What a beautiful Portland day, a blustery sunny winter day with views for all. By the time I decided to sign up for a Tram ticket, they had been long gone. I figured there was no way I would get one of the few tickets that were unreserved, thinking crowds would create long lines. But I couldn't help myself, and drove by on my way to the office for a little catch-up weekend work.

I want to thank everyone who voted (over 750) or left comments (240) on my blog to share your perspectives on the ideal tram fare. Thanks, in part, to your input, I have been able to look at this issue from most all angles and develop a new propsed tram fare structure.

We've asked the tram's executive management committee to hold off on making final decisions on what the tram fare will be so that we can make sure that all options to lower the proposed $4.00 round trip fare have been duly explored and considered.

There are a few options, and we'd like your opinion on the course we should take. First though, a little background.

You'll get to see this view very soon!!!

"Read (This Study) and I Think You'll See Why Even Conservative State Governors Want More and Better Public Transit, Not Less."

Tommy G. Thompson
Former Governor of Wisconsin 

This is a great study.  It addresses some of the common arguments against the efficacy of public transit and shows that such arguments are often based on the wrong question, particularly ridership as a share of total trips.  Transit's overall percentage of  "Total trips" is not a useful measurement, assert the authors, since the measurement of "total trips" does not consider whether transit is even available.  In other words, of course transit cannot compete with a car on a trip to the Oregon Coast- it does not exist as an option!

Here is our office's second round of providing answers to questions raised in blog comments on the tram lifecycle cost analysis we posted about a week ago.  In an effort to be as transparent as possible, we will continue to post as quickly as possible as much information as we can get our hands on.  Hopefully, in doing so, we can adequately address any and all questions raised on this site.  While it sometimes takes a couple days to find the answers to the questions being posted (we are juggling other job responsibilities, as well, after all), we are trying our darn'dest to make sure that nobody feels as though there is a "deafening silence" eminanting from our office.  We thank everybody for their patience as we compile the requested information from various sources - and wish to underscore that we will continue to do so and address questions to the best of our ability.

Vancouver Mayor Royce Pollard and Sam joined workers and executives from Thompson Metal Fabricators, Bigge Crane and Rigging and tram staff here today to send off a giant piece of one of the new Portland Aerial Tram towers. The 90 by 30 foot structure is making its way down the Columbia River this afternoon.  The structure, locally produced by Thompson, is more that twice the size of the Portlandia statue that was barged into Portland in 1985.

Speaking from the barge on the Columbia River today, Sam said, “Now that the costs and funding of the tram have been finalized, it’s exciting to see the construction finally taking shape.” Sam continued, “In addition to spurring the development of the new South Waterfront, it is becoming clear that the tram will be a landmark for the entire region.”

At 4:00pm today, the barge started down the Columbia River, winding its way up the Willamette River through the evening and overnight. The structure is expected to arrive in the South Waterfront area of Portland on Saturday morning.   

I had the opportunity to staff Sam to the opening of the new state-of-the-art Peter O. Kohler Pavilion in OHSU yesterday, June 4, 2006.

My comments today at the Portland City Council meeting today: I am pleased—and yes, a little bit relieved—to support this resolution.

This is not necessarily the easiest resolution to support, as it represents an agreement that is less than perfect. However, at the end of the day, it’s one that has earned my support.

As the stakeholders will attest, I have been a demanding participant on behalf of taxpayers during these negotiations.  But I’m convinced this is the right thing to do.

I want to be clear about what I am supporting.  Then I want to explain why I support it. This is a big decision and the public deserves to know exactly how I made my decision.

I am voting in favor of a funding package that instigates a comprehensive development of needed public infrastructure in the South Waterfront District. 

We’ve all heard a lot about the tram lately, but there’s a lot more here than just the tram.

At my urging, the Mayor and City Council directed PDC in December of last year to negotiate with our private sector partners a new funding package that includes not just the tram, but also street car development, neighborhood park development, initial Greenway development, business recruitment, and a significant increase in affordable housing.

Thanks to this new funding agreement before us today, South Waterfront will be a neighborhood not only for lawyers and doctors that serve OHSU and elsewhere, but also nurses, support staff, and most anybody who chooses to live there. This will be a real neighborhood, with housing options for a breadth of income levels, parks, a street car line, and a tram for all Portlanders.

TRAM:

• We’ve all heard a lot about the tram and its ever-escalating construction costs. With the passage of this resolution and the supporting ordinances, we’ve worked hard to make increasing tram costs yesterday’s news. We’ve worked with our contractors Kiewit, Doppelmayr, and others to achieve a fixed price for tram construction.

• Let me explain “fixed price.” The total anticipated project cost is $57 million. Of that, $34,799,000 goes to Kiewit Pacific as the general contractor. Dopplemayr, which is providing the support structures, ropes, mechanical equipment, and cabins receives $10,477,387. Here’s the important part: that’s it. Both prices are fixed. Those two companies will receive no more than that.

• In fact, the total project cost can only change if we, City of Portland, make the appropriate design changes. We’re in control of our own destiny on cost.

• Now, there may be design changes. This is an extremely complex project and obviously all of the thousands of parts have to interact with each other.  That’s why this package also sets aside $2,436,440 in contingency.

• In summary, 95.7% of total project cost cannot increase. Of the remaining 4.3% we are in control of cost changes, and for those changes we’ve set aside $2.4 million.

NEIGHBORHOOD PARK:

• Neighborhoods aren’t just bricks and mortar.  People—residents and non-residents alike—need a place to relax and enjoy themselves. You can go down to Jamison Square in the heart of Portland’s highest density neighborhood, the Pearl, on a sunny summer day and see hundreds of kids and families from the around the city enjoying themselves. South Waterfront needs an equivalent. This package guarantees $4 million for park development and guarantees expedited completion by 2009 and I’m pleased to see this nailed down.

GREENWAY:

• The restorative ribbon of green to be nurtured along the banks of the Willamette River is a cutting-edge development. It’s a sanctuary for wildlife and contemplation, a buffer between the city’s most bustling live/work district and the timeless needs of the natural environment. $4 million is secured in this package to further the Greenway’s development. It’s not nearly enough to complete this important development, but it’s more than we had before and a very good start. I’m pleased to support additional funding for it.

STREETCAR:

• As the city’s transportation commissioner, I take great pride in our ever-advancing ability to provide meaningful transportation options to our citizens. The Office of Transportation and our private sector partners with Portland Streetcar, Inc. continue to expand this invaluable line. One of the secrets of the streetcar line is that while it provides people with a safe, comfortable, and convenient way to travel it’s a proven instigator of development.

• To date, the existing streetcar line has helped foster more than $2 billion in private investment adjacent to the line. We now refer to streetcar as development-oriented transit. It’s a perfect match for Portland’s newest neighborhood, and I support unified efforts brought forth in this deal to seek state dollars to complete the streetcar with 2.4 more miles in line in South Waterfront.

INVESTMENT IN BIO SCIENCE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE:

• Although we as a city receive consistently high marks for our livability, we frequently receive demerits for lacking a top-tier research university. A February 12, 2006 front-page Oregonian article articulated the economic importance of top-tier research universities: University of Washington in Seattle, WA brings in more than one billion dollars annually. Meanwhile, Oregon ranks 44th in higher education support.  We need to change this.

• As the city’s liaison to higher education, I know how important higher education is to the current and future economic development of the city and region. When I worked for former Mayor Vera Katz, I pressed for $8 million in investments to help build PSU’s Urban Studies Center, the new School of Engineering, and the streetcar connection.

• $1.5 million for a joint PDC/OHSU bio-science recruitment strategy, and $2 million for tenant improvement within the North Macadam URA to encourage additional private bio-science growth.

• These are the kinds of investments we need to make. Yes, there are costs, and we can’t be sure it will yield jobs. However, there are costs to doing nothing. In fact, doing nothing ensures we see no job growth. These are good investments and I support them.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING:

• In addition the district’s planned 5000 housing units, $18 million in new dollars for affordable housing is available with this package, bringing the total allocation to $25.7 million, which funds 3-5 projects and funds completion of the first 200-unit project by 2009. Outside of the Central District, I will insist that retain our policy that includes housing opportunities for those in the 0-30% of median family income.

WHY I’M SUPPORTING THIS DEAL:

• From a direct cost/benefit analysis, it’s pretty straight-forward: If we don’t go forward the City’s general fund, the source of dollars we use to provide basic services like fire and police protection, could be exposed to more than $36 million in claims. That would be $36 million we currently earmark for basic city services that would be lost.

• Additionally, it’s clear that our private sector partners would pursue litigation against the city which would bring untold legal costs, notwithstanding which party prevails on claims.

• Instead of pursuing litigation, the private sector partners have guaranteed the tax-increment finance dollars needed to pay for these investments. 

• The bottom line is that we can either spend additional dollars to fund this package of neighborhood improvements, or we can spend additional dollars to fight in court. The choice is clear.

Yes, the City is providing direct and indirect financial assistance to OHSU: $7.8 to $14 million dollars worth depending on how you count it. Is it worth it…?  You decide.

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF OHSU AND SOUTH WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT:

• OHSU is the city’s largest employer with 11,500 jobs.
o These are mostly living-wage jobs, and research shows that every OHSU job yields 2 more.
o Over the last decade, OHSU brought in $274 million in research awards, $258 million of it from out-of-state sources.
o OHSU generates 46,000 jobs in communities throughout Oregon and fuels $2.7 billion in regional economic activity annually.

• Their expansion catalyzes more than $2 billion in planned investment in the district.
o 4,500 new jobs.
o 1,800 jobs with OHSU’s first building construction already.

YES, THERE ARE NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS:

I want to touch upon the very real impacts felt primarily in the Corbett/Terwilliger/Lair Hill neighborhood. Some neighbors there are bitterly opposed to the tram, and we need to acknowledge that.

o Some expect a reduced sense of privacy. The tram has been designed specifically to minimize sight lines into homes below.

o For those directly impacted along Gibbs Street, the City, at Commissioner Dan Saltzman’s suggestion, initiated a voluntary buy-out program. We’ve followed through on that, and 2 homeowners have accepted this offer.

o Additionally, this deal retains commitments to building the pedestrian bridge over Interstate 5, the underground of utilities, public art in the neighborhood, and additional amenities.

Yes, there are neighborhood impacts that come with the tram. We need to acknowledge and mitigate those impacts. I believe we’ve done a good job in doing just that, and we’ll continue to do more.

THANK YOU.

Before I confirm my support for this resolution, I want to acknowledge the good work of a number of people who have helped to make this happen.

First, my colleague and Mayor, Tom Potter. His commitment and leadership has been crucial. His staff assistant, Austin Raglione, has done excellent work in helping to bring the deal together.

Bruce Warner, Rochelle Lessner, Cheryl Tweete, Larry Brown, and Bob Alexander of PDC deserve special mention. They’ve negotiated on the city’s behalf.

Within my office, Roland Chlapowski and Tom Miller have worked tirelessly on this. On my PDOT team, Sue Keil, Art Pearce, Greg Jones, and Don Gardner have done great work.  In the City Attorney's office, I would like to thank Jim Van Dyke.  Thank you all.

And on a particular note, I want to thank our new tram project manager, Rob Barnard, for his dedication, savvy, and stellar attitude.

OHSU’s Dr. Peter Kohler, Steve Stadhum and Mark Williams have helped get their team together on this.

Our private sector partners, Homer Williams and Dike Dame of North Macadam Investors have contributed in important ways as well.

I asked Jim Francesconi, who represents Kiewit on Eastside Big Pipe negotiations, to assist with Kiewit Pacific, the Kiewit arm building the tram. He did great work in a short time helping Kiewit partner with the city and its partners.

Finally, my colleague Commissioner Dan Saltzman deserves credit for making a commitment last week to this deal. Politically, some think it would be easier to say no. Dan’s commitment puts the city’s well-being ahead of the politics of the moment. That’s what leadership is all about.

I vote aye.

To read a copy of the resolution passed by council, you can do so here (pdf format).

To look at a copy of "Exhibit A" - which breaks down the final contract and how the tram costs are allocated amongst all the parties involved, you can do so here (pdf format).

A lot of people have been asking me and my staff about the specific costs of stopping the tram project. 

After talking with city staff, our office learned that coming up with a solid cost figure is difficult because it would require speculation on many costs due to legal uncertainties.  They did give me an estimated  "floor" to such costs (the lower limit of we could owe).  Right now, that floor stands at $36 million, though it could increase.

I know that this won't satisfy our most vocal bloggers, but in an effort to be as open as possible, here is the email exchange between my office and city staff below:

-----Original Message-----
From: Chlapowski, Roland
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 11:35 AM
To: X; Y; Z
Subject: Costs of stopping tram

I've been fielding a lot of inquiries on the costs of stopping the tram construction; can you please let me know what those costs would be, in a quantified form?

Thanks,

Roland

______________________________________

Roland-

It is hard to fully quantify the actual costs for stopping construction of the Tram. We would need to restore the sites. A very very rough guess for this is about $700,000. No back up, just a shot from the hip. The cost to pay Kiewit and all the subcontractors to close up shop may be around $3,000,000. Again, this just a rough guess after talking to the contractor. No back up or supporting data.

Please keep in mind, that by the time that we reach our drop-dead date for stopping the Tram using the Kiewit Contract authorization limit as the bench mark, the potential exposure to the City will have increased from the current $20 million to approximately $36 million.

Kiewit             $22.3 million   (currently at $11.3 million)
Doppelmayr    $6.7 million     (currently at $4.7 million)
Soft Costs       $7 million       (currently at $5.5 million)

Per the contract, Section 108.07 Suspension of Work, the contractor would be entitled to "reimbursement for its direct costs incurred as a result of the delay and 4% mark-up for both overhead and profit." Providing a reasonably accurate estimate for the actual cost for delay is difficult. There are too many unknowns. Would we delayed them for a week, a month, or a year? Mobilization and demobilization cost alone are typically 10% of the project costs. The potential impact of losing key staff to other projects and then having them gear up new staff has a cost. OHSU has provided us notice that the potential actual monetary damages for delay from their side associated with delay of the Tram opening is $1.5 - $2.5 million per month.

Per the most recent cash flow analysis, we reach the 125% Director's Authorization limit of $22,269,938 on or about mid-June. Given that actual expenditure of funds versus invoice has a 30-45 day lag, we would need to either suspend the work or terminate the Kiewit contract on or about early to mid-May.  Doppelmayr is schedule to arrive on-site beginning the first week in May. If we tell them to stop, it is highly unlikely that we can get their crews back until next year. They are fully booked for the remainder of the calendar year.

Sincerely,

PDOT Staff
Office of Transportation

____________________________________

Roland:

      It's a reasonable question, but any quantification would be a wild guess, with a capital "W".   If this information needs to be quantified beyond what was stated at the Town Hall meeting, my suggestion is to let people know that we are not talking exact figures, but rather guesstimates that could be significantly different than the actual amounts.  Given the difficulty of estimating expenses, I don't want citizens to be misled or find newspapers saying "City underestimates costs again."    

    Having said that, its fair to say that termination of construction means losses in excess of at least $20M.  How much higher than that is open to a lot of speculation. 

     As you recall from the Town Hall Meeting, the City is borrowing money to pay for construction and, if the tram is  NOT  completed, there will be no LID to pay for the borrowed money, so repayment would come from the General Fund.  Last week Rob estimated all construction costs around $20M (give or take a few million). 
   
    However, $20M does not include a) the cost of site restoration, b) the cost of terminating the construction contracts (we would owe money under our contracts for wind up costs, which is dependent on what it costs the contractor to stop),  c) the cost of dealing with purchased, but unused materials, and e) the cost of staff time to devote to this.   Nor does it include the cost of litigation if the City were to be sued over stopping the construction nor does it include damages in the event that a judge were to say that the City improperly terminated (as you know I have suggested we have a contractual obligation to go forward if the tram is fully funded, so if it were and we stopped, we are potentially liable for breach of contract damages in an unknown amount). 

   Therefore, my suggestion is that we say that $20M is likely the minimum amount it would cost and the upper end could be much more than that.  How much more depends on many factors in this fluid situation. 

City Attorney Staff

For those of you who weren't able to attend Sam's Tram & South Waterfront Townhall, we want to let you see the materials that were shown there.  The two presentations (one by the Portland Office of Transportation [PDOT], the other by Portland Development Commission [PDC]) were accompanied by commentary by knowledgeable city staff, which we unfortunately can't post online.  While that makes this presentation a little less informative on the specifics of the project, we still feel that it would be useful for everyone to see, nontheless.  We've converted them into Adobe pdf format to reduce the file size, but besides that they are the same PowerPoint presentations that were viewed at the Tram Townhall and the City Council Work Session on the Tram. 

You can see the PowerPoints here:

PDOT Tram PowerPoint      

PDC Tram PowerPoint

I received this email in follow up to a question posed last night at the tram town hall.  Following the email are the replies I received from staff.   Sam

From: wseditor@aol.com [mailto:wseditor@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 7:23 AM
To: samadams@ci.portland.or.us
Subject: Terwilliger Parkway Guidelines

Commissioner Adams,

You were right the first time last night at the tram town hall when you stated that the tram violates the Terwilliger Parkway Guidelines for protecting scenic views. The public views of downtown Portland - including the ones from the scenic pull out just south of Campus Drive - will now have utility lines strung through them. All views from Terwilliger Parkway are public; it's a scenic parkway. The guidelines sought to protect those views from the effects of over development. No one would willing put utility lines in a scenic view, so why is the city violating its own design guidelines?

The city's casual disregard for the Terwilliger Parkway Guidelines is an affront to the neighborhoods and to those of us who appreciate Terwilliger Parkway. In 1983, the Terwilliger Guidelines were created as the Portland's first design zone, and now the city is throwing that out for a silly aerial tram that serves a very slim minority of the public. Once the tram is finished, it will always be a symbol of the city's disregard for those guidelines.

Cognitive dissonance is one word for it, but I also call it talking out of two sides of your mouth at the same time. You can't have a wonder feature like Terwilliger Parkway unless you are willing to protect and preserve it.

So, why is the city not enforcing the Terwilliger Parkway Guidelines?

Walt Amacher
SWHRL Traffic Committee

Bureau of Development Review Staff Response:

There was extensive discussion about the Terwilliger Parkway Design Guidelines during the Marquam Hill Plan process as well as discussion of a follow up project to update the Terwilliger Parkway Plan that the neighborhoods advocated against doing, in part because we had secured a commitment from OHSU to fund a portion since Parks, Planning, and PDOT didn't have enough resources to proceed on the time line we thought made sense.
The simple answer to the Terwilliger Design guidelines chapter is that the only aspects of the tram within that district are the lines that hover above.  These lines over the Terwilliger Corridor do not constitute "development" within that district, and are not subject to review against that criteria.   

As for below the Parkway: As part of the adoption of the Marquam Hill Plan, a BDS interpretation was accepted by Council that a suspended cable transportation system is a Basic Utility use, and that this type of system be added to list of such uses in the Zoning Code.  One result of this was that a tram facility in an Open Space zone would not be subject to Conditional Use Review.  The other result applied to that are below the Terwilliger Design District - all associated actual development is within the right of way, and Basic Utilities within the right of way are not subject to land use review of any kind.

That said, the tram team has come numerous times before the Portland Design Commission for advice, both for the primary elements not subject to review, and associated elements subject to formal review (principally, the tram's connection to the building above, and related facilities that welcome the public to the tram from the Homestead side of the building).   

And as a final footnote - the Terwilliger Guidelines and associated thresholds are among the most archaic and problematic of all those in place  (i.e.: the legendary Enhance the Romance of Terwilliger guideline, and a threshold that only projects visible from the Parkway be subject to review).   

Bureau of Planning Staff Response:

As for the Terwilliger Corridor Parkway Design Guidelines, the findings for the Marquam Hill Plan contain a long section regarding Terwilliger Parkway (see page 226 of the Plan: Policy 2.24, Terwilliger Parkway Corridor Plan).  The findings most relevant state:

d) Goal B calls for the maintenance of unobstructed views from Terwilliger Boulevard and Trail.  City Council considered the potential visual obstruction of the views from Terwilliger that could be affected by a potential suspended cable transportation system and concluded that these impacts could be reduced to an intermittent intrusion that adds to the mix of urban and natural elements of the vista.  In addition, the Council finds that the primary view shed being protected in the Terwilliger Plan is horizontal to and below the level of Terwilliger Boulevard.  The Council also finds that views can be protected from obstruction by selecting a suspended cable transportation system than would travel well above this level.

In short, the key word to focus on here is probably "obstruction," as development is not required to be invisible from Terwilliger but it should not obstruct views from the Parkway.  It is a fact that the Tram will be visible from Terwilliger, as is South Waterfront, the Central City, the CTLH neighborhood, and many other urban features such as utility lines.   

It should also be noted that the Terwilliger Design Guidelines tend to focus on structural development immediately within the Parkway and these guidelines were created to address threats from extensive residential development once proposed along the Parkway in the early 1980s.  At one time in the early phases of conceptual tram designs, I recall there was an option that included an upper tram tower that would have been in the Parkway just east of the trail at the intersection of SW Terwilliger and SW Campus Drive.  I assume this design concept was rejected in part to address scenic impacts within the Parkway.

I have attached a link to the findings for the Marquam Hill Plan .  A review of the Terwilliger Findings on pages 226 through 232 demonstrate the various reasons the adopted version of the Marquam Hill Plan and Tram were found to have positive rather than negative impacts on Terwilliger Parkway over other options considered during the planning effort.

Marquam Hill Plan: http://www.portlandonline.com/planning/index.cfm?&a=58712&c=34248

About 200+ people attended the tram town hall meeting tonight, hosted by Mayor Tom Potter and me. 

Participants asked about 60 questions that covered a lot of ground.  Staff representatives from Portland Office of Transportation, Portland Development Commission, Office of Management and Finance and the City Attorney’s office answered questions using the same information that we on the City Council will be using to make a decision on how to move forward with the tram project. 

The Portland Development Commission is leading negotiations with South Waterfront property owners and OHSU to close the tram’s budget gap and fund projects of public benefit in the district.  They will be announcing the result of their negotiations soon.  The Portland City Council will be addressing the tram issue this Thursday during a work session.

Thanks to those that participated tonight. 

We will post the questions, presentation slides and info from the gathering soon.  In the meantime, feel free to post more questions or comments below.

Sam

NOTICE:  Commissioner Adams and Mayor Potter to hold a Town hall to discuss Tram issues.  THE DATE HAS CHANGED FROM WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED.

Sam values transparency and open government greatly.  In the spirit of open government, he is sponsoring a Public Town hall to discuss the tram project currently under construction at South Waterfront.  It is open to all interested members of the community, and everyone is invited to attend. 

This town hall will begin with a short presentation by the current tram project managers who will share information and bring everyone up to speed with the current status of the tram project. Most of the town hall, however, will be in a "question and answer" format. 

Community members will be invited to ask Sam, the Mayor, and other city staff questions about the tram.  Whether those questions are legal, financial, political or otherwise, we want to hear them all.  We hope that this town hall will be an opportunity to share information, answer questions, address specific concerns, and have an open and constructive public conversation on the project.

TUESDAY, March 14, 2006  ( NOTE THE CHANGED DATE - no longer Thursday the 9th)
6:30-9:00 pm 
Portland State University, 1825 SW Broadway. 
Vanport Room at PSU's Smith Memorial Student Union; Room #338 (3rd Floor)

(Note changed time and Location- no longer 6:30-8:30 in the Ballroom)

We encourage you to attend, learn more about the project, and share your views.  We look forward to an honest, constructive, and civil conversation on the tram. There is no need to RSVP.  If you have any questions, please feel free to blog below or contact us:

Maureen (Office of Transportation) - 503.823.6047
Roland (Office of Commissioner Adams) - 503.823.1123
email: rchlapowski@ci.portland.or.us

Friday, February 10, 2006

The Oregonian

Support for tram is not a blank check

I make plenty of mistakes. You can ask anybody. Prematurely announcing the resignation of the Portland tram project's executive director was a pretty visible one.

But while I am happy to fess up when I screw up, I'm not willing to back off doing what I believe is right. And the tram is a good idea.

Where a contaminated industrial district sat abandoned for a generation, the tram has been the catalyst for nearly $2 billion in new development, transforming the unproductive eyesore into a world-class neighborhood. But my support for the tram does not come at any cost. The tram's budget overruns are indicative of other lesser-known challenges we have faced with this unique project.

When I became the city's transportation commissioner last July, the tram project was four months behind schedule, woefully understaffed and operating with a budget whose costs were changing week to week. Since the project was assigned to me, I have made changes to get it under control:

I took a hands-on approach, participating in nearly all of the tram board meetings. In August, I added five members to the board. In response to complaints about my active involvement from some veteran board members, I politely reminded them that the board is merely advisory to the City Council.

Last October, The Oregonian wrote in an editorial: "Commissioner Sam Adams, who oversees the Transportation Bureau, must work out a fair distribution, without compromising the tram's design or sabotaging the riverside trail, affordable housing and neighborhood amenities. . . ."

I agree. So through the early winter months, despite opposition from the Portland Development Commission, I helped negotiate a deal that guarantees public benefits such as more affordable housing, a streetcar extension and neighborhood park improvements.

In November, I replaced the part-time staff with a full-time, experienced project manager. In January, I ousted the staff that knowingly provided the City Council with bad cost information. My City Council colleagues endorsed that action.

We have cut $9.6 million in costs from the project while protecting its safety and design integrity.

To keep my promises to the hillside neighbors, I lobbied in Washington, D.C., to secure federal funding for a pedestrian bridge over Interstate 5.

Last December, Mayor Tom Potter and I asked the PDC to pay for an outside audit of the project, the findings of which validated many of the decisions we have already made to get it under control.

Next, we are digging into the audit recommendations. We will bid out the operations contract and double-check assumptions about maintenance costs. And I will continue to ask tough questions and make changes that I believe are right -- even if they inadvertently anger the PDC and powerful developers -- because as important as the South Waterfront district is to the city, the public/private partnership that is building it must also be accountable.

I believe the tram remains the best transportation option to link the South Waterfront to Oregon Health & Sciences University. My support for the tram, however, is not a blank check. Portland taxpayers have pledged $3.5 million for the tram, and we are not legally obligated to put any more money into it.

As lead negotiator, I expect the PDC to deliver on the City Council's Dec. 2, 2005, directive to fund a package of South Waterfront public benefits, not just the tram's budget gap.

In our first round of negotiations, I learned that the city could reduce fees to save OHSU $2.5 million. Those savings, along with the $5 million the PDC has already provided to OHSU, fortifies my belief that the remaining tram budget gap should be funded by OHSU and the property owners.

Meanwhile, as the funding gets sorted out, my new team and I will continue to work double-time to complete the tram.

Sam Adams is a Portland city commissioner.