Current Meetings and Minutes

Meeting ended at 8:05 pm. 

Gorham East-West Corridor Feasibility Study

Steering Committee Meeting

October 28, 2010 1-3 pm

Maine Turnpike Authority Headquarters, Portland, Maine

Attendees: Tom Hall, Scarborough; Tex Haeuser, South Portland; Dan Bacon, Scarborough; Eric Dudley, Westbrook; Burleigh Loveitt, Gorham; David Cole, Gorham; Carl Eppich, PACTS; John Duncan, PACTS; Gerry Audibert, MaineDOT; Conrad Welzel, MTA; Sara Devlin, MTA; Paul Godfrey, HNTB; Carol Morris, Morris Communications; Ben Ettelman, Morris Communications.

Meeting began at 1:02 pm

Carol Morris: Thank you all for coming to this Steering Committee Meeting for the Gorham East-West Corridor Study. I wanted to touch base regarding the next Steering Committee meeting. Our regularly scheduled time falls on Thanksgiving, so that day will not work. We will be working on the draft report that will be out in the beginning of January, and we were thinking of having a meeting on December 16^th so you folks would have time to review that report. There is a conflict that afternoon with a PACTS policy meeting so our meeting will be in the morning 9-11 AM, if that works for everyone. I will send out an email to confirm.

(Agreement)

Since we last met we had a municipal meeting in Scarborough that was quite well attended, with the exception of Westbrook.

Eric Dudley: I found out the day after that meeting that there was a comp plan meeting that night so most of our elected officials were there and could not make the municipal meeting.

Carol Morris: We should decide if we should go back and speak with Westbrook 1 on 1.

We also had our first public meeting on Tuesday the 26^th and we had about 35 people from a broad range of interests. The only challenging part was the train-oriented folks were very intense and we need to work with them to help them understand that this is a transit-oriented development plan and it will help their cause. Overall, it was a positive meeting, we have had great media coverage; we got a good editorial and article in the Portland Press Herald. Several of the smaller papers came to that meeting so we will continue to get good coverage.

Conrad Welzel: There were people who were there just out of curiosity and I told them that if they put their email down we would provide them with information.

Carol Morris: That’s great. Next topic, I sent you folks the MOU that Evan has prepared and we will go through it to get your feedback and find what might need to be changed when we bring it to your municipalities. Paul Godfrey is going to lead that discussion.

Paul Godfrey: Before we dive in, the draft report will document the study findings. It will also make recommendations moving forward. It will provide some framework for how we get to the three-legged stool approach. We understand that the devil is in the details and there will not be enough in the MOU to get municipalities to sign on. We also believe we will need some time to work with the public to get them educated. One of the elements is the 6-8 month time frame from the end of Phase 1 to the beginning of Phase 2. We want to give the municipalities time to negotiate this and that way everyone will be on good terms and ready to move forward. The communities should be signing an MOA and have confidence in what they are committing to moving forward. The 6-8 month period will be to work those details out.

Tom Hall: I’m not sure that this is articulated well enough in this document (MOA).

Carol Morris: The six months will be to work with municipalities on this document. We would like to have the municipalities endorse this and negotiate how to move forward.

Gerry Audibert: I’m wondering if there is confusion as to when this gets signed.

Paul Godfrey: The intent would be that it would be signed at the end of the 6-8 month period.

David Cole: Who are you anticipating for communities that will sign?

Paul Godfrey: We need to talk about that.

Conrad Welzel: If the communities jump on board really quickly is there a way to speed up that 6-8 month period?

Tom Hall: I’m not entirely sure why you need 6-8 months between the report and the beginning of Phase 2.

Paul Godfrey: Let’s talk through it; history has always determined that when you get into details they tend to take a while. There will be more details added to this MOA. One, so that municipalities understand what is being asked of them and two so the transportation agencies understand that everyone is ok with where we are at. The intent is that we work through this together.

Carol Morris: Part of what we heard at the municipal meeting was that there is not complete confidence that this will go over well across the board with the public. They were looking for time to work through this and educate the public that this is a good thing.

Tom Hall: If the signatories are those around this table we should continue momentum.

David Cole: If you are expecting the four towns to be involved, my guess is you don’t need 6-8 months.

Paul Godfrey: The purpose of the MOU is to turn the conclusion of this feasibility study (Phase 1) into the action plan (Phase 2). The purpose is to make sure that everyone is on board. Phase 2 is not wholly intended to be an implementation phase, it revolves around the action plan. If you are going to be making roadway improvements, there is going to need to be a Phase 2 Study. All of the legs of the stool are going to take multiple steps and multiple phases.

Tom Hall: A couple of points that I think should be incorporated into this document: 1: The connection between transportation and land use. 2: The law requires us to look at this connection. 3: Transportation Agencies have limited resources. It makes sense to have these points for uninitiated people so they understand where this is coming from.

David Cole: There should also be mention of a connection between transportation systems and their effect on economic development.

Carl Eppich: To target and preserve transportation investments is one that I think will resonate.

John Duncan: I would also add the tremendous growth that this area will see.

Tom Hall: Part of this is to endorse the Phase 1 report; I don’t see that as being mentioned.

Paul Godfrey: We did not intend to tie the endorsement to the MOU. The way we discussed it was you will review the draft report and we would be looking to help you carry this to your municipal leaders looking for an endorsement of the Phase 1 report.

Tom Hall: We should combine those two.

Carol Morris: They may be far apart, the report may be endorsed in February and the MOA won’t be ready to sign for several months afterward.

Tom Hall: I would like to think we could do it together; that would be better.

Burleigh Loveitt: I agree with that. In terms of invited parties it may draw criticism from those who were not involved. I thought we might want to consider having the core communities endorse this, once that is endorsed, invite other communities to also become signatories. If they want to get on board great, if not they will find that the train is leaving the station.

Paul Godfrey: We talked about this. Do we stick with this as just the four core communities? The ultimate goal is regionality, we want this to be a broad base. We sense that bringing other communities might be a concern. On the second page, the four communities continue to lead; the action plan is centered around these four communities. We think it is valid to include the other communities but we want to acknowledge the hard work being done. You influence other communities in the region and they influence you, we want to get to a regional perspective.

Burleigh Loveitt: My point is that you are going to get the core to sign this, so let’s move along and not get burdened by people who have been outside of the process all along.

Carol Morris: Ok, and am I hearing that not having two actions in front of your councils is a good idea?

Tex Haeuser: Correct, it would be strange to bring the report and not talk about the MOU.

Tom Hall: The downside is that there is still some flushing out with this document (MOU). I don’t think it will take 8 months, maybe 2.

Paul Godfrey: We are moving forward and we anticipate the core communities to sign on, the logic is to involve the other five towns that are in the region. We have a sense that they will want to be involved. 

Carol Morris: We’ve said here that only two others have to sign on.

David Cole: The folks that are in this study need to sign this, if the other five municipalities want to voluntarily join in that’s fine, but I don’t think the next phase should be held hostage by communities that don’t want to sign on. They can join or sit on the sidelines.

Burleigh Loveitt: Portland is the one that has to sign.. If the outlying communities decide not to sign I’d be surprised at two of the three, and they will come along eventually.

Carol Morris: Maybe we should compromise where we say only one of the additional towns has to sign on.

David Cole: Why put that in there anyway?

Tex Haeuser: What is the motivation for Buxton or Hollis to participate in the land use if they can opt out and take advantage of transportation improvements? The concept was to get the broader region to participate. We need the outlying communities to participate to have that transfer of development rights program work.

Tom Hall: Is there political or practical motivation?

Carol Morris: I think it is more practical; to make it work it has to be more than the four core towns signing on.

Tom Hall: Why at this step?

Paul Godfrey: Phase 2 is about advancing to the next level in areas such as the roadway strategies and transit and they affect other communities, and without question from a land use perspective if we want it to work, Phase 2 is the time to get them to the table and involved in the process. They may decide not to come. From our perspective the sooner we can get the region involved the more successful this is going to be. Without disrespect to the core communities, the success of this lies in getting to a broader region sooner.

Carol Morris: Part of Phase 2 would be how to clarify the road improvements, which is the big carrot.

Dan Bacon: At this point do we need to establish the number of communities that have to sign up to move forward?  It would be nice to include as many for land use, but I fully understand the fear of being downed by one community. For that reason can we be open ended in terms of that threshold in order for the MOU to take effect? I know this group can get this signed, but in some ways it would be nice to keep the document open ended.

Carol Morris: That’s a good point; but the other is that you guys have been very involved and that is a major reason you are ready to go.

David Cole: I envision that the other communities can sign on anytime they want to. As far as I’m concerned we can start Phase 2 and then the others can join when they are ready. We cannot have the hard work that we have done wasted.

Paul Godfrey: Could we go at this with the mindset of wanting to get as many communities involved by giving them the sense that we think this is a good thing rather than pressuring communities? I’m not sure what is the best motivation for them. Could we actively pursue this and if they get hung up on details, then we negotiate? I’d like to make this easier for everyone to join because there are major benefits if everyone is on board.

Tom Hall: We do not want to empower a holdout. We’d all agree we would love all of them to be a part, but they should not be able to stop it.

Carol Morris: So the concern has nothing to do with the fact that you don’t want them to be part of the process, the concern is that you don’t want them to be able to stop the process.

(There was general agreement from the group)

Tex Haeuser: The difficult thing is that the carrot could be the hijacker. You pull them in by saying there are road improvements if you sign, and then they get the road improvements even if they don’t sign.

Carol Morris: The outlying communities will not see this as being a carrot for them anyway in my opinion, even though it will help them.

Tex Haeuser: So neither Scenario 1 nor 2 has effects as far out as Buxton or Hollis?

Dan Bacon: Standish gets a bypass, right?

Paul Godfrey: Yes they do. Portland gets something from the transit as well. From a Phase 2 perspective, does it preclude getting these communities’ projects prioritized if they sign on?

Gerry Audibert: If they are signed on they would qualify for our competitive grants and get points towards projects.

John Duncan: By participating and agreeing to implement parts of the MOU?

Gerry Audibert: Yes the MOU is the framework for the implementation that the communities will follow through with.

Dan Bacon: Have we set a date as an actual deadline? If we said this takes effect in 8 months, for the 4 core communities it will take 2 months to sign and therefore we are not depending on other communities.

Gerry Audibert: If we don’t get enough communities participating we don’t move forward.

Tom Hall: But what is enough?

Gerry Audibert: From the MaineDOT perspective the land use piece is huge and in order for transit to work we need to get the land use piece in place sooner rather than later.

Tom Hall: The modeling was based on the four communities right?

Paul Godfrey: We assumed land use throughout the whole region.

Tom Hall: I’d like to think if we sign, it creates enough critical mass for it to make sense.

Gerry Audibert: The other aspect of the 6-8 month period was to help educate the other communities and help bring them on board.

Burleigh Loveitt It seems to me that this plan works if you include Portland. That is the core of the population density. You have Standish that has a landmark land use plan and that fits this document, they don’t have to do anything. Buxton and Hollis have a whole different municipal makeup. It’s not reasonable to expect them to go to more density when they have 2-3 acre zoning. What is in this for them is that currently their commuters don’t have any problems until they get to our communities. My suggestion would be to not put a hold on this, the core communities will sign this and Portland and Standish should be invited and will sign, but Buxton and Hollis just can’t do this right now.

David Cole: If we have the four core communities sign it, we then get four months after the fourth community signs, and then the train leaves the station. I would make Portland part of that core. To incentivize this, the people who sign on to this could get priority for their road projects.

Tom Hall: To my earlier point about spending more time on history. We need to talk about why the four communities came together. Part of that would be to give the history and then open it up for more regional involvement.

Tex Haeuser: Can we go further and give a break to participating communities on the local share?

Carol Morris: That’s part of it, that’s in the law now.

Carl Eppich: In the incentives, put in simple language about all of the benefits. Details where people will understand there are incentives for everyone.

Carol Morris: We were asked at the last Advisory Committee when we will talk to the outside communities

Tom Hall: They are going to ask how they can be involved.

Conrad Welzel: If the surrounding communities have some things that they want to have, making sure that the communities have the opportunity to add something that they want, they need a window to look at that.

David Cole: In my scheme of things, we have a four-month window, and then we are flat out saying Phase 2 starts in four months. We need to be careful about opening it up.

Carol Morris: Once they sign, they get to be part of the core group.

Conrad Welzel: We don’t want to put ourselves in a box that we can’t get out of.

Paul Godfrey: If at the end of the day it is just the four, we need to think about what if one of the four says they don’t want to play anymore, is that enough to cancel the whole project?

David Cole: I agree, we understand that we need a certain amount of mass. We need the four core communities and we probably need Portland. If Scarborough decided to opt out, we need to decide if it makes sense to continue.

Tom Hall: Seeing as the roadway options are in Scarborough, it means more if Scarborough drops out.

Tex Haeuser: At this point I’m leaning towards not having to have other communities sign on if we can’t have something solid and definite. There ought to be some initial period where the communities are all invited and have the opportunity to suggest amendments before the four sign.

Carol Morris: Everyone should get a chance to sign it first.

Tex Haeuser: At some point the document is what it is and then we go to our councils.

Tom Hall: Are you suggesting that we get input and comment from others and we don’t ask them to sign it?

Tex Haeuser: We ask them to sign it and ask them to work on it with us.

Gerry Audibert: We have to accept public comments.

Paul Godfrey: If you are suggesting that someone could come in and change the recommendations, I do not see that as a possibility.

Burleigh Loveitt: Ok, hold that thought then.

David Cole: I agree with Tex, but the administrator side of me thinks that that is not productive. Every different party we have involved will complicate this. In an ideal world I’d say Tex is right, but it will be a lot more productive if we come up with the agreement. I don’t think, unless we want to spend a lot of time, that that is the way to go.

Paul Godfrey: That’s an important perspective. From a process perspective, I don’t doubt that someone will come up with something great. We need to find some way to allow that group to look at this.

David Cole: The thing that is going to be a problem is when we have to make concessions to other municipalities to get them to sign.

Carol Morris: That process will inform us in terms of how far we will get ahead with this.

Paul Godfrey: We are getting a very strong sense of what your sentiments are. We are continuing to work on the development of this document. We know that Portland is a key player. If we don’t get Portland what does that mean? I would think that we should get Portland on board as part of this.

David Cole: If I were sitting in your seat, I would get us to sign and then talk with Joe Gray and Alex Jaegerman and have it all worked out, because we need Portland.

Tex Haeuser: I want to underscore some real and very direct incentives from MaineDOT in the MOU.

Paul Godfrey: That is part of the negotiation.

David Cole: My own view is that this should be very plain that if towns don’t sign on, we say there is limited transportation dollars and those that sign on will get priority.

Gerry Audibert: We can only go as far as STPA lets us.

Paul Godfrey: If you get down to are you paving a section in Buxton or are you paving a section in Gorham as you are evaluating those projects, you are going to get the bonus points.

David Cole: Let me ask Gerry this, couldn’t MaineDOT say on their own, they will prioritize the projects within the study area?

Gerry Audibert: That’s part of the capital program so I think we could. We just assign so many miles of roads, then we have PACTS and then we look at need. One thing we could look at is shoulders, if there is going to be sidewalk and a municipality wants granite, we could reduce the local match. There are some benefits that we can offer, it needs to be ironed out and put in writing. What may be missing is what those carrots are. So point well taken.

Paul Godfrey: The question will be, should we negotiate those now or in that 6-8 month period. Our intent was to make this framework piece germane with the intent of doing what we are doing right now. We want to have negotiations to find out how much incentive it will take to have the towns sign on. We don’t have the answer for that yet.

Gerry Audibert: I think we do. We can offer what STPA offers. Bonus points and to reduce local match.

Paul Godfrey: What does it mean by bonus points? Is it going from a 20% match down to a 5% match? That’s the meat. I don’t think we can get to that level of detail in this document.

David Cole: I think that when we put it down in writing, I’m not sure that will be blunt enough for many folks. If there’s language about bonus points it is not clear to laypeople and it will make people think that they are getting points to do projects that there is no money for anyway.

Tom Hall: I’ve been waiting 12 months to have this conversation, but it is getting in the way of what we are trying to do. The details are not important to the four core, they’re important to the outside communities who do the quick analysis to find what’s in it for them.  As Paul suggests, we need to throw out the notion of bonuses without assigning percentages.

Carol Morris: But we need to establish what is within the realm of possibility because we need to come to the table with our best cards.

Tex Haeuser: We need something about the benefits.

Paul Godfrey: We do need to talk about those types of things so folks understand what we are talking about.

Gerry Audibert: We talked about basic, intermediate and advanced local efforts and that could translate into more points. MaineDOT, MTA and PACTS need to talk about incentives because there may be other things we could do, it might not just be MaineDOT.

Tex Haeuser: Let’s not shoot ourselves in the foot. If the incentives aren’t real it won’t do much.

Paul Godfrey: The reality from my perspective is funding will be there, but it will be limited and this is meant to be a competitive process so communities that are willing to play will ultimately have a greater reward. We may ask the core communities to do more, but if they do advanced land use, there will be more bonus points because they are doing more.

Carol Morris: That is what we set up in Gateway 1.

Tex Haeuser: Presently it’s not linked to a reward.

Paul Godfrey: Yes and that is very much what we are getting out of this conversation today.

Tom Hall: I always assumed that what’s contemplated is that the bonuses would be considered something beyond what is in here.

Gerry Audibert: If we were to build a bypass and we were also looking at a Wiscasset bypass, this region is doing land use so they would get priority.

Carol Morris: So it positions you to get a bigger piece of the pie, whatever that pie ends up being.

Paul Godfrey: Part of Phase 2 is doing the next level of effort, and narrowing focus in.

Gerry Audibert: I am hearing we need more detail, but not so much that we put a chokehold on everybody.

Paul Godfrey: The intent of the interim period after the report is done and before the MOU is signed is for more negotiations and discussions. Are there more specific things that this group wants and can we identify them?

Tom Hall: For me the bonuses are an interesting conversation to have but that will evolve over time. If we are able to identify a series of approaches that are good for the region that is good enough for me in recognition of the state we are in. The other stuff is important and I want to know more about that, but I’m a believer based on what I’ve heard in Phase 1, I want to know more in Phase 2.

David Cole: I’d like to think that would be enough, but I think moving to the front of the line is what is going to make this work. A lot of the land use benefits are esoteric. People will have a hard time understanding why that is important. I get it but I don’t know if that will resonate with the typical Buxton voter. If I was going to talk to Buxton and say do you want money or not, by the way here are the benefits, but the money is the bottom line.

Tex Haeuser: Alex is fairly optimistic of Portland wanting to accept growth but politically it will not be a slam-dunk and it will help to have something to bring to the table.

Dan Bacon: I wonder if the December meetings with the rural communities can help to draw some of those ideas from them.

Carol Morris: I would like to get them all together.

Dan Bacon: If you get them all together and you present a plan to them, you will get a sense of where they stand on this.

Paul Godfrey: I agree with you, how many more above and beyond the four core towns is the question. Before the final report is done we will know where we stand.

David Cole: You need to get that from their elected officials, not just the planning board.

Dan Bacon: Is the hope to meet with municipal leaders?

Carol Morris: I had hoped to get them all together, but it may be better to do those meetings separately.

Tom Hall: Are you going to do the same presentation as in Scarborough?

Burleigh Loveitt: If you do a Standish meeting you will have Steep Falls, Baldwin etc. You will get a good turnout.

Dan Bacon: You should tailor presentations to the benefits of that community.

Paul Godfrey: You’re correct.

Paul Godfrey: After today please give us any additional comments. We are on Section 4.

John Duncan: We talked about tweaking this document, so this will get finalized and then the 4 core towns will sign it and they will have opportunities to tweak it?

Carol Morris: We talked about starting next year, working with core towns to make sure that this document is something that you are willing to sign. So yes.

John Duncan: So you are optimistic that this will get signed?

Carol Morris: That’s what we need your folks help with.

Tex Haeuser: You have to anticipate the possibility of change.

Paul Godfrey: We would have a series of council workshops, where we would look at the collective changes and get a revised version.

Carol Morris: In the interim period we had thought of having two council workshops where there would be multiple councils.

Tex Haeuser: You are saying you want to submit it to the councils as close to complete as possible?

Paul Godfrey:  Yes, we want to bake it as much as possible, but present it with the understanding that there is some room for negotiation.

Conrad Welzel: Very similar to what we did with the original resolve.

Carol Morris: That’s where the timeline comes into effect, we have guessed 6-8 months, maybe it won’t take as long but it is a process.

Tex Haeuser: I don’t think combined workshops will work.

Tom Hall: I would like to think that we could put our finishing touches on this and get this signed by working with our councils.

Conrad Welzel: I would hope as we start getting closer to a document, we can start sharing it with councilors.

David Cole: It will be counterproductive to have joint council meetings. There may be a case where we call in Carol or Paul.

Paul Godfrey: That is exactly what we have been thinking about when we talked about the 6-8 month period. It may be a slam-dunk in some places, it may be tougher in others and we will be here to help the process along when needed.

 
Tom Hall: I would suggest doing this before we get immersed in budget.

Eric Dudley: Westbrook starts that next month.

Conrad Welzel: I have mentioned that we need to make sure that we work with the municipalities during the period they are working on the budgets.

John Duncan: Why are FTA and FHWA on here?

Paul Godfrey: They are funding partners.

John Duncan: But we are not expecting bodies at meetings?

Paul Godfrey: We think there is value in involving them, we don’t expect them to come up for every meeting but they will be invited.

Gerry Audibert: FHWA will be more involved.

Paul Godfrey: FHWA played a huge role in Gateway.

Sara Devlin: Would it be Carlos Pena from FHWA?

Gerry Audibert: I believe it would be, yes.

Sara Devlin: If that’s the case he is very engaged in these types of projects.

Gerry Audibert: Yes, especially on the road, and pre-NEPA stuff, they will be more interested.

David Cole: Yes but saying they need to sign on is concerning.

Gerry Audibert: As Carol and Paul stated, we need to keep them informed.

Paul Godfrey: They are invited parties; they have not been identified as signatories.

Tom Hall: I don’t understand what that title means.

Paul Godfrey: The key element is that you’re the signatories.

Tom Hall: The Phase 2 Steering Committee, is there an Advisory Committee as well?

Paul Godfrey: No.

Tom Hall: I think we should change the name to Study Committee. I am also concerned about the voting.

Gerry Audibert: Actually my point was that we probably would not vote.

Tom Hall: Ok, then we should take out the reference to it.

Carol Morris: I think we should, as it is confusing.

Gerry Audibert: It would be similar to the process we’ve had and that’s coming to an understanding. Straw votes are fine to get a sense for feeling.

Paul Godfrey: At the end of the Phase 2 is a Phase 3. There will be another MOA, and that is where who is signing on becomes important.

Tom Hall: I do not see Phase 3 mentioned at all, it would be nice to see a beginning, middle and end.

Carl Eppich: The whole last sentence gets struck with a sentence about one participating member.

Paul Godfrey: Yes. Section five: terms of reference.

Tom Hall: I’m not sure what that means.

Carol Morris: Evan is defining what various terms in the MOU mean.

Tom Hall: Then on the next page you go onto those bullets, are those the action plan elements of Phase 2?

Paul Godfrey: Yes, they are. Is it Phase 2 actions?

Carol Morris: Yes, it is.

Paul Godfrey: There would be a public process around Phase 2, there would have to be. We want there to be an understanding and an expectation that there will be a balance and we will not get too far ahead in roadway improvements unless we see the progress being made on all fronts. It is a parallel approach on all parts.

Tom Hall: The second bullet seems to suggest that the last part of those are localized improvements. Previously in that same bullet it talks about Scenario 1 or 2.

Paul Godfrey: Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 encompass a lot. They both have the Westbrook improvements. They both include localized improvements that could happen tomorrow. They don’t need to be hung up on whether it is a new highway or a localized bypass. There is logically some work that could be done outside of that.

Tom Hall: But it says that a decision is being made.

Paul Godfrey: Yes

Tom Hall: There may need to be some further process to allow buy-in by the host community.

Paul Godfrey: That would be the public process. The community will weigh in on what they like and that is part of the NEPA process.

Carl Eppich: I wonder if there should be some language about a possible third scenario.

 Gorham East-West Corridor Study

Municipal Leader Meeting

October 21, 2010 5:00-6:30

Scarborough Municipal Building, Scarborough

Attendees: Jay Chase, Scarborough; Dan Bacon, Scarborough; Judy Roy, Scarborough; John Duncan, PACTS; Michael Wood, Scarborough; Matt Mattingly, Gorham; Burleigh Loveitt, Gorham; Michael Phinney, Gorham; David Cole, Gorham; Joshua Meyer, South Portland; Tex Haeuser, South Portland; Jessica Holbrook, Scarborough; Sylvia Most, Scarborough; Carol Rancourt, Scarborough; Caroline Hendry, South Portland; Tom Hall, Scarborough; Conrad Welzel, MTA; Sara Devlin, MTA; Gerry Audibert, MaineDOT; Paul Gordfrey, HNTB; Ray Faucher, HNTB, Carol Morris, Morris Communications; Ben Ettelman, Morris Communications.

Paul Godfrey presented an overview of the Gorham East-West Corridor Study.

Question: How did you assume the distribution of housing units and the growth projections?

Paul: First we looked at the trends and history and evaluated how much communities had grown. We also balanced that with speaking to the communities and understanding what those communities can handle. So we relied on historic data as well as on Charlie Colgan who does population employment and job forecasts throughout the state. You are correct to be concerned because we understand that Scarborough is the fastest growing town in the state and it’s hard to contemplate 6,500 new units. We understand that part of this is about understanding if this growth is acceptable; if the growth should be in particular areas and how do we better plan around it. Growth is coming to this region, and my perspective is that this is a very desirable community, so if it’s coming how do we plan for it?

Question: What does your economist say about the growth in South Portland, because we are pretty built out.

Paul Godfrey: Yes South Portland is very built out, and if I showed you the growth numbers it would be less than the growth in Scarborough and Gorham. That doesn’t mean that there is not good planning happening in South Portland about ways to increase growth. We have heard that South Portland would like growth as long as it works.

Gerry Audibert: Part of the land use scenario involved modifying past trends to get rural residential growth directed back to urban areas.

Paul Godfrey: We looked at the urban centers and talked with their planners and Portland would love not to lose people every year. We found out that Portland has the opportunity for 400 new house lots. We know that Bayside in Portland is developing; it’s the same in parts of South Portland.

Question: I’m not sure that history is always predictive of the future. Did you tap into the gerontologists about the huge growth rate for the elderly demographic? A lot of what you talk about will cater to this population because many of them are looking to downsize and move to the urban environment.

Paul: Thank you, and yes, the age group growth with the largest population growth was the 60 to 67 age group when we looked out to the future. For example, my parents don’t like to drive, this gives that age group options, and that is a huge benefit to what we have been talking about. It provides opportunities for people who don’t have that opportunity today, and it also takes traffic off of the road.

Comment: The 85 + group is the fastest growing age group; it lends itself to the businesses within the urban areas.

Paul: Yes, historically it has been.

Comment: Before my husband and I moved to South Portland we lived in South Freeport. Before we moved there was a movement to expand the village there. They had the idea to try and create another village further west and it didn’t work because the public was up in arms about this whole idea, so how do you sell this to them?

Paul: That’s a great question and that is the key point.  A lot of times we have heard people say that they want their house on two acres and that is that. I will say though, that that mindset is changing. If you want a house on two acres, how far do you have to drive to get there? People may want to have that scenario but they are spending 45 minutes to an hour in the car, more on gas. So we think good education will help, and we hear that having affordable housing in urban communities is very desirable. You are right though; it is about mindset because the message that we need to get across is that this is becoming a quality of life issue.

Carol Morris: As Paul mentioned, one question is, is this marketable? We have been talking to developers, we have a presentation to MEREDA in a month and they are all pretty positive that these types of development are something that people are interested in buying. We understand that it will take some time, but there is clearly interest in this type of development.

Paul: I don’t want to bring up the great American Neighborhood down the street, but that is in some ways what we are thinking. How do we change the mindset? What can the transportation agencies offer to support municipalities’ economic engine? What is this kind of move going to take? We are talking about incentives that will move this forward and we are talking about negotiating. This area needs roadway improvements and transportation infrastructure.

Comment; I don’t think it’s the municipalities that need to be sold; I think it’s the homeowners.

Paul: That is important, we start with the planners and town managers and then the municipal leaders but ultimately at the end of the day if there is a public meeting in Scarborough and this is not popular, the leaders of that community will listen to that. We understand that this is about education.

Comment: It’s not only about education; it’s about psychology of life. That’s part of the education and death is part of life and as we move down that road and the ability to commute diminishes because we live in a rural area, the need to move closer to an urban center gets greater. It takes someone hitting you in the head to make you realize that.

Paul Godfrey: There is a lot of support for having good transit, having quality rail and bus service and we want to make sure that we maximize that energy. If people are going to continue to fight for bus and train, let’s do something to make transit viable; what we’ve been talking about today does that for public transit.

Question: You talk a lot about what you are asking of the communities, a lot of the communities are already doing the things you have mentioned. The other concern is when do we get the carrots? When do the improvements star? When do we get a turnpike spur? It sounds like you are asking us to start the community side of this soon.

Paul Godfrey: We will be very clear as to what we expect from the communities, and that will be part of the report in terms of what the next steps are and the timeframe of what that is. We want to make sure that everyone reads and is comfortable with the report because it is going to outline the expectations of this process moving forward. We think being very straightforward with the communities is the best way to make this successful and the MaineDOT and MTA are on board with moving this forward.

Comment: GPCOG is the prime agency that was successful in getting a $1.6 million HUD Sustainability Grant, so right now they are in a period of finalizing that grant and negotiating with HUD. That will take the application of what we said we were going to do and finalize it. That is very parallel to what we are talking about here and perhaps that was successful because the communities agreed to do the Gorham East-West study. Before you finish the memorandum, we should know what is happening with the HUD Grant.

Paul Godfrey: Yes, we recently had a conversation with the grant administrator, we view this as a wonderful opportunity, and the intent is to align the HUD Grant with what we are doing here. We understand that this study is trying to do a lot, but the ultimate intent here is that this doesn’t end with this study; the intent is that the mindset goes from this study to the next study to the comprehensive plan update to the zoning ordinance review. This is not about one study and one place at one time. This is about a changing mindset and we can be a big part of this region thinking about doing things differently.

Question: You spoke about the inclusion of rail, is this passenger or freight? How do you figure that in to this for communities?

Paul Godfrey: Both, one of the opportunities we see is that we already have an active rail line in the DownEaster.  That line can be a commuter rail lane. Using this line from Scarborough to Saco to OOB is an opportunity and we have been asking what we need to do to make that line more viable. What if we had 150 homes within a quarter mile of a train stop; that might boost ridership. And the Mountain Division rail line, MaineDOT is actively looking at the viability of using that line as a freight line. There is a lot of freight being moved from west of this region along the major corridors. We are thinking about rail and it is part of the equation.

Gerry Audibert: And today it’s not feasible and a lot of things would have to happen to make that truly a viable alternative. What was done with transit was to picture what an optimum transit system would look like. We found that even with optimal transit, we still need road improvements. How we make the transit feasible is one of the next steps. That will be one of several independent studies, one of which will be transit, land-use, etc. These will be going on in concert with the HUD Grant and there is a lot of coordination. What Paul is saying is that if we plan properly, we can achieve what I’m hearing all of you say, but it takes time and MaineDOT will need to see little steps from the communities along the way.

Comment: In South Portland we are starting our comp plan, and I look at this and think, “wow this is out there”, but really it’s not.

Gerry: A lot of what we are looking for in terms of land use is already happening in this region, so there is great opportunity to coordinate this better to make sure that one community isn’t working at the disadvantage of another community. We need to level the playing field.

Question: We need a second track to make passenger rail viable. How is MaineDOT looking at making that a reality?

Paul Godfrey: Separate from this study, MaineDOT, based on peoples’ desire to have quality transit, has been looking into this. The Downeaster line came because there was a lot of desire to make it happen. Now the same is being looked at for a line from Portland to Brunswick. What are we doing in the study to help identify this need? We are identifying what we need to do to make that a reality; we need enough people to use it to make it become a greater priority and a greater benefit. I know there are people who would like to snap their fingers and make all of this happen, but this process is hard and takes time. We understand how tough this can be in the public realm. This is not going to happen because we think it’s a good idea, it will happen because we will offer carrots and incentives.

Question: Do you envision the incentives being that specific, identifying an intersection or roadway project?

Paul: Yes.

Question: On the roadway improvements there were two scenarios tested, those strike me as vitally important, and without one of those I don’t see this working. I’m wondering how this incentivization works for communities that are party to this agreement, when that incentive doesn’t benefit them.

Carol Morris: The benefits and the effects are region wide.

Question: So what’s our incentive?

Paul Godfrey: That’s part of the negotiation, we think that when we talk about the roadway scenarios, we will look at what communities are directly affected. Making sure that those communities are aligned is important. If Scarborough is on board, but Gorham isn’t, that isn’t enough for MaineDOT and MTA to move forward. We are going to be working with communities to find out what they need to move this forward, but we need a regional on board approach.

Question: So this MOA could be as early as next year?

Carol Morris: Yes, in the fall.

Paul Godfrey: You will see a sample of that in the report.

Question: Assuming that the report is accepted and moves us into phase 2, and that there will be a lot more detail, will this first agreement be an acceptance of the first steps rather than specifics?

Paul Godfrey: Yes, that’s what we are talking about next fall, we expect there is going to be a period of time where we need to work through the details. This is not intended to be a one size fits all. It’s intended to be flexible enough where communities can customize it with the general understanding that this is where we are trying to get to.

Carol Morris: We will have the time period between when the report is final, which will probably be February, through September, to work with the municipalities to develop what the MOA will look like. It will not be a “slap it on the table, take it or leave it” kind of thing, it will be a process of negotiation.

Paul Godfrey: Right, it should be, you know best how this will work. It’s a negotiation.

Question: But that incentive piece is talked about in concept, and really isn’t known until the next phase of the study.

Paul Godfrey: The roadway improvement scenarios are moving forward for further analysis. Those elements are included in the study recommendations.

Comment: And you are going to select one option over the other? Is there going to be a lead recommendation?

Paul Godfrey: We don’t know yet. Both scenarios may move forward at the same time.

Question: For the Scarborough Council that will be a pretty important consideration.

Gerry Audibert: The MOA presented with the report would essentially be an endorsement of the report, with the basic outline but not a lot of detail. We will outline in the report that with an initial municipal  agreement we will do some sort of new road or adding capacity study starting next fall. We don’t have funding until October to go into the next phase, but that gives us time to do the public education and to talk about what the next steps are. MaineDOT and MTA want to coordinate this with the municipalities.

Comment: I think that one of the things is that 6,500 new units in Scarborough means heavily stressing our existing infrastructure. The growth that we have absorbed has enabled us to slowly increase our infrastructure, the elephant in the room is that our comprehensive plan is nearly completed and supports our plan. The issue is that in a state where resources are spread over a large area, tripling our housing puts serious stress on schools, water and sewer, public safety, etc. When this is presented to the public it doesn’t take long for them to do that math.

Paul Godfrey: We are not worried about the specifics at this point, we are concerned with the mindset. It’s about what do we need to do to reduce your operating costs, because Scarborough is still growing. What do we need to do to get you folks to the top of the list when it comes to roadway improvements that support that growth, improvements that will make your community be a place where economic development wants to come. How do you make that work? That is what this is all about. It’s hard not to focus on the number, but we want to look at this from a mindset perspective. If Scarborough becomes this region’s growth center in the future there will be acknowledgement that the schools are going to need investment and that is part of the process.

Comment: I though it might be interesting to note that this study was conducted at the request of the signing communities. That request only happens through political pressure. We would not be here if there were not the political will to do business in Gorham. Nothing we see here conflicts with what we are talking about in our comprehensive plan. We don’t want to worry too much about political will and there is a tipping point and Gorham reached it about 30 years ago. So we appreciate this study and are very excited about the next phase.

Paul Godfrey: We believe that this region is many steps ahead and is ready for this.

Comment: The next step is the most important and critical, introducing the overall picture to the communities, not just the brush strokes. The danger is those that wake up after we have moved to the next step and those are usually the ones that make this a difficult process. The next step is the moment when the entire community will buy into the 20,000-foot view.

Paul Godfrey: Yes, and we understand that. If we have 80% support in a community, it’s great, but it’s the 20% that show up to the municipal and planning boards and voice their displeasure. Change is hard because a lot of people don’t like change.

Conrad Welzel: The other point is also that change is already happening. You folks are steps ahead of the pack, because the growth is coming and the change is happening.

Paul Godfrey: Yes exactly, thank you very much, we really appreciate your time and attention.

Meeting adjourned at 6:37 pm

 Gorham East-West Corridor Study

Steering Committee Meeting

September 30, 2010 1-3 pm

MTA Headquarters, Portland, Maine

Attendees: David Cole, Gorham; Tom Hall, Scarborough; Dan Bacon, Scarborough; Eric Dudley, Westbrook; Carl Eppich, PACTS; John Duncan, PACTS; Gerry Audibert, MaineDOT; Sara Devlin, MTA; Paul Godfrey, HNTB; Ray Faucher, HNTB; Carol Morris, Morris Communications; Ben Ettelman, Morris Communications.

Meeting began at 1:05 pm

Sara Devlin: Thank you all for coming. We are going to go over the roadway improvements and the highlights of the Advisory Committee meeting from last week. We will also go over the slideshow for the municipal meeting next month and talk a bit about the public participation plan for the fall. With that I will turn the floor to Carol Morris to talk about the Advisory Committee meeting.

Carol Morris: We had an Advisory Committee meeting last week and it was moderately well attended. We went through the road improvements results. The committee’s overall reaction was concern over sprawl due to the ease of driving farther west. When we tried to assure them that land use would be and integral part of it, there was skepticism. The skepticism was partly that transportation agencies would not be serious about implementing a land use piece, and it was partly that this was a big change and that it would be hard to implement. The reaction from Standish was concern that they would not be first up to the plate in terms of getting transportation allocations because they are not in the four core communities - that the four core communities would get preference for those funds because they are so far ahead of the game. So one of the things we agreed to do was to go out to the outlying towns to get them up to speed. That was the majority of what we heard, there was not much of a preference voiced for either scenario as both scenarios have fairly similar results based on what we know so far.

Paul Godfrey: There was some feedback regarding desire from some of the committee members to see the results if we just did roadway improvements and how that would look. Collectively, we would rather not do this and it is not from a standpoint of not wanting to share, the collective charge has been to evaluate a combination of transit, roadway improvements and land-use. We would love to hear what you think. Could we simply solve mobility, safety and congestion issues though roadway improvements alone, yes, to some extent, but that is not what we have been charged with doing. If not doing that will make this process more difficult to the municipalities, please let me understand that.

Tom Hall: It seems to me that it would be interesting to see if the stool can stand on two legs, the third being land use, which is more difficult to accomplish and would take much longer to achieve. Unless you create a carrot and stick approach and incentivize it.

Carol Morris: That is what we are thinking. We will touch on that soon.

David Cole: I think we’re going through this kind of a study in part because the government is insistent on that approach. I think that needs to be stated so that is clearly understood. If I were just Joe Citizen showing up I would not understand that.

Tom Hall: Is that true, the money is tied together?

Carol Morris: State law (STPA) requires us to look at transit and land use before looking into new capacity.

Tom Hall: Look at, but it’s not law to implement it.

Carol Morris: That has yet to be tested.

David Cole: To me the question is how do you implement this. There is a road that is going to be constructed between Gorham and Scarborough and Westbrook and South Portland don’t implement the land use so the road is scrapped? Or they sign on but don’t implement the land use. That gets back to a concern that if we are going to require full implementation of land use than we are never going to do anything because it’s never going to happen. The reality is that this is something that we are trying to force here. The value of the land use piece is to lay out what kind of future you can have if you do land use well. That’s the only way you are going to implement this. The debate of that shifting back to you have to have “x” before this comes, which gets me back to why waste a year on this study if nothing gets done. Mass transit in the state of Maine that supports itself without being subsidized, so while I think it’s fine to have land use, with limited money, transit is a poor way to allocate scarce resources. I want to know how this will happen. How do you implement all three legs of the stool?

Carol Morris: Let’s reframe that, suppose we start this by saying, MaineDOT and MTA are no longer willing to build roads out to where municipalities decide to develop because it is not efficient and they have too few dollars to do that. That’s premise A, premise B is that we just completed a study that shows land use change has a significant effect on that efficiency over time, and transit helps that as well. Knowing that MTA and MaineDOT is not willing to spend big money, there would have to be some sort of MOU with the municipalities to outline an agreement. We are figuring out how this works as we sit here. How do you think this can be handled on the municipal level?

Tom Hall: We need to be careful how we couch this, starting on the 21^st. The conspiracy theorists will see this as “they are telling us what to do”. We need to be careful on how we say this.

Paul Godfrey: We need to be careful with terms like “need to” and “required to”. In many respects we only have one chance to make a really good sales pitch; maybe this is a good time to get into land use.

Carol Morris: We need to talk about how we can best make this work with and for the communities.

John Duncan: in 2003, the PACTS policy committee put land use into their policy.

Paul Godfrey: The question is do we have to do this, my opinion is if it’s not done here then it will be done at another point very soon. The communities that have worked very hard to date have an advantage, and we want to make sure that advantage is understood. Future studies should incorporate this three-legged approach.

Tom Hall: That is because of state policy?

Carol Morris: Yes and the policy was made, in part, because the scarcity of resources is increasing.

Paul Godfrey: We know that doing these things will extend the resources.

Sara Devlin: As well as the life of the investment, the life of the actual transportation infrastructure itself.

Paul Godfrey: Yes, you’ll get x more years out of the life of a project because of the land use piece.

Tom Hall: You said we have an advantage, what is that?

Paul Godfrey: When we go through the land use recommendations, part one is solely focused on these four core communities in terms of what we’re suggesting you consider doing.  Part 2 is for the rest of the region. You need to do certain things to get certain things. These four communities are steps ahead because of this study. This study is going to identify roadway improvements, and these four communities are steps ahead because of that. It will take other communities time to go through this process and catch up, so from my view, these four communities have the opportunity to be first out of the gate with prioritized process.

Tom Hall: So you’re saying advantage statewide, not just within the study area.

Paul Godfrey: Yes, that’s exactly what I am saying.

Gerry Audibert: With STPA MaineDOT can provide bonus points to communities with coordinated land-use plans, which is what this is. And you get additional points if you do it with other communities. There are other studies, like the Central York Connections Study that is starting up and will do some similar things. We need to follow up with what happens if one of the communities does not follow muster with the rest, does that penalize all? We are talking about a memorandum of understanding with the four communities at least, if not with the outlying communities before we move into phase two. It’s all voluntary, if the communities walk away from this opportunity, that opportunity for prioritization is lost.

Tom Hall: Education is very important, the municipal leaders need to have a solid understanding of STPA and the laws that create that opportunity. The rules need to be clear so everyone is on the same page.

Carol Morris: I see that in our slideshow that is missing, so I will note that.

Paul Godfrey: Let’s go though the municipal slide show. We’re trying not to be overly detailed, but we understand that this is a hugely important meeting and we need to bring our A-game.

We know that land use creates a greater opportunity for housing density, transit choice, housing choice, it reduces congestion, lower traffic on local roads, improves rural character, reduction of municipal maintenance budgets. We understand these benefits. The big thing for MaineDOT, MTA and PACTS is that this is their carrot. When the towns do these things instead of their investment lasting 40 years, it lasts 50 years. That is why they are doing this.

Tom Hall: It’s not the Evan Richerts of the world telling us how to build out our communities?

Paul Godfrey: No, you need flexibility. Only Scarborough knows best what works for you, but we know that we need to get farther than we are today. From the transportation agency perspective, they get extended life and that is extending those investments. One of the things you have probably seen in the land-use recommendations is the focal areas for growth cores. Within the focal areas of the growth cores we are going to recommend greater emphasis on density, etc. and those cores are located around and on the major corridors. The land-use focal area is designed to focus on the key corridors.

Tom Hall: I’d like to make sure we distill this land use down to bite size pieces. In a word, I hear density being the best way to describe the initiative.

Paul Godfrey: In the presentation I have a couple of images that speak to that.

Carol Morris: We’re using the word land use but we understand that it may not be that meaningful.

Tom Hall: It can mean a lot of different things for a lot of different people. It would be better, if we could be more specific, hit on mixed use or targeted density.

Eric Dudley: The other piece is the location of commercial and industrial and where they should fit in.

Dan Bacon: There also incentives that is economic development. This land-use plan is providing utilities that provide economic development. That could be a carrot.

Gerry Audibert: Yes we focus on transportation but there are other benefits to this land-use plan.

Dan Bacon: That is one of the barriers; the density relies on the utilities that are a long time coming to areas like Standish.

Tom Hall: But if you string them between growth cores that is a more efficient use of resources.

Paul Godfrey: That is another reason why these focal areas make sense. Maybe this is centered on the utilities piece. Where the blobs are, what we mean by density, that is all going to be part of the next phase of making sure water and sewer are part of this and that has to be part of the equation.

Tom Hall: Are those growth areas predictions?

Paul Godfrey: Working with municipalities, that is what has been identified as is consistent as preferred growth, but this is not absolute.

Tom Hall: By showing things on the map, it goes back to a local conversation, it could rub people the wrong way, and that should be something the municipalities designate for themselves.

Carol Morris: So we need to make sure that we are clear that these are based on working with the local planning boards.

Gerry Audibert: These are based on current zoning and comp plans.

Paul Godfrey: Yes, as well as what comp plans say. Evan Richert and I were talking the other day, we don’t know the specifics yet in terms of where these growth cores are, and this is all up for discussion and up for discussion.

Carol Morris: To be clear, you have to put the details out to have a reasonable discussion, otherwise it will all be too conceptual, so having these out now is part of the process.

Paul Godfrey: So what is it that we are going to be selling or suggesting to the four core communities? The communities are going to identify future growth areas, making sure they are consistent relative to the transportation corridors. Zone and design are ultimately the community’s decision as well but there needs to be some thresholds and that will be part of the suggestion. There will be recommendations on access control on the major corridors as well. We want to look at Transit Oriented Development TIFs, which is a key initiator of doing TOD designs. We’ve done a lot in the past 12 months; the next few months are going to be very difficult as we get down to the details and as we decide what the appropriate level of detail should be. We don’t want to scare people away, but we don’t want to be too vague.

Tom Hall: Would you consider inserting the words like density and mixed use?

Carol Morris: We have some of that but I think we need to have more.

Dave: I think the fifth bullet may need to get taken off, I think you might want to substitute that with education.

John Duncan: Is it a “they’re telling us what to do” thing to avoid?

David Cole: I don’t think it’s going to be helpful to go to these towns and say you must work with PACTS, GPCOG and the SPO there will be resistance, it sounds like a mandate, especially mandate to work with state planning office. If we just say education is important and here are agencies you can work with, that would be better.

Carol Morris: So just say, “to collaborate with different agencies”?

Gerry Audibert: I agree with you, the other thing is we want to let them know that resources would be available on a state level.

Carol Morris: Some way of saying you wouldn’t have to do this on your own?

David Cole: I don’t think these four municipalities want to be told that they can have help, they don’t feel as though they need help.

Paul Godfrey: You are going to have to help me; I’m trying not to use the words “must”, or “shall”. The feedback we are getting is that this is a must, we don’t want to say it like that but we need to portray the importance of the message.

Gerry Audibert: Maybe we should strike that entirely,

David Cole: I like “work with state agencies to educate stake holders and the public.” Some state agencies are bigger red flags than others.

Carol Morris: Part of that is working with the core communities; you are going to deliver it differently depending on your audience.

David Cole: I like that too, work with the four core communities as well.

Dan Bacon: One of these handouts there is a notion of a regional committee that is made up of our communities and surrounding communities, should that come later?

Paul Godfrey: That’s part of the plan for the regional phase.

Carol Morris: We talked about adding that to the slide because part of this is that the whole regional planning concept would be attractive to a lot of people.

Dan Bacon: If they feel like their opinions are as important as the SPOs, then there is more likelihood to have buy-ins on plans and solutions. Rather than being top-down, there could be mention of regional committee for them to be involved in.

Paul Godfrey: We do mention it upcoming, but mentioning it here is good.

David Cole: My guess is that if we told the four communities that some of the things are dependence upon a larger regional committee, you will get more resistance.

Tom Hall: The local sentiment, whether transportation or education, is I’m not going to rely on anyone else to help, I’m going to circle the wagons and do it myself. What’s refreshing about this is that it is bottom up; I want to make sure we don’t lose that value of that.

Sara Devlin: There should be a reminder that the communities collaborated and came to the agencies to ask for a study, and to continue that collaboration moving forward would be beneficial to them.

Eric Dudley: I would be careful with that statement; I don’t know that all four communities really came together and actively asked.

Sara Devlin: They all signed a resolution. The point is that the agencies did not get together and say, “We’re going to fix this problem.” This was not a top down mandate.

Paul Godfrey: I think you can say the four communities came together to do this and what we are trying to do is outline why this is beneficial for everybody.

Tom Hall: I think a history lesson would be helpful because I have councilors that were not involved in that.

Paul Godfrey: That’s a good point. Part 2 of the recommendations: We are looking at identifying is creating a transfer of development rights program. We talked yesterday with GPCOG; one of the key things we have heard is making sure that everyone benefits from an economic perspective, all towns need to have a level playing field. We talked about having an expanded steering committee to help guide these two efforts.

Dan Bacon: The land use recommendations on density are not necessarily a level playing field in terms of how much growth they attract. Different communities have different goals. I don’t know if this group knows enough about that.

Paul Godfrey: Maybe we stop at land use ordinances.

Carl Eppich: Maybe land use and economic development.

Carol Morris: Yes, you are right.

David Cole: I think the key question is what are we saying when we use the term model ordinance. That real question is you need to clarify what you are intending to do there.

Paul Godfrey: We could use the term framework ordinance; it’s intended to provide a guideline.

Gerry Audibert: We are being awfully specific with this first meeting with the municipalities.

Carol Morris: I think we should take that entire bullet out.

Gerry Audibert: I agree, we need to stick with the expanded steering committee and we should stick to what the desired outcomes are and how the communities get there is up to them. From a MaineDOT perspective, we’re on the cutting edge of this new way of thinking. The other piece is monitoring and from a MaineDOT perspective we are willing to make these investments, provided that the municipalities do the land use piece. If the land use piece doesn’t happen, there has to be recourse.

Carol Morris: We should start looking at the municipality presentation.

Paul Godfrey: OK, but help us understand how to manage expectations because my concern is that we get to the next phase and municipalities will not understand what we have been talking about. If this scares them off too quickly, that would be wrong too, but I don’t want to be unclear.

Tom Hall: To me, the success on the 21^st will be if we can impart a couple of points: that funding of transportation is different moving forward. And also connecting transportation planning and land use, if we can connect those two things we will be in good shape.

Carl Eppich: You have to champion this with the councilors, as difficult as implementing this is going to be, that there is serious upside for all municipalities in the long run in a number of different ways.

Tom Hall: That is up to us to do over time; it should not be the intent to get that all across in the first meeting.

David Cole: I tend to agree with Tom here. Everyone has limited attention spans. We should keep the presentation brief, reasonable concepts and make that connection that will be a big first step. If we give them too much information, they will start asking for specifics, when we can’t do that they will assume the worst. And when that happens they will get to the point where we will have missed this opportunity. Less information, but big concept connections will be important.

Paul Godfrey: I’ve also been told many times that if it is too good to be true it often is. I suspect most of these folks are going to be smart enough to ask those questions.

Carol Morris: I think this presentation is way too long. Let’s go through and see what we don’t need. This has to be a 30-minute presentation max.

Carol Morris: What Paul is trying to say is from an ethical standpoint; you don’t want to hide things. There has to be a balance.

David Cole: It is okay to get the concept that in the past you had a road problem, you submit an application and a road is built and that solves the problem for a few years until it recreates itself. In the future, if you want money from the federal or state government, there will be money available, but it will be tied to local municipalities choosing to make land-use decisions that protect those large transportation investments.

Paul Godfrey: Part of what we have been trying to do is sell land use. But maybe the point is that this is the way the game is going to be played in the future.

David Cole: With the Gorham Bypass we had people asking to build roads off of it, and they didn’t understand why that wasn’t allowed. As long as we sell it correctly, put it financial terms, a lot of that stuff will be okay.

Dan Bacon: If you couple that with the land use side of things and give examples of what member communities have done, that is in line with what has been recommended and the councils will understand that this is happening.

Paul Godfrey: Help people understand that this is the new game.

Dan Bacon: So it is not looked at as some pie in the sky plan that is not implementable.

Tom Hall: I think putting it in context that these are the new rules.

Carol Morris: That should go right up front.

Tom Hall: The graphics that show the four communities will resonate with the communities. Those prove a really important point that this is the pattern of growth and it scares the heck out of us.

Gerry Audibert: In the presentation, this will be one slide with multiple graphic overlays so it will go quickly.

Tom Hall: So the slides after those graphics, the study area in 2035 (pages 5 and 6) I think it should go before those as that is the context.

Paul Godfrey: Yes we have been talking about that, so that works.

Gerry Audibert: I had a point on this, the study area in 2035: 35,000 new houses, 9200 acres. That averages a ¼ acre per lot, and that wouldn’t be the way that it is today, it would probably be much more acreage.

Paul Godfrey: It’s based on the average sized lot over the past 10 years.

Carol Morris: An average lot has got to be at least an acre.

Paul Godfrey: But it’s not the same everywhere, there are multi-unit dwellings in those numbers. We did not want to overstate it. 9200 acres is all of Scarborough and half of Gorham so it’s a huge amount of land.

Tom Hall: These numbers come from Charlie Colgan right?

Paul Godfrey: Yes.

Tom Hall: Are there any other intriguing parts of his data that would help sell this, that last figure really helps me put this into perspective.

Dan Bacon: The fact that the majority of the growth in the state is in this region is intriguing.

Paul Godfrey: We will do something on these numbers; I recall something about the acreage was the size of more than one of these towns. The point is that if we don’t change the way we are doing things, this is where we are going. Growth is coming; we need to find a better way to manage it. Communities will want to be involved with this because it relates to quality of life.

Gerry Audibert: Do we need to sell economic growth? Municipal leaders think about economics, so we need to relate that to this.

Paul Godfrey: We should try to say that while we talk about all of this.

Tom Hall: It might be helpful to put that in there.

Sara Devlin: We have some economic language that was threaded throughout the purpose and need statement. Maybe we should take a look at that again.

Tom Hall: We should work the word economic development in the beginning.

Carol Morris: We need a summary of the purpose and need statement.

Tom Hall: Maybe we should send them home with the purpose and need statement summary.

Paul Godfrey: I got the economic part up front. It’s boiling down to STPA, and the fact that this is these are the new rules for the game.

Tom Hall: Do FHWA support linking transportation planning and land use or do they require it?

Gerry Audibert: They support it.

Carl Eppich: They support it but funding is going to become more performance based.

Gerry Audibert: FHWA is trying to be more grant-oriented, like the HUD grant.

Paul Godfrey: Is it fair to say that this is where we are headed, and it will be stronger in the future.

David Cole: Aren’t we going to say this right up front?

Paul Godfrey: Yes

Sara Devlin: I think we should take the FHWA out; the turnpike doesn’t really fall within FHWA guidelines.

Gerry Audibert: That’s a good point.

Carol Morris: The original purpose is to show that this isn’t something we made up, this works in other places in the country. But you are saying that municipal officials could care less?

Gerry Audibert: We can say that in passing, but it shouldn’t be the first thing.

Carl Eppich: Whether people are doing it and it’s successful, it makes good sense financially.

Gerry Audibert: There is a difference in funding but the end result is the same. You are not going to get a toll facility unless there is enough use to support the financial investment so that ties right into land use and density.

Tom Hall: If we can impress upon them that, if you want any money, this is how you do it. Otherwise this is just an interesting academic exercise.

Carol Morris: I have something from the Gateway plan that speaks to that.

Gerry Audibert: Do you think citing federal and state laws and what others are doing is an automatic turn-off?

Eric Dudley: Yes.

Paul Godfrey STPA requires it, it is the new game, and we want to acknowledge that the municipalities are already doing a lot of this.

Sara Devlin: When we met with the legislators from Gorham, one of the points that they made was that this isn’t that far of a stretch.

David Cole: I think you want the elected officials to come away with key concepts, and less is more. We need to decide what will resonate with them most.

Carol Morris: We say, within the core areas, if we develop more densely this is what it might look like.

Gerry Audibert: Do we need to talk about STPA here?

Carol Morris: We will revise the slide to reflect that.

Eric Dudley: Can we say reduced rate of congestion, or less growth of congestion because there may not be less congestion, we don’t want to be misleading.

Paul Godfrey: For the “blob” map we can present it as an example but explain that the ultimate number, location and size is to be determined by the communities.

David Cole: The blobs may be misleading.

Dan Bacon: Did Evan have a more generic map back at the beginning?

Paul Godfrey: Yes we do, I need to find that. That might work.

Dan Bacon: I don’t know if that would be better or worse but it makes me nervous to have the blobs on the maps because it will elicit some reasonable but premature reactions.

Tom Hall: The graphic that shows these blobs connected by transportation systems is the image we want to portray right?

Dan Bacon: I think maybe Evan’s did that.

Gerry Audibert: One thing we don’t show, there is a table that showed commercial and residential percentages between communities and how they shifted under urban and rural, it shows that the land-use doesn’t aim to make a huge shift.

Paul Godfrey: I think that may be too much detail but I see what you are getting at.

David Cole: I want to tell everybody that we will have more dense development. That is going to mean different things to different people.

Eric Dudley: Would anyone in Gorham be scared of those photos?

Dan Bacon: We have zoning with that kind of density.

David Cole: I have people in Gorham that think we are a rural farming community. They will want to reserve the rural farming community. Denser to them may be threatening.

Dan Bacon: When we talk about rural character, if we have images that show all of the areas, both dense and open spaces we should show those. The goal is to have both, not just endless suburbs.

Gerry Audibert: I suggest having a photo from Gorham showing something similar to what we are talking about. How do we describe dense?

Paul Godfrey: Everyone think of Gorham Village, we are talking about areas that will be denser than that. New areas may be as dense as that; some areas may not be as dense. We need to get them to understand that a house on three acres is not what we mean by dense.

Dan Bacon: What if we go back to the slide we were talking about before (blob slide) and have example of rural and growth areas so both are highlighted and explain that there will still be parts of the communities that will be vast, open and protected.

Paul Godfrey: That’s the point, it’s a balance and we need to find a really good way to say that.

Tom Hall: The trend analysis was if we do nothing; that is compelling. The notion of change over the past 25 years is a good way of framing the point that if we do nothing, imagine what our communities will look like 25 years from now. That will resonate.

David Cole: The question is whether growth is viewed as good or bad.

Tom Hall: The point is that our transportation systems have failed though, that’s the point.

Paul Godfrey: Let them tell you about that, and then say what if we add this on top of this, I like that, that is very good.

Carol Morris: So the next slide is benefits like fuel, etc. We had thought about stopping there and asking what they think.

David Cole: I hate to keep pounding away at this, if you can leave with them getting a core amount of information that is better than them half getting a lot of information.

Gerry Audibert: I agree we need to keep this concise.

Paul Godfrey: So we are still good with touching on three legs of the stool right?

(General agreement)

Carl Eppich: I think the question “what does this change” should be at the end.

Gerry Audibert: I think making it interactive is better.

Tom Hall: Yes but we’ll never get through it.

Paul Godfrey: What is the order you are thinking of?

Tom Hall: Transit should be third. Land use and roadway improvements have to go in concert. Transit is not viable so it should go third.

Carl Eppich: Land use and transit go hand in hand.

Dan Bacon: Transit can be incremental, when density comes.

Paul Godfrey: When we boil it down, let’s see if a better order emerges.

Carol Morris: I think we can take out some of the slides on transit.

Carl Eppich: I think the PM Peak Hour transit ridership slide can come out; it is very technical. Keep the routes because that is visionary.

Carol Morris: Okay, we will go through transit very quickly, take out the map, PM Peak Hour, Share Comparison and leave the potential slide in.

David Cole: The key message is to create density, which in turn creates opportunity to provide transit, so when it presents itself the elements are in place.

Carl Eppich: It might be beneficial to have a poster of transit, it is important to say something about future transit. It needs to say vision for future transit that has been tested; not all routes will manifest, something like that.

Carol Morris: Do we have to tell them what roadway improvements are, or do we need to explain that. We did add freight rail, should we include that?

Tom Hall: I think it is worth leaving.

John Duncan: We should strike TSM and TDM because they may not be understood.

Gerry Audibert: I would order them in line with STPA, so new roads last.

Carol Morris: Then we have Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, and then we have the corridor analysis. And I think we can leave it at that.

Paul Godfrey: We have a picture of what the improvements are, and I will describe the components.

Carol Morris: And we have to start by saying where the bulk of the problems are.

Gerry Audibert: Do we need to show what it looks like in 2035 in terms of failing intersections under trends?

Tom Hall: Is this the first time the notion of trends is introduced.

Paul Godfrey: Yes.

Tom Hall: My earlier point was to provide information on the trend analysis so there is a solid understanding of what that is.

Gerry Audibert: In terms of the land use we need to frame that as give and take rather than pushing. I had a question on page 12: the only difference between Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 is the blue and the purple line in terms of travel time, should we stress

Meeting adjourned at 3:30 PM 

Gorham East West Corridor Feasibility Study

Developer Meeting

June 28, 2010

Maine Turnpike Authority Headquarters, Portland, Maine

Attendees: Joe Malone, Malone Commercial Builders; Peter Bass, Developers Collaborative; Frank O’Connor, The Dunham Group; Kevin Bunker, Developers Collaborative; Elliot Chamberlain, Chamberlain Homes; Paul Ureneck; Boulos Company; Tom Dunham, The Dunham Group; Vin Veroneau, JB Brown & Sons; Roxanne Cole, Roxanne Cole Commercial Real Estate; Paul Porada, Woodward & Curran; Ted Chapin, Woodward & Curran; Gerry Audibert, MaineDOT; Paul Godfrey, HNTB; Sara Devlin, MTA; Paul E. Violette, MTA; Ray Faucher, HNTB; Carol Morris, Morris Communitations; Benjamin Ettelman, Morris Communications.

·       Representatives from MaineDOT and Maine Turnpike Authority welcomed members of the ad hoc advisory panel.

·       Members of the Study Team gave a brief introduction to the study and provided background on the projected growth and proposed land use allocations.

·       Members of the panel expressed the need for very clear sets of rules for developers in order to provide a more predictable marketplace. Increased predictability would create an environment where developers would be more willing to take risks in terms of investing in more mixed use and high-density projects.

·       Members of the panel expressed the need for increased cooperation between transportation agencies and local planning boards.

·       Study Team members explained that a density of .4 - .6 or 400 to 600 square feet of development for a 1000 square foot lot would be needed in the targeted growth areas in order for certain aspects of the Urban and Rural plan to be feasible. These aspects include but are not limited to transit, improved walkability, improved roadway level of service and reduced congestion.

·       Members of the panel expressed the need for the projects suggested to be larger in size in order to accomplish the intent of the planned land use allocation.

·       Members of the panel expressed concern over trying to achieve high levels of density when customers demand six parking spots per every 1000 square feet because studies have shown that that is the minimum amount of parking needed. A member of the panel explained that they know that the tenant in one of their recent developments was not using all of the parking that they had demanded. A new study developing data that supports the need for less parking would help developers convince buyers and tenants that they don’t need as many parking spaces.

·       Members of the panel explained that the high cost of parking in Portland is turning businesses back to the suburbs. This is especially true for larger companies with lots in excess of 10,000 square feet.Members of the panel expressed concern over Portland’s new rules for required parking in new development. The rule is that all new development must build a minimum amount of parking and companies can buy their way out of that minimum at $10,000 per space. They stated that previously, other options were available for shared parking and leased parking, which provided flexibility. They believe the new rules force them to create parking.

·       Some members of the panel expressed concern that Maine, and Portland in particular, are perceived as places that are difficult to do business in and attempting to limit parking spots for new development would only serve to increase that perception.

·       Members of the panel expressed the belief that a robust transit system could work very well in Portland.

·       Members of the panel expressed concern that there is no effective regional planning entity that works to create a consensus among the many communities within the greater Portland area. A county planning board was suggested with the understanding that the reality of this kind of entity is far fetched. There was general understanding though that cooperation among the communities within the Greater Portland area would create more opportunities to develop the type of projects that the Study Team is proposing. A regional advisory board was also suggested.

·       Members of the panel expressed concern with the inconsistent and unpredictable regulatory process in Portland and stated that many out-of-state developers will no longer work there.

·       Members of the panel discussed the possibility of incentivizing large employers to create dense headquarters within the proposed growth centers.

·       Members of the panel agreed that relaxed regulatory rules and a streamlined approval process within the growth centers would make developing higher density attractive to investors.

·       A regional business park like First Park in Oakland was suggested as a possibility to reduce traffic congestion and in problem areas. There was concern voiced over whether this would truly benefit municipalities who would lose business to the park.

·       Members of the panel expressed interest in increased master planning for new development.

·       Members of the panel expressed concern with the unpredictability of impact fees in Portland. There was agreement that impact fees are expected and are not deal killers, but the exact cost needs to be more predictable earlier so investors aren’t dissuaded from developing in Portland. If it is too difficult to develop in Portland and the region, developers will just go elsewhere and the region suffers.

·       There was agreement that there needs to be increased education about new programs such as MaineDOT’s proposed policy of impact fees for all rather than just for those first in a development.