1. Oversight Team Meeting December 11, 2014

2. INTRODUCTIONS (15 MINUTES) Name and affiliation Purpose of meeting/ review agenda Edits to September’s Oversight Team meeting summary 2

3. Agenda  Introduction (15 min)  Statements from the public (10 min)  Funding workshop review (50 min)  Break for lunch (15 min)  Funding strategy discussion (60 min)  Technical work update (15 min)  Statements from the public (10 min)  Next steps (5 min) 3

4. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC (10 MINUTES) Name and affiliation Sign in so we know the number of speakers Each person has 2 minutes (please be respectful of the time limit) There is also time to speak at the end of the meeting 4

5. FUNDING WORKSHOP DISCUSSION (50 MINUTES) 5 Comments collected at the funding workshop and through mail/website/email

6. Workshop attendees  Afternoon workshop Attended by interested stakeholders, elected officials, and public agencies  62 people signed-in  22 funding scenarios completed  21 comment forms collected  Evening workshop Attended by residents and interested community members  50 people signed-in  12 funding scenarios completed  18 comment forms collected 6

7. Use of funding sources 7 Workshop Total scenarios Property taxGas tax Vehicle registration Surcharge Toll charge Afternoon 2211171912 Evening 12611129 TOTAL 3417283121

8. 8 What we heard at the workshops  The funding tool was helpful in understanding the needs of the project.  Property taxes have an indirect connection to users of the new facilities and may not be the best tool to pay for the majority of the project. (Marine Drive – OK)  Vehicle registration fee and a gas tax are broadly accepted tools to pay for transportation investments.  Gas tax feels more invisible than other taxes, but may not be a good long term revenue source as efficiency increases and VMT levels out.  How much should residents of West Salem pay ? (Should they take on a larger portion of the cost? Will they be unfairly burdened?)

9. 9 What we heard at the workshops  Interest in expanding taxing district beyond Marion and Polk County (e.g., Yamhill County).  Openness to tolling, but concerns over political viability, traffic impacts due to diversion, revenue accuracy/stability, collection costs and fairness to West Salem.  Increasing awareness that no single source of revenue will by itself fund the project.  Evening workshop attendance included a majority who did not support moving forward with this project, or believed the cost was not affordable.

10. BREAK (15 MINUTES) Lunch is provided for Oversight Team members 10

11. FUNDING STRATEGY DISCUSSION (60 MINUTES) 11 Construction phasing options Revenue options Funding strategies

12. Funding Strategy/Financial Plan  Funding Strategy:  Outline a phasing priority  Determine viable revenue sources  Establish potential range of revenue for each source  Financial Plan  Required prior to construction authorization 12

13. DISCUSSION 13

14. TECHNICAL WORK UPDATE (15 MINUTES) 14

15. Technical work  Design refinements for bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities  Design Refinements for bridge  Final EIS analysis of Preferred Alternative 15

16. QUESTIONS/DISCUSSION 16

17. STATEMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC (10 MINUTES) Name and affiliation Each person has 2 minutes (please be respectful of the time limit) 17

18. NEXT STEPS (5 MINUTES) 18

19. Next steps  Financial Strategy Memorandum 19

20. Publish Draft EIS Preferred Alternative Endorsement of Preferred Alternative Land Use Approval Process TSP, TIP, and RTSP Amendments Final EIS Financial Plan February 2014 NEPA Local Approvals Funding ROD Design & Construction May 2016 Right of entry and field work June 2012 EIS process schedule Publish Final EIS 08/22/14 EIS = Environmental Impact Statement FHWA = Federal Highway Administration NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act ROD = Record of Decision TIP = Transportation Improvement Program TSP = Transportation System Plan (for Cities and Counties) RTSP = Regional Transportation Systems Plan

21. THANK YOU! 21