transit Expert Review Panel Findings and Recommendations - Page 9 - Must follow strict FTA requirements
10e2 C-TRAN High Capacity Transit Expert Review Panel Findings and Recommendations - Page 14 - “The FTA specifically prohibits transit agencies from degrading local bus service by transferring funds from existing service to finance high capacity transit operations.”
10w3 Complete High Capacity Transit Expert Review Panel Findings and Recommendations for 10e1 and 10e2 excerpts
- http://www.highcapacityerp.com/Presentations/FindingsandRecommendations6_28_12.pdf
WHEREAS #11
11e1 C-TRAN High Capacity Transit Expert Review Panel Findings and Recommendations - Page 11
- See 10w3 for original document
WHEREAS #12
12e1 September 26, 2013 C-Tran agenda - Page 22 excerpt - Light Rail funding showing insufficient funds - HCT costs do not provide required revenue as specified by HCT Expert Review Panel.
12w2 Complete September 26, 2013 C-Tran agenda - page 22 shows 12e1 excerpt
- http://c-tran.com/board_meeting_files/092613_Special_Mtg_Board_Agenda_Packet.pdf
WHEREAS #13
13e1 Since the original 0.5% sales tax was insufficient “to preserve core bus service”, voters approved 0.2% additional sales tax rate “to preserve core bus service”, not for HCT
- http://www.c-tran.com/news/detail/id/25
WHEREAS #14
14w1 Email exchange between C-Tran CEO Jeff Hamm and David Madore, November 18, 2013
WHEREAS #15
15e1 November 2012 Clark County Voters’ Pamphlet - Page 100
15e2 November 2012 Election Results - Page 12
WHEREAS #16
16w1 2nd question and answer on page 2 - Confirms that previous voter approved sales tax was to preserve core bus service and to be enough only for 5 years. New tax is “to fund bus and C-Van service only”
- http://www.c-tran.com/assets/Fact_Piece/C-TRAN_Ballot_Measure_Fact_Piece_2011.pdf
16e2 Explanatory statement of the voters’ pamphlet - Pages 76 – 77 - 0.2% sales tax "saves bus service and nothing more”, “Prop 1 will fund bus service only, not light rail.”, “This measure has nothing to do with light rail.”
- http://www.clark.wa.gov/elections/documents/2011/2011GeneralVotersPamphletpamphlet.pdf
16e3 C-Tran BR-05-021 page 9 of the September 20, 2005 voters pamphlet 0.2% sales tax increase for local buses and C-Van service
- http://www.clark.wa.gov/elections/documents/2005/primary2005_voter_pamphlet.pdf
WHEREAS #17
17e1 Voters’ Pamphlet - Page 94 - “Opposes any Light Rail project in Clark County unless it is first supported by a majority of the voters in a county-wide advisory vote of the people”
-http://www.clark.wa.gov/elections/documents/2013/NOV_5/2013GenCompleteVotersPamphlet.pdf
17e2 November 2012 Voters’ Pamphlet - Page 110 - Create a policy “to oppose every Light Rail project in Clark County unless it is first supported by a majority of the voters in a county-wide advisory vote of the people” – Excerpt includes complete text of Light Rail Resolution 2013-07-17
17w3 Letter from Washington Legislators strongly encouraging an advisory vote on the CRC Light Rail project. The CRC Project was dead and stop work orders had been issued at the time (August 5, 2013) that the Clark County Commissioners passed the resolution to place Light Rail Advisory Vote#1 on the ballot. An Oregon Only plan was created after that decision. Otherwise a direct vote on the CRC (whatever version) would also have been placed on the ballot. As is, the people voted to oppose all Light Rail Projects in Clark County including the CRC Light Rail project.

The project “died June 30 when the Washington Senate killed its funding. Gov. John Kitzhaber and Washington Gov. Jay Inslee immediately announced they were shutting down the project.”
- http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-20906-zombridge_.html
WHEREAS #18
18e1 November 2012 election results - Page 2
- http://www.clark.wa.gov/elections/results/2013/2013Nov5ElectionResults.pdf
18e2 November 2012 election results by precinct
- http://vote.wa.gov/results/current/clark/Precincts-108553.html
18w3 Map of Clark County Advisory Vote Election Results – November 2013
http://gis.clark.wa.gov/Election/2013
WHEREAS #19
19e1 CRC Record of Decision - Page 1 - Shows the ROD to include 5 miles of freeway improvements and seven interchanges
19e2 CRC Finance plan, 2011 excerpt, page 2 - Grants that later disappeared
19w3 CRC Record of Decision, whole document referenced in 19e1
- http://www.columbiarivercrossing.org/FileLibrary/ROD/CRC_ROD.pdf
19w4 CRC Finance plan, 2011, whole document referenced in 19e2
-http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/WA_Vancouver_Columbia_River_Crossing_complete_profile.pdf
WHEREAS #20
20e1 Current CRC Finance plan, Page 2 Excerpt - Shows all Washington freeway improvements indefinite deferred except what is needed for Light Rail, shows Oregon unilateral control of toll rates, shows original LPA was swapped for an Oregon-only Light Rail-only plan
20e2 Current CRC Finance plan, Page 4 Excerpt - Shows current finance plan, all grants are gone except for Light Rail, all remaining funding is debt backed by tolls, does not cover $84.6 million payment for losses to three Clark County businesses.
20e3 Current CRC Finance plan, Page 3 Excerpt - Shows no identified source for $86.4 million to pay for losses to three Clark County businesses
20w4 Current CRC Finance plan, whole document referenced in 20e1 - 20e3
- http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/CRC/RevisedFinancePlan_9-12-13.pdf
WHEREAS #21
21e1 CRC Record of Decision, page 25 showed the ROD to have maximum toll rates of $2.50, excerpt from 19w4
21w2 CRC Traffic Analysis, by Joe Cortright, Impresa April 2013
-https://www.dropbox.com/s/pzgmjqxnz24f6nv/Cortright_CRC%20Diversion%20Analysis_April_2013.pdf
21w3 CRC Traffic Analysis CDM Smith, February 22, 2013 with CRC memorandum - Shows $100 million to $180 million per year going toward tolls, draining mainly from Clark County commuters, harming Clark County economy, with tolls of $4.34 each way.
-http://www.columbiarivercrossing.org/FileLibrary/TechnicalReports/PreliminaryTollFundsEstimateUpdate_022813.pdf
21e4 Toll findings excerpt from Sec1:4 (5 of 34) from 21w5 CRC Toll Study stating that minimal traffic will be diverted from I-5 Bridge
21w5 CRC Toll Study, whole document, see Sec1:4 for 21e4
- http://www.columbiarivercrossing.org/FileLibrary/Tolling/CRC_TollingStudyCommitteeReport.pdf
21e6 Excerpt from Pages of Oregon Treasurer letters 25w2, states that Oregon will be the unilateral authority to set toll rates.
21e7 Oregon Treasurer, Ted Wheeler states that the majority of toll payers will be Washington drivers, excerpt from 25w2
WHEREAS #23
23w1 ODOT website - The I-5 Bridge “in top operating condition”, “has kept spans healthy and free of weight restrictions”, “can serve the public for another 60 years”
WHEREAS #24
24w1 CRC Project oversite document shows CRC defined as a bi-state project with both Oregon and Washington
- http://www.columbiarivercrossing.org/ProjectInformation/WhoIsCRC/RegulatoryOversight.aspx
24w2 2011 FTA application - Says “The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) proposes to construct the Columbia River Crossing” (not Oregon-led).
24w3 2012 FTA financial application “The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) proposes to construct the Columbia River Crossing” (not Oregon-led). Changes were not approved by the project sponsors (RTC and C-Tran)
24w4 2013 FTA application - Shows Oregon-only Light Rail only plan was substituted for the original LPA with completely different financing and scope. Non-Light Rail costs were changed from grant sources to debt-only paid by tolls-only. Changes were not approved by the project sponsors (RTC and C-Tran), 2011 FTA financial application
- http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/CRC/RevisedFinancePlan_9-12-13.pdf
WHEREAS #25
25e1 Letters from Oregon Treasurer, Ted Wheeler - Page 5 Excerpt from 25w2 - Documenting the fact that an Oregon-Only plan has replaced the original bi-state plan defined in the Locally Preferred Alternative
25w2 Letters from Oregon treasurer, Ted Wheeler, whole document referenced in 25e1
- http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/CRC/OregonStateTreasurer_letteroffindings_9-26-13.pdf
25e3 Letter from Laura Lockwood, Director or Oregon Debt Management Division - Page 7 Excerpt of 25w2 - States that the original bi-state LPA was changed to an Oregon-Only plan in August 2013
25w4 Sept 11 letter from Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler - Calls the CRC project “a completely different project from the plan originally submitted by the CRC”
- http://herrerabeutler.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=349217
WHEREAS #26
26e1 Record of Decision - Page 10 Excerpt of 19w3 - Specifies tolls subject to both Washington and Oregon. But 24w4 changed to Oregon having unilateral control of toll rates.
26w2 Compare 24w1 to 24w4 CRC 2013 Finance plan
WHEREAS #27
27w1 Coast Guard Letter from Vice Commandant Sally Brice-O’Hara, December 7, 2011 - Pages 3-5 - Requires CRC to ensure to maintain sufficient bridge clearance for existing and future commerce. Requires examples such as Schooner Creek Boat Works to not be harmed
27w2 Letter from Steve Rander, Schooner Creek Boat Works - States that the CRC has not done so. By phone call, Rander stated that the CRC has not even tried.
27w3 Letter from JT Marine - Stating that their business will be negatively impacted by the bridge height and no mitigation has been provided. Requirements of Coast Guard letter have not been fulfilled.
WHEREAS #28
28w1 See 12w2 to see that revenue for Light Rail O&M has not been provided or sufficiently identified.
Sales tax on general transportation projects may not be a reliable revenue source for Light Rail O&M, 4:15 marker of the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9YGfRwygtU&feature=share
WHEREAS #29
29w1 C-Tran Board Resolution BR-13-014 to sign agreement with TriMet without satisfying C-Tran’s requirement of BR-08-019 and C-Tran 2030 plan which require a vote of the people for any means of funding Light Rail, grossly violates of C-Tran policy PBD-015 and those same requirements written into the LPA. See 31w2 for contract.
WHEREAS #30
30e1 C-Tran bylaw section 4.8.2 - Page 5 Excerpt - Such actions “shall be by Resolution or Ordinance”
Board Members did not see the TriMet contract before it was signed. Contract violates fundamental C-Tran policies that were adopted by resolution including BR-08-019 which requires a vote of the people, C-Tran’s 2030 plan which requires a vote of the people, cites nonexistent funding partnerships, in violation of C-Tran policy PBD-015
30w2 C-Tran bylaws – whole document referenced in 30e1
- http://www.c-tran.com/assets/Board/Resource_Documents/C-TRAN--Bylaws_FINAL_2012.pdf
WHEREAS #31
31e1 C-Tran / TriMet contract excerpt shows $5 million liquidated damages clause not approved by the C-Tran Board
31w2 C-Tran / TriMet 40-page contract signed Sept. 27, 2013


Additional references may be added as they become available.



 


Board of Clark County Commissioners
Administrator: Mark McCauley
Street Address: 1300 Franklin, 6th Floor, Vancouver, WA 98666-5000
Main phone: (360) 397-2232 | FAX: (360) 397-6058
Email: boardcom@clark.wa.gov
Responsible Elected Official: Board of Clark County Commissioners

Clark County Home | Find It! | A-Z Index | News Releases | Jobs | Contact Us

For questions or comments regarding the Clark County Web site: Webmaster@clark.wa.gov

© 2008 Clark County Washington | Disclaimer and legal notice | Health Information Privacy Notice