Marion County discusses lowering transportation level-of-service standards and concurrency implications

Marion County commissioners and transportation consultants spent the workshop examining proposed changes to the county—s adopted level-of-service standards and how those changes would affect concurrency and developer proportionate-share responsibilities.

Amber Gardner, a Kimley Horn transportation planner, told the board that state statute requires comprehensive plans to demonstrate that adopted LOS standards can reasonably be met and to identify necessary projects in the five-year capital improvements schedule. She said that if the county lowers LOS standards (for example, changing a segment standard from E to D or from D to C), some roadways could be reclassified as already deficient under the new standard and new developments would not be required to pay proportionate share for deficiencies that predate their application. Gardner said county staff have begun listing unfunded projects in the five-year TIP to help satisfy that requirement.

The discussion focused on which roadway segments would be affected by the change. Consultants presented congestion-management findings showing a small number of segments that would become deficient under the proposed lower LOS. Gardner identified County Road 35 and County Road 42 among the segments flagged in the forecast for 2028; she said County Road 35 is part of the Northeast 30th/5th Street corridor that has already been included on the county—s sales-tax project list. Commissioners asked staff to produce a clear list showing current versus proposed LOS for each affected segment so the board can see where developer proportionate-share obligations might change.

Commissioners debated the appropriate policy trigger for compiling a capital-improvement list tied to measured traffic volumes. Staff proposed documenting needed capacity improvements when a segment reaches 80% of its adopted service volume; several commissioners suggested lower thresholds (for example, 75 percent) to allow more lead time for planning and funding. After discussion the board recorded a decision to retain the 80% trigger ("We're gonna stay at 80% then"), while directing staff to continue preparing and presenting corridor analyses and lists (including an unfunded project list) as part of the TIP and congestion-management updates.

The board also discussed allowing the county to adopt exemptions for specific roads (for example, scenic or constrained corridors) so that the county would not be compelled to fund widenings outside the urban growth boundary. Consultants recommended allowing either specific-roadway exemptions by ordinance or corridor-specific standards so those segments can remain on the plan as unfunded projects while avoiding a county funding obligation.

Commissioners asked staff to provide a map of scenic-road designations and the exact list of road segments that would change under the draft LOS table before final action. Tracy Straub (staff) agreed to supply the scenic-roads map and the lists showing existing and proposed standards so the commission can make an informed final decision.

The workshop materials and consultant presentation included video and CCTV examples from local corridors (60th Street, US-27, Merricamp/Baseline, SR-200/475 corridors) showing how LOS varies by time of day and why signal coordination or geometric constraints can produce queuing even where lane capacity exists.

What was decided: no formal ordinance or comp plan amendment was adopted at the workshop. The board directed staff to produce the detailed lists and maps (including the scenic-roads map and the CMP segment list) so the commissioners can consider final red-line changes at a future public hearing.

Why it matters: changing LOS standards affects when and whether new development must pay for roadway improvements; it also alters the county—s capital planning and the set of projects it must identify as funded or unfunded in the five-year schedule required by state law.