Administrative - Meeting Management - Meeting Records, Governing Body, Agendas, Meeting Packets, Minutes and Exhibits

Councilors Present: Rod Monroe (Presiding Officer), Susan McLain, Ed Washington, Rod Park, Bill Atherton, David Bragdon, Jon Kvistad

Jerry Rust, 3417 N Russet St., Portland, OR, St. Vincent DePaul of Lane County, spoke about repealing the excise tax on garbage. He recommended the Council apply the money to the solid waste program, and achieve compliance with the Council’s solid waste plan and state law regarding the waste recovery rate. He said the Council and the region were badly out of compliance with their own solid waste plan and with state law that required a 50 percent waste recovery rate by 2000. He read his letter into the record. (A copy of his letter can be found in the permanent record of this meeting.)

James Peterson, 2502 SW Multnomah, Portland, OR, Multnomah Neighborhood Association, spoke about the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). He expressed concern about the insufficient number of copies Metro had made available to the public. He said the Metro Charter gave citizens the right to access to all parts of the planning process. He said copies of the RTP would not be available if the RTP was adopted at that time, unless the document was produced in a greater quantity and distributed to the public. In the rewrite of Title 8 it was required that jurisdictions give 14 days notice to citizens of the region when they pass an ordinance. The shortage of copies of the RTP available to the public was inconsistent with Title 8. He recommended the Council postpone the hearing or adoption of the RTP, or increase funding so the document can be printed in sufficient quantity and distributed to the region.

Richard Malinowski, 13130 NW Springville Road, Portland, OR 97229, Malinowski Farm, spoke about the Malinowski Farm. He read his letter into the record. (A copy of his letter can be found in the permanent record of this meeting.)

Presiding Officer Monroe said the chair of the Growth Management Committee had Mr. Malinowski’s petition. He said the Council would send a copy to Ms. Wilkerson and ensure that it received appropriate consideration.

Councilor Park asked if the matter required action of the Council or if it was something that Mr. Copper was currently handling.

Presiding Officer Monroe said Mr. Cooper could speak to the issue, but amending the urban growth boundary (UGB) by removing land would require Council action.

Councilor Park said he assumed Dan Cooper was working, not necessarily on the movement of the issue through the Council, but on the process. He said he approved that Dan Cooper planned on beginning work on the processing of this issue.

Councilor McLain clarified the information just given to the Council. She indicated that on October 23, 1999, there was a new state statute. That was what Mr. Cooper would be working on. He would be reviewing that statute. She asked Dan Cooper if that was correct.

Mr. Cooper said that was correct. He said he would now review the request and the new statute and advise the Council as to how to process the request.

Mike Burton said he wanted to talk about two matters. First, the Council would soon be making some decisions on a request for extension on Metro’s requirements to meet state law regarding movement of the urban growth boundary. He wanted to say that the technical work required to do that, while it might be completed within 6 months, there was obviously a public outreach and hearing process that had to go on at Metro and in the local jurisdictions. The date requested was for 10 months extension. Obviously, some work might be done earlier depending on Metro’s ability to do that - the technical aspects. There was an article or editorial in The Oregonian that affirmed his statement that he thought the Council could get most of the technical work done. But he said there were other processes that needed to be completed that were under the Council’s control. He said the council shouldn’t rush to judgement in completing those processes.

Secondly, he said he was certain by now that the Council was aware of the fact that the apparent arrangement that PFE made with the city of Portland, the possibility of bringing a Calgary baseball team to the Civic Stadium was off. He brought this to the Council’s attention because Metro had a considerable amount of interest in the stadium issue. The concern that he and Mr. Williams, the general manager at EU, have expressed to Council, today and in the past, has been the fact that changeover in management of the facility has affect, and would continue to affect, Metro’s ability to market the facility. Therefore, it would also affect Metro’s revenues from it and Metro’s ability to maintain operation of it. He and the Presiding Officer met with a member of the Mayor’s staff just two days ago and were assured at that time the deal was still going on. It was pretty evident that this was a surprise to them. The mayor of Portland has indicated she will ask to have the stadium committee renew its work to go back. He urged the Council to send a letter to the Mayor and ask that a member of the Metro Council, a member of the MERC Commission and a member of the Multnomah County Commission be appointed to that committee. He said all those parties had an interest in the issue now, particularly with the larger issue that Metro had of dealing with the convention center. He said it was pretty clear Metro could be pleased the Civic Stadium issue would not affect the convention center operation because it was separate. But he said it would affect the Council’s ongoing operations as a continuing manager of that stadium. He urged the Council to make a request to the city of Portland that Metro be able to participate in any future discussions regarding the final outcome of what the city planned to do with Civic Stadium.

Presiding Officer Monroe asked Mr. Cooper if he could prepare such a letter for the Presiding Officer’s signature.

Councilor Atherton asked Mr. Burton about the time extension on the Urban Growth Report, specifically the procedure to comply with HB 2493, and how much it had cost the citizens of the region over the past two years.

Mr. Burton said he could not isolate that cost but that the annualized budget/expenditures within the Growth Management Services Department was between $3 and $4 Million a year. The majority of that was spent to meet and design the elements of the 2040 Plan and Metro’s responsibility to administer the urban growth boundary. He said his office could probably pull out some elements like that, but he suspected it was a major portion of that amount.

6.1 Consideration meeting notice/minutes of the November 4, 1999 Regular Council Meeting.

Motion: Councilor McLain moved to adopt the meeting minutes of November 4, 1999 Regular Council Meeting.

8.1 Ordinance No. 99-822, For the Purpose of Amending Metro Code 2.04 by Increasing Purchasing Thresholds and Making Other Required Changes.

Councilor Atherton said the ordinance was drafted essentially based on the recommendations from the Auditor that the Council increase the threshold at which they would review contracts that the Executive Officer would make for Metro. The threshold that the Auditor recommended was $75,000. The Council considered a compromise to that over the existing threshold and at least for a period of time that the Council would set at $50,000. Considering this during the committee and the number of contracts that this would affect was relatively small, the Council wanted to follow through with the initial recommendation of the Auditor and raise the threshold, but not to the $75,000 level.

Councilor McLain said she sat in on Councilor Washington’s committee and did hear the discussion on this issue. She thanked the staff for explaining the differences between the threshold Metro had today and the threshold the agency will have in the future. She would not vote for it today because in the meeting she requested that the contracts would come off the list for public Council review so that she could look at them and see what they were. She thought there were about 47 and that there were at least 5 to 10 of them that had significance for public and Council review. That gave her a feeling that there was a glitch in the system concerning what Metro calls a significant contract. She didn’t think it had to do with money only. It was also the type of contract versus just the dollar amount on the contract. She thought that that should be reviewed further. She did understand that many jurisdictions had a higher threshold than Metro did, that this one was for about $50,000 dollars, that Metro’s at the present time was about $25,000, and that there were actually some jurisdictions that established $75,000 for a threshold.

So it was her opinion that even though she knew the Auditor had a good intent and the staff had done a good job of a comprise increase of the threshold, the Council needed to have more of a conversation on what makes a significant contract, besides the actual dollar amount. She understood that if the Council was comfortable with the actual dollar amount going up it was a good vote. But at the present time, because she believed there was something left out of the conversation besides the dollar amount, she would vote no today.

Councilor Park said he would listen to the debate as it progressed today on the issue. However, he had reservations, not necessarily because of what Councilor McLain said, but in terms of being still new to the Council. As he tried to learn what goes on in the agency, the loss of being able to review and get a feel for what’s happening was what he was concerned about. He didn’t necessarily want to be everywhere all the time. But in terms of, “What is the Council doing here exactly?” and policy, to him, and as the Council knew, he believed money was policy and it was not just what the Council said but where the Council put its resources. So he had some concerns about the issue and would be listening to the debate.

Presiding Officer Monroe opened a public hearing on Ordinance No. 99-822. No one came forward to testify. Presiding Officer Monroe closed the public hearing.

Councilor Atherton closed by saying that the only point he wanted to make was that contracts under $50,000 would be awarded on the basis of the least cost alternative available that is capable of performing the work. Anything above that would be a competitive bid situation and often times the Council has done this on an RFP basis. He appreciated Councilor McLain’s concern but frankly this was a level of detail that he was not prepared to be involved in and he thought the Council’s time would be more profitably spent on solving some of the big picture problems that were eluding the Council. For example, how would the Council pay for the Regional Transportation Plan that Mr. Peters had brought his concerns to the Council earlier? He urged an aye vote.

Vote: The vote was 4 aye/ 3 nay/ 0 abstain. The motion passed with Councilors Park, McLain and Bragdon voting no.

9.1 Resolution No. 99-2803, For the Purpose of Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement with Oregon Department of Transportation and the City of Portland to Allow Metro to Design and Build the North Portland Road Segment of the Peninsula Crossing Trail.

Councilor Washington spoke about the Resolution No. 99-2803. He reviewed the agreement, which would allow Metro to build and maintain a trail, with funds from the open spaces bond measure. He said Peninsula Crossing Trail in North Portland ran approximately from Willamette Boulevard north to Marine Drive and went up through the railroad cut a little to the east of North Portland Road and curved around through some property owned by BES and then down North Portland Road and up to Marine Drive. It was being built in four different segments. The first segment, Segment 1, was constructed by Metro, but Portland Parks owned and maintained it for Metro. Segment 2 was the portion done by the city of Portland’s BES department. They constructed it. Segment 3, which was about to be constructed now by Metro, would be owned and maintained by ODOT. Segment 4 would be completed by the Portland DOT. This was just an agreement between Metro, the Portland DOT and ODOT that would allow Metro to build and maintain the North Portland road segment. It extended roughly from the Columbia Slew north to Marine Drive. He urged an aye vote on the inter-governmental agreement.

9.2 Resolution No. 99-2849, For the Purpose of Authorizing the Establishment of the Oregon Convention Center Expansion Advisory Committee.

Councilor Kvistad said his resolution would create the Oregon Convention Center Expansion Advisory Committee. When they did the first phase of the OCC they appointed a oversight committee of people in the community and people in the industry to oversee the contract, the contracting awards and basically to be available to advise the construction as the project moved through completion. What was now before the Council was the appointment of the first eight members of this advisory committee. (Please see packet included in the public record for details and the names of the first eight members of the advisory committee.) These people Metro identified for their skills they would bring to the oversight and management as Metro moves into construction of what he considered a great project. He recommended his resolution to the Council for an aye vote.

9.3 Resolution No. 99-2858, For the Purpose of Authorizing a Revenue Neutral Intergovernmental Agreement with Tri-Met Concerning Transit-Oriented Development and Increasing the Level of Transit Service.

Councilor Bragdon said the resolution would authorize an intergovernmental agreement between Metro and Tri-Met that would refine the partnership already in place on the Transit Oriented Development program. He said Metro had already seen the results of that program at 60^th and Glisan or in Goose Hollow, and elsewhere throughout the region. The basic funding for the program was federal funds that had a time limit and had various other strings attached. Often the real estate transactions involved didn’t get accomplished in the time that all the federal strings required. Therefore, this would transfer some of the federal funds that would otherwise expire to Tri-Met so that they could be used for transit and other services spelled out in this agreement. Then as the property opportunities come along Tri-Met general funds could be transferred to Metro. It would be revenue neutral to both parties. That was the intent here. Mr. Gushardin and Mr. Whitmore were there to answer any further questions about it.

Councilor Park verified that those funds transferred to Tri-Met in order to preserve them would stay attached to the six projects as outlined.

Councilor Bragdon said that was correct. For example, the Civic Neighborhood project in Gresham funding would stay attached and intact.

Councilor Park said he wanted to make sure the funding wasn’t somehow eliminated.

Councilor Bragdon assured Councilor Park that that the IGA makes sure the funding stays with the projects.

Councilor Atherton pointed out that when this came to the Transportation Planning Committee he was new to the issue of strings being attached by the federal government. He was shocked about how extensive and costly the tangled web of strings was. He said people needed to know about that. He was going to research the web more. But the bottom line was that cost analysis people considered those strings to add about 25 percent to the cost of the projects. It was no joking matter.

Councilor Bragdon said approval of the agreement would allow more flexibility in a program that really created exciting new station areas along the transit corridors. So he urged approval of the resolution.

Councilor Washington used a point of order to clarify on the record monetary issues in the Resolution No. 99-2803 he presented. The cost would be $400,000 for the North Portland road segment.

9.4 Resolution No. 99-2867, For the purpose of Granting a Time Extension to Washington County with Titles 1, 2, and 6 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan.

Councilor McLain said Metro had a functional plan that dealt with a number of different elements of issues the Council had been working on for 6 or 7 years through the RUGGOs and the 2040 Growth Concept process. There had been a number of extensions requested by local jurisdictions and after reviewing to make sure that they have made a good faith effort on trying to complete the task, the Council, on an individual basis, had given extensions. The extension that was in front of the Council was an extension for Washington County dealing with Titles 1, 2 and 6. Those were their minimum densities, their parking standards and 6, which was their accessibility. Because of the work on the RTP, and some elements of dealing with public involvement segments, the staff had reviewed and the good faith effort they did, and she asked the Council to approve the extension until July 2000 on the very specific issues. She said she would answer any questions.

Presiding Officer Monroe announced that the Council would be holding a hearing on the UGB and read “The Metro Council has held a series of listening posts throughout this Fall in consideration of taking formal action to move the Urban Growth Boundary, as required by state law. This is to announce that the 1999 Urban Growth Boundary record is officially open. All documents received by the Clerk of the Council prior to today’s meeting have been placed into the official record and are listed in the 1999 UGB Table of Contents. A copy of this Table of Contents may be found at the back of the chamber and has also been provided to the Councilors.”

• 1997 Urban Growth Report update and its potential impact on Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) decisions

Councilor McLain said there were two other handouts on the back table. They were both to the Growth Management Committee on these issues. One was dated November 16, and the other November 17, 1999. The November 16 handout included a spreadsheet that showed exactly which urban reserves had actually given Metro notification that they did want to come into the UGB in this year’s decision. It also indicated which of the issues they had and had not covered. For example, some got official letters from their jurisdictions, while some got letters from citizens. Some had actually moved into the Metro jurisdictional UGB, while some were working on annexation. But it allowed the public to know where they did and did not have their material in. Also, there was a situation where the Council had been asked to give a better understanding of exactly what happened after the public hearing. So, there was a November 17, 1999, memo in circulation that was addressed to the local jurisdictions and all interested parties that after we gave out the letter in August we received requests and this was how those requests would be processed. She looked forward to the public testimony today and said she may have comments afterwards.

Darlene Greene, City Councilor, City of Hillsboro, read her written testimony into the record. (A copy of her written testimony can be found in the permanent record of this meeting.)

Tim Erwert, City Manager, City of Hillsboro, read his written testimony into the record and asked that the Council include the south Hillsboro resolution lands. (A copy of his written testimony can be found in the permanent record of this meeting.)

Tim Sercombe, City Attorney, City of Hillsboro, read his testimony into the record. He spoke about Hillsboro’s housing crisis. He said the crisis would worsen unless expansion was approved. (A copy of his written testimony can be found in the permanent record of this meeting. He also introduced additional materials into the record.)

Councilor Atherton asked if he would be able to ask questions of the witnesses at the time of their testimony or afterwards. He said there were some interesting comments.

Presiding Officer Monroe said the Council would prefer just to listen. But if there was something that was absolutely burning a hole, and a councilor had to ask a question, that would be o.k. He said if the Council had a dialogue with every person who testified, citizens would be forced to wait an awful lot longer to testify.

Charlotte Lehan, Mayor, City of Wilsonville, 30000 SW Town Center Loop, E, Wilsonville, OR, 97070, provided input on two matters, the job/housing imbalance in Hillsboro and URA #39 and the southern portion of URA #41. She read her letter into the record. (A copy of her letter can be found in the permanent record of this meeting.)

Mike Gates, Chairman, West Linn-Wilsonville School District, 1471 Barns St., West Linn, OR, 97068, summarized what Mayor Lehan said. He added that with the growth that was going on in Wilsonville, it was putting great stress on the schools the district now had. They were using modular units, experiencing traffic problems and kids couldn’t walk to the schools they have now. They had problems with classroom size, and needed a new school and the proposed school site. He said the school district could meet the efficiencies the Mayor pointed out. They hoped the Council would support that activity. They owned the land already. The Mayor and the staff had already initiated an annexation process for the school district. The school district was completing necessary paperwork. So the only thing left was approval from the Metro Council to move forward.

Stephan Lashbrook, Planning Director, City of Wilsonville, Box 1282, Wilsonville, OR 97070, summarized what Mayor Lehan said. (A copy of the information Mr. Lashbrook summarized can be found in the permanent record of this meeting.)

Stacey Rumgay, Wilsonville Industrial Development Association, 29335 SW Baker Rd., Sherwood, OR 97140, read her letter into the record. (A copy of her letter can be found in the permanent record of this meeting.)

Bob Baker, Baker Affordable Homes, 13820 SW 325^th Pl., Hillsboro, OR, 97123, read his letter/development brief into the record. (A copy of his letter/development brief can be found in the permanent record of this meeting.) He noted the development brief provided to each councilor, which was complete with several oversized maps that described the property. He reviewed each map for the council. He said there were characteristics about the property that made it unique. It was surrounded by the urban growth boundary. It was on two sides of that. It was surrounded by residential use or proposed residential use land that he said made it almost impossible to farm his property. There were also existing sewer and water lines that were adjacent to the property, and they were adequate and available to the property. The water line might have to be looped. However, it was in the process of being lopped and was 90 percent complete. But much of the loop was in place even if it is never completed in the future. He said these characteristics made the property unique enough to ask Metro to consider including it within the urban growth boundary. He said it also met Metro’s needs for housing.

Lou Fasano, 2455 SW Gregory, West Linn, OR, landowner in the area of URA #41-Dammasch property, said he had been appearing before Metro since the beginning of the 2040 process. He said he was there to echo what Mayor Lehan said about Hillsboro’s jobs/housing imbalance and traffic problems. He also encouraged bringing URA #41 into the Urban Growth Boundary. He said it would solve a whole lot of problems and would alleviate some of the potential future transportation problems.

Dan Tatman, 24351 SW Middleton, Sherwood, OR 97140, resident in URA # 45, requested that the Council delay their decision about bringing URA #45 into the growth boundary because of the planning that was still going on there. He said he submitted petitions for people. He said a lot of his neighbors did not want to be included within the growth boundary at this time because of the planning. He requested that the Council have an evening meeting in the Sherwood area so that citizens of Sherwood and of URA #45 would be able to testify. He said they had a very hard time making it to the MRC when meetings are scheduled, because they had other priorities. He suggested putting the issue on hold until a meeting could be scheduled near Sherwood to get a gist of how the majority of the people in the area felt. The majority of these people were just overwhelmed with the growth the neighborhood has had in the last few years. They would like to have the consideration and slow the decision-making process down, so they can get their planning done before URA #45 is included within the urban growth boundary.

Dale Lissner, 23605 SW Boones Ferry Rd., Tualatin, OR, property owner in Sherwood, said he and his wife owned a 16-acre parcel that was adjacent, within 500 feet, of URA #45. He said he purchased the property approximately 5 years ago with the full intention of a tourism reference point with a Victorian bed and breakfast and 3-acre gardens, etc. He got in the final stages of getting everything financed and set up to encourage the one corridor heading toward the coast. They got a letter from Northwest Natural Gas and everything rumbled along very fast and it kind of coordinated with Metro’s activity there. Within 24 months Metro wanted an operational 24-inch pipeline that would go from Mist, Oregon, down through various areas and in Sherwood itself, if Metro did an overlay, from their notice of intent. He and his wife met with both the gas officials and the Salem Energy Department. Their gas line would run almost the exact overlay, 80 percent of this proposed, down the middle. There were some hazards involved there, admitted the gas people. The pipe was 800 psi and could be very vulnerable at a 5-foot depth to backhoes and accidental nicking, etc. Landslides were evidenced at Bonneville. When that pipe burst it was a 55-story plume of flame and did a lot of melting of rock, etc.

He said they had a cutoff of December 17, 1999, for written input and he thought they were considering moving the pipeline around. He thought it would be a bad situation for it to lie in the middle of what Metro was proposing to extend the boundary through Wilsonville. That basically was why he was there to bring to Metro’s attention the direction in which the gas company was going. Charles Stinson, the gas company’s general manager there was going to call Metro and get the agency on the gas company’s mailing list to insure that everybody would do things properly.

Tom Aufenthie, Sherwood Citizens for Voter Approved Annexation, 15674 Highpoint Drive, Sherwood, OR, spoke about URA #45. He read his letter into the record. (A copy of his letter can be found in the permanent record of this meeting.)

Councilor Kvistad verified that Mr. Aufenthie was referring to a letter from September 24, 1999.

Doug Draper, Vice President of Genstar Land Company Northwest in South Hillsboro, 11515 SW Durham Rd., E-9, Tigard, OR 97224, read his letter into the record. (A copy of his letter can be found in the permanent record of this meeting.)

Joe Hanauer, 215 Maple Ridge Lane, P.O. Box 6518, Snowmass Village, CO 81615, Managing Partner of Butternut Creek Property (URA #53) in South Hillsboro, read his letter into the record. (A copy of his letter can be found in the permanent record of this meeting.)

Wendie Kellington, Attorney, Schwabe, Williamson and Wyatt – Pacific Capital, 1211 SW 5^th, #1700, spoke to their interests in URA #49A. She said it was completely composed of exception lands located within Washington County subject to a City of Tigard resolution of support and sponsorship for inclusion both in the metropolitan jurisdictional boundary as well as concurrently in the metropolitan urban growth boundary. They submitted today a nearly completed application for the annexation to the jurisdictional boundary. A copy of the narrative materials was submitted into the record today for the Council’s consideration. She said they believed, as did the city of Tigard, that the site made sense for inclusion in the regional boundary.

It didn’t have any issues or impacts on any resource land. It was exactly the kind of land that the state and the region had been looking at in terms of potential urbanization because of its location in Washington County. It was available to solve job/housing imbalances. She said it was not as large as other sites that were being considered, but it certainly could go a long way toward providing a little relief on a number of systems from Highway 26 to 217. It would even provide relief on Highway 84 and 205 to the extent that it would provide housing opportunities closer to job centers in the Washington County area.

They asked that Metro consider supporting the inclusion of this area within the jurisdictional and Metro urban growth boundaries sooner than later so the master planning and other efforts could get underway. Then, the city of Tigard, Washington County and the region could move forward to beginning to solve its significant jobs/housing imbalances. She said the imbalances have caused so much concern with the $3 million to $4 million a year process that Councilor Atherton talked about. She submitted today a copy of the annexation application. (A copy of this document can be found in the permanent record of this meeting.)

Jeff Bachrach, Genstar Land Company Northwest in South Hillsboro, 1727 NW Hoyt, Portland, OR 97209, also spoke on behalf of other proponents of the South Hillsboro urban reserves. He said the proposed UGB expansion for South Hillsboro was a culmination of five years of work. There was a silver lining for some of them, possibly just the lawyers involved, in the fact it took so long. Because it was under consideration and was a working effort for so long, they had a chance to develop a voluminous evidentiary record and a complete package of legal findings. The legal status report he provided was that the legal case for the South Hillsboro expansion was as complete and appeal proof as a decision of this kind could ever be from a legal standpoint.

The key legal challenge they faced today was the urban reserve decision Metro made three years ago, which went to LUBA and was now pending before the court of appeals. He said that decision if and when it ever comes out was not directly applicable or legally applicable to the UGB decision before you. But it did provide some helpful legal guidance. A key point that it provided legal guidance on as you looked at this UGB decision was the sub-regional jobs/housing imbalance issue. The sub-regional need to address jobs/housing imbalances in South Hillsboro was the sub-regional need that justified the urban reserve decision for South Hillsboro. The standard was similar to standards they were looking at today. That issue was the key point of challenge by the LCDC. They submitted a very lengthy brief that challenged every aspect of the decision Metro made on the jobs/housing issue. They challenged the evidence, analysis, methodology, conclusion, etc. But they lost on virtually every point they raised at LUBA on the jobs/housing attack. The Council’s decision, in conjunction with Metro’s South Hillsboro partners, was sustained. So, he said they have a very solid and clear legal opinion that was not part of the current appeal at the Court of Appeals. It was a very clear, settled legal precedent for how you do jobs housing balance. And that was refined one year ago when the resolution of intent was brought before you. It was updated again for this round. Very few of LCDC’s challenges to South Hillsboro’s jobs/housing did they bother to bring forth to the court of appeals.

He closed by saying there was a defect, according to LUBA, in the South Hillsboro urban reserve justification, which they appealed along with Metro to the court of appeals. But the defect was in what was called the alternative site analysis. To justify both the urban reserve decision and this UGB decision, it was incumbent on the proponents to show there was no alternative area outside the UGB in the Hillsboro area better suited to fill the housing need. The LUBA said there were defects in the alternative sight analysis. He said Genstar had challenged that at the Court of Appeals, but never the less the Council would hear from Ed Murphy. Now the parties, City of Hillsboro and all the other proponents have gone out and done an absolutely thorough and detailed analysis of virtually every acre adjoining the UGB anywhere in the greater Hillsboro area to ensure these so called gaps that LUBA found have now been fulfilled and addressed. Every alternative has been thoroughly analyzed with the bottom line conclusion that Tim Sercombe, the Hillsboro City Attorney told you today. There simply were not viable alternatives to fill the need outside the UGB in the Hillsboro Area besides the South Hillsboro sites. He asked Ed Murphy and Jerry Johnson to touch on some of the evidence that supported what he said.

Ed Murphy, Ed Murphy and Associates, 9875 SW Murdoch St., Tigard, OR 97224, said he was speaking in support of Genstar and the South Hillsboro urban growth boundary amendment. He said when proposing to annex agricultural land into the urban growth boundary, the state law required the consideration of higher priority lands. That meant exception lands and exclusive forestlands. The South Hillsboro urban reserve site was specifically the area petitioning for inclusion within the UGB and included agricultural resource lands. He submitted into the Council’s record today a report entitled Alternative Sites Analysis for South Hillsboro and its companion report which was basically data basis that documented a review of all higher priority land outside the current UGB within the Hillsboro regional center. That analysis included a review of 29 exception areas and 2 forest areas that represented all of the exception areas and exclusive forest areas for 2 miles around Hillsboro, Cornelius and Forest Grove. He showed the lands on a map. He said state law also required a review of alternate agricultural resource land to see if there were other areas that would have significantly less adverse impact than the area proposed for the UGB expansion. This review also looked at 5 other areas beyond what he called Area A. He referred to the map in the packet that showed the 6 areas.

The basic finding was that many of these exception areas were simply too far away from existing urban services. In many cases, public sewer and water and road improvements would have to be extended over a mile to serve a relatively small area and would result in a high capital improvement cost per dwelling unit served. Developing these areas would result in inefficient public services, whether it be water or sewer, or police or fire. The facilities and utilities would run through areas where no services would be needed or allowed, and would thereby reduce the number of units and increase the cost of services. Extending services to these EFU in between the exception areas in the UGB would put pressure on the intervening properties to develop as well. Most of these were isolated and not adjacent to each other. It wouldn’t be possible to join two or three together to make a viable developable area. All of them were partially developed already; thus making it very difficult to have developed to the types of densities and levels of density that Metro would have liked to see.

The South Hillsboro reserve site provided higher capacity for residential dwelling units both in terms of the number of dwelling units provided, and the number of units per acre or the land efficiency. The alternative sight analysis compared 6 agricultural resource areas including the South Hillsboro site and found that the South Hillsboro area offered the greatest opportunity to maximize the efficiency of land and reduce the necessity of using private vehicles. It also allowed the economic provision of basic public services, and minimized the impact on adjacent agricultural land, on or from the airport, on the city’s industrial sanctuary and on the environment. He submitted a report into the record. (A copy of the report can be found in the permanent record of this meeting.)

Jerry Johnson, 610 SW Alder, #910, Portland, OR 97205, Hopson Johnson and Associates – South Hillsboro, said his firm completed a series of evaluations regarding the jobs/housing imbalance issue in the Hillsboro Jobs Shed as well as projections of housing demand in the city of Hillsboro itself. His analysis indicated two primary sub-regional needs. The first was summarized earlier by the city of Hillsboro. The city would essentially be out of developable, residential land in 2 to 5 years. They would be out of employment land in 7 to 9 years.

The second issue is what he dealt with today which was the jobs/housing imbalance issue. He said the Hillsboro regional job shed was a broader area than the city of Hillsboro itself. Currently more residential land was needed to address the current and growing jobs/housing imbalance in the area. As shown on this chart, the need was highly significant. He talked about the year 2020, and based on Metro allocations the jobs/housing balance in the Hillsboro study area would grow to over 2.08 which would imply dwelling unit need above and beyond the allocation of 27,500 new households. Genstar saw Hillsboro as being able to accommodate based on their compliance report, Metros allocation, but they saw Metro’s allocation as being wholly inadequate to have met the jobs/housing imbalance problem.

The city looked at the implications of this that are substantial and the problems of maintaining a jobs/housing imbalance. Most obvious was an increase in traffic associated with increased VMTs, congestion and pollution. The second of these was an inflationary impact on housing prices to the extent that Hillsboro would have demand that would exceed housing supply and would bring inflationary pressure, especially acute in the Hillsboro area. The jobs/housing imbalance in Hillsboro would be one of the most critical issues to be resolved to achieve the goals of Metro’s 2040 Growth Concept. Those goals included reductions in VMTs and affordable housing. He said both of those goals would be seriously affected if the jobs/housing imbalance were not addressed.

Betty Atteberry, 10200 SW Nimbus Ave., Suite G-3, Tigard, OR 97223, Westside Economic Alliance and Partnership for Sensible Growth, read a copy of her letter, which can be found in the record of this meeting.

Jane Leo, Governmental Affairs Director - Portland Metropolitan Association of Realtors, 5100 SW Macadam Ave., #360, Portland, OR 97201, testified on behalf of Ron Crutcher, Vice President of Governmental Affairs - Portland Metropolitan Association of Realtors. Both Ms. Leo and Mr. Crutcher also represent Partnership for Sensible Growth. Ms. Leo read a letter from Ron Crusher into the record. (A copy of his letter can be found in the permanent record of this meeting.)

Ernie Platt, President-elect, Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland, 15555 SW Bangy Rd., Suite 301, Lake Oswego, OR 97035, provided a letter for the record and read it to the council (a copy of which may be found in the record).

Councilor Atherton commented that he too had read the article in the Oregonian which Mr. Platt cited in his testimony. He noted the newspaper also said that the state’s population growth had slowed. He noted that during Ms. Atteberry’s testimony, she stated that expansion of the UGB would be for our children, but when he checked with the demographers at Portland State University, they said that the population in the Portland region was stable. The growth was not due to our children, it was due to immigration.

Ms. Atteberry said to a certain degree, there was some immigration, but it was also important to provide homes for our children.

Councilor Atherton asked who should be providing that: should he provide for his children, or should he ask her to provide for his children?

Ms. Atteberry said she was suggesting that the region should have some available land within a reasonable distance of where they may have a job or may want to live, that would be affordable.

Councilor Atherton said however, that if births and deaths were in balance, and in-migration was the cause of this growth, this all played out: after he died, someone would get his house.

Presiding Officer Monroe adjourned the regular meeting and convened an Executive Session, which had been scheduled for a precise time.

12. EXECUTIVE SESSION HELD PURSUANT TO ORS 192.660(1)(h), TO CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL CONCERNING THE LEGAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF A PUBLIC BODY WITH REGARD TO CURRENT LITIGATION.

Members Present: Council, Marv Fjordbeck, John Houser, Dan Cooper, and Jacob Tanzer, outside counsel.

Presiding Officer Monroe adjourned the Executive Session and reconvened the public hearing.

Mark Fraser, Board Member, Commercial Real Estate Economic Coalition (CREEC), 5023 SW Humphrey Park, Portland, OR, noted that he also served on the Metro Business Advisory Committee, where he recently chaired the Land for Jobs Subcommittee. Mr. Fraser read his letter into the record (a copy of which may be found in this record).

Kelly Ross, Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland, noted that the council recently heard from Mr. Platt, the Home Builders’ incoming president, about the frustration felt by many of their members about Metro’s request for an extension. He said rather than go into that again, he would speak specifically about one of the provisions of the resolution, and express concern about that. Paragraph 3 and 4 of the resolution, the Home Builders believed, should be broadened to include other work tasks that they identified in the last few months: problem areas of the Urban Growth Report, areas such as vacant and partially vacant lands, schools, streets, local ordinances that impose environmental regulations that have a very significant impact on buildable land inventory and the ability to develop that land, and parks. He submitted into the record an extensive list, copies of ordinances from various jurisdictions in the region, each having its own environmental protection zones, environmental overlays, restrictions on building on steep slopes, flood plains, that were not considered within the Urban Growth Report. He said much was made about the Title 3 regulations and the need to only address the areas specifically regulated by Title 3, but the Urban Growth Report did not address or consider the individual jurisdictional regulations that had an equal impact, strength, and limitation on development.

Mr. Ross also submitted into the record a number of maps, zoning maps showing zoning regulations that also had those types of impacts. He added that on October 14, 1999, Ms. Kellington submitted a number of documents into the record on behalf of the Home Builders Association. Those were noted in the UGB record that was provided at the meeting. Omitted from that list, however, were a number of maps that were also submitted by Ms. Kellington at the same time. He said he wanted to make sure those were also included in the record, as well as two letters he sent the council which were also omitted from the list. He said he tried to fight a feeling of paranoia and persecution from Metro, but when his letters were not included in the record, he started to wonder. He said the bottom line was that they believed very strongly that the current Urban Growth Report did not provide for an adequate supply of land, and did not meet the statutory requirement to determine needed housing.

Mary Kyle McCurdy, 1000 Friends of Oregon and the Coalition for a Livable Future, told Mr. Ross not to worry, as her letter was not included in the list of submitted documents either. She said most of her testimony had been presented before, although it was not in the record, so today she would just address the issue of the extension request. The council had before it a draft resolution asking LCDC for an extension until October to complete certain work regarding the urban growth boundary. Her comments referred to version A of the legislation, even though she understood there was a version B which did not substantively change her comments on version A, and she understood there was a version C which she had not seen yet. Although 1000 Friends of Oregon and Coalition for a Livable Future initially felt an extension would be a viable option, they could not support the resolution A or B before the council, at least without changes to the work contemplated during the extension. If those changes were not made, they would instead recommend adopting the 1997 Urban Growth Report and update, and finding no need for a UGB expansion this year. Then the council could proceed to address the myriad of issues before it in its next periodic review of the urban growth boundary, including not just Title 3 but recommendations from the Affordable Housing Technical Advisory Committee (H-TAC), jobs/ housing balance, industrial land needs, and Functional Plan implementation.

Ms. McCurdy noted a few of the concerns that 1000 Friends of Oregon and the Coalition for a Livable Future had about the current resolution. If Metro wanted an extension to complete Title 3 of the Functional Plan, then Metro should also update its capacity analysis with work that was already, or soon to be, completed under the Functional Plan. Under that plan, local governments were required to comply with Title 1 and all the other titles, by February 1999. Title 1 addressed housing densities primarily. Most of this work was done, although there were some uncompleted tasks. As the council recalled, Title 1 targets were premised on accommodating housing and jobs inside the current urban growth boundary. She believed that the Functional Plan compliance reports submitted to Metro by local governments showed that on the ground, they were accommodating much more housing and employment than the Urban Growth Report currently contemplated. She thought the major reason for the differences between the capacity estimated in the Functional Plan and the Urban Growth Report was that the Urban Growth Report predicted much more underbuild than was actually occurring in the region’s communities today. As the council recalled, the Urban Growth Report assumed that in the future, there would be an underbuild of 20%. This was overstated for several reasons; she would just discuss one today. The Functional Plan required all jurisdictions to adopt an 80% minimum density zoning. In other words, underbuild of no more than 20%. But local governments reported their underbuild to Metro in their Functional Plan compliance reports, and with maybe two exceptions, no local government was experiencing anywhere near 20% underbuild. Ms. McCurdy closed by listing some of the underbuild that was currently occurring. Tualatin actually exceeded permitted density for the years 1990-1995, it build at 112% of permitted density in single family and at 98% of permitted density in multi-family. Hillsboro was projecting a future underbuild of 10%, Milwaukie was projecting a future underbuild of 3%, Happy Valley was projecting a future underbuild of 4%. No one was experiencing anywhere near 20% underbuild at the moment, and certainly would not in the future, with minimum densities. She noted that there was much more information included in her testimony, a copy of which is included in the meeting record.

Joe Grillo, City of Beaverton, noted two letters he had submitted to the record, one from Rob Drake, Mayor of the City of Beaverton, and Tom Brian, Chair of the Washington County Board of Commissioners. Both letters addressed the issue of urban reserve 65. The Washington County Board of Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 546, which dealt with amending the County’s comprehensive plan and transportation plan. That was done in conjunction with the City of Beaverton. This basically told them that they would be in compliance if the application could be filed and its final action taken by this council, that that development will be in compliance with all Metro Functional Plan requirements. Both Mayor Drake and Chair Brian concluded their letters by asking the Metro council to finalize the urban growth boundary amendment without delay. He concluded by saying that he admired the council’s staying power, and it was always a pleasure to visit, but he longed for the day when he would see on the Metro council agenda sheet the words “Final Action.”

Councilor Park said it was obvious that Ms. McCurdy did not support the resolution for the extension. He asked Mr. Ross if the Home Builders supported the resolution for extension, either version B or C.

Mr. Ross said they would prefer that the council not ask for an extension, that the council would get the job done, as Mr. Platt said. He said the Home Builders did not support the extension.

Ms. McCurdy clarified that she had not seen version C of the resolution. There may be ways to modify the resolution where they could support an extension. She said in her testimony she described some of the work they would like to see during that extension period.

Councilor Washington noted that cell phones were not permitted in the Council Chamber, and were distracting during public testimony.

Presiding Officer Monroe asked that members of the audience turn off or silence their cell phones.

Steve Clark, President, Community Newspapers Incorporated in Washington and Clackamas Counties, and President-elect of the Westside Economic Alliance, read his letter into the record, a copy of which is included in the record. He noted that he was speaking as a community member who had been active for more than a decade in seeking an improved, balanced transportation system that would help to ensure the livability, safety, and vitality of the community and economy.

Becky Smith, Washington County Community Action Organization, represented an agency which served low income families in Washington County. They supported bringing the South Hillsboro parcel into the urban growth boundary. There had been a lot of talk about the jobs and housing imbalance, but there was also a wage and housing cost imbalance. Many of the jobs in the region were entry-level or service and retail, which were very low-paying. There was an acute shortage of affordable housing in Washington County, where average rents for a two-bedroom apartment were $680 to $700, and over 43% of the renters were unable to afford the fair market rent. In Washington County, 1 out of 5 households were at or below 50% of median income, which for a family of 4, equaled an annual income $26,200. 15,000 households were at risk of homelessness at any given day. They were at or below 30% of median income and they paid more than 50% of their income towards their housing costs. For these families, an affordable rent would be $393; however vacancy rates for rents below $500 were less than 1%. To demonstrate what this meant for families, she explained that a family of 4 making 30% of median income earned $15,500 a year. An average rent would be $685, plus a moderate utility rate, would mean that they were paying more than 58% of their income towards their housing. But there were other costs, such as child care and medical benefits. She noted that a lot of these families did not qualify for public assistance, therefore they did not receive any help with medical or child care or food stamps.

As an example, Ms. Smith noted that the agency was working with a woman whose gross annual income from working at a bank was $12,080. Her rent was $560, because she was fortunate enough to find housing in a Section 42 property. Her utilities were $60, and her child care for her preschool child was $400 a month. She did not qualify for medical aid, so she paid $50 a month for her child to have medical insurance, but she herself was not insured. This left $200 at the end of the month for food and other emergencies. Other families lived in outlying areas and commuted into the area for these jobs, and these were the families that were least able to afford the burden of extra transportation costs, as well as extended child care hours. This also contributed to congestion in the area. She concluded that the current stock of housing in the region was not enough. Last year the consolidated plan in Washington County estimated a need for an additional 9,000 units, and that was a conservative estimate. The parcel in the GenStar project offered an opportunity for a considerable number of new units that would be affordable to a variety of income levels, and conformed with the spirit of the 2040 Growth Concept.

Adam Bless, Oregon Office of Energy, 625 Marion Street, Salem, OR, said he represented the state agency that regulated all energy facilities in the state of Oregon. Among those, they were the agency that was reviewing the application the council heard about earlier for the NW gas pipeline, which would go through the Sherwood area, among others. Metro received that notice of intent on September 30. The Oregon Office of Energy notified all affected property owners, affected local governments, and other reviewing agencies including Metro. They were required to set a comment deadline, and they requested comments by December 17. They had confirmed that this pipeline, as proposed (and the corridor for the pipeline was still preliminary) would go through urban reserve area 45, which was proposed for inclusion in the Sherwood urban growth boundary. They took another look at the map, and realized that it may also affect area 39. Currently it would miss area 39, but if the corridor moved, area 39 would potentially be in there. They were concerned because citizens were calling them and asking if the pipeline would be incompatible with Sherwood’s plans for area 45, should the City incorporate it. They were working with the City of Sherwood. They had a meeting with them already and there was another meeting scheduled next Tuesday. But they had not heard from Metro. He asked Metro to comment if it had concerns. If Metro had regulations or requirements that would be incompatible with the Oregon Office of Energy, they needed to know. Essentially, he did not yet know if that use was compatible or incompatible, but they did need Metro’s comments in order to find out.

Presiding Officer Monroe thanked Mr. Bless and noted that the Growth Management Services Director, Elaine Wilkerson, and Councilor McLain, Growth Management Committee Chair, had heard his comments and would look into it.

Presiding Officer Monroe said he would not adjourn the public hearing. He would continue the public hearing because the record would remain open until December 2, at 2:00 P.M.

Councilor McLain said she wanted to make a couple of comments and also remind the people in the audience that this was the beginning of the actual decision making part of this work. In good faith, the council asked its Growth Management Committee to review five different options for doing that work. One of the options was listed as an action item on the agenda tonight, and the council would get to that item shortly. However, at the next Growth Management Committee meeting on December 7, the committee would consider some issues after hearing today’s testimony. First, the committee will consider subregional needs and look at the criteria in the 2040 Growth Concept and the Regional Urban Growth Goals and Objectives (RUGGO), as well as subregional need issues and ideas brought up by Metro’s legal counsel in the committee’s September 29, meeting. The committee will also be working forward on the different individual requests given to the committee. Some of them were in the process of returning an annexation request of the Metro jurisdictional boundary, some of them were in the process of working through with their planning commissions and local jurisdictions, some of the support that they might get from those jurisdictions on finishing up plans. As an example, she cited the City of Sherwood, to which Metro had also given a grant. The committee will look at the flow chart (included in the meeting record), which depicts what each applicant must do to finish his or her application for an annexation. As an example, urban reserve 65 had been through the annexation request at Multnomah County, and was before the Metro council asking for an actual urban reserve boundary change. The committee would continue its work through December and bring its recommendation to council either December 9, or December 16.

Councilor Atherton asked Mr. Clark to come forward. Councilor Atherton said he appreciated Mr. Clark’s comments about the land use/transportation connection. He asked if Mr. Clark or his organization had a position about the whole North Stafford area, where the transportation planning clearly showed that there could be no more than 84 housing units there, and still I-205 would have to be widened to three lanes. And yet, the recent UGB changes contemplated a lot more than 84 housing units.

Mr. Clark said he believed personally that the area closest to Borland Road and Stafford Road should be developed at its highest and best use. He said he did not have an opinion on the area in question on top of Rosemont Road, as he did not have enough information.

Councilor Atherton said they were talking about making the land use and transportation connection. If the transportation plans called for I-205 to be three lanes, and there was no money to do that, and the plans still said no more than 84 houses, then was there not a big disconnect?

Mr. Clark said he was not sure which disconnect Councilor Atherton was referring to, but as a region, both the elected council and the public needed to end the disconnect between funding solutions and moving ahead with solutions; to provide a connection between the public about what they get for what governments say they need, and what governments ask them to pay for.

Councilor Atherton said the “paying for” disconnect was wide-spread. He said he heard Mr. Clark talk about jobs/ housing balance and transportation improvements in the Hillsboro area, but the same kinds of comments could apply to other areas, and it would be clear that some kind of change was needed.

Councilor Atherton commented on Mr. Fraser’s testimony. He said when they were talking about land for jobs, Mr. Fraser’s report clearly showed that most of the industrial land was in Vancouver, in Clark County. When they were talking about making regional forecasts, in jobs/housing balance, he was not convinced that the council had really focused in on that, because they were simply not at war with the State of Washington. It was not a separate country. He said somehow, this was not coming up in the discussion.

Councilor Atherton said he would pursue the comments made by Councilor Darlene Greene of the City of Hillsboro, who said there was a long-term agreement between Hillsboro and Metro that if Hillsboro could have a little bit more land they would ask for no more. He asked legal counsel if such an agreement existed.

Mr. Cooper said there had been some informal discussions about the possibility of presenting such an agreement, along with many other parties to the council. Those discussions never reached any conclusion, and there was no formal proposal to bring before the council.

10.1 Resolution No. 99-2855A, For the Purpose of Requesting LCDC Approval of a Limited Extension to the Last Deadline of ORS 197.299 and Accepting the 1997 Urban Growth Report Update.

Motion:

Councilor Park moved Resolution No. 99-2855A.

Motion to

Amend Main Motion:

Councilor Park moved to substitute Resolution No. 99-2855B for Resolution No. 99-2855A, with an amendment to Section 4, on page 4, to strike the words “Final action will not include any new Urban Growth Management Functional Plan requirements to further increase densities inside the UGB.”

Presiding Officer Monroe clarified that the debate and the first vote would be on the substitution. He called for discussion of the substitution.

Councilor Kvistad said he believed the Metro Council just broke the Oregon Open Meetings law by crafting this language outside of a public hearing and an open discussion. He did not like the process that just occurred. He found it to be something that went against what he thought the council should be doing.

Presiding Officer Monroe said that in his estimation, as the parliamentarian, there was no violation of the Open Meetings law. There was no quorum of any committee, nor was there a quorum of the council in any of the discussion that he saw.

Councilor Kvistad followed up by saying that when people step in and out of a room, they may be not in the same physical room, but they were working on the same physical document at the same time; maybe not at the exact same second, but within seconds of one another.

Councilor Park objected that he had the right to talk with counsel and to discuss what he would like to see changed, and then to show this to individual members.

Presiding Officer Monroe called for additional discussion of the proposed amendment replacing Resolution No. 2855A with Resolution No. 99-2855B, and a change.

Councilor McLain said she appreciated the work that Councilor Park had done on the B version. He met with a number of people who had interest in the document, and in a very open process. This information was discussed at MPAC, and they had a unanimous decision to go forward with the changes that were crafted from talking to members of MPAC. She appreciated the energy and the specific refinements that she thought made Resolution No. 99-2855B a better piece of legislation.

Councilor Washington asked that if his comments were not at the appropriate time or to the appropriate issue, that Presiding Officer let him know. He said he would support Resolution No. 99-2885B, but he had a question. On the resolution, under “Be it resolved,” item 2 read that the time extension requested was from December 1, 1999, to October 31, 2000, to allow completion of Title 3. To be very honest, that was a long time, and he wanted someone to explain to him why that much time was needed. He said the council had been working on this for months, and it seemed like the council was continuing indefinitely. He noted that the council had been working on this for months, and he asked why they needed until October.

Presiding Officer Monroe ruled Councilor Washington out of order. The extension request was in both Resolution No. 99-2885A and Resolution No. 99-2885B, and the current conversation was just about whether to exchange version B for version A. As soon as that vote was taken, Councilor Washington’s comments would be appropriate, and staff could come forward to answer his question.

Councilor Kvistad asked what the B version was, and what the change in the B version meant.

Mr. Cooper reviewed the B version and noted the differences between the two resolutions. The B version had some minor modifications in one of the “Whereas” clauses on page two, in the reference to the October 1999 development of measures to conserve, protect and restore riparian corridors. The difference between the A version and the B version was that the B version clarified that the October 1999 action was just a preliminary step toward developing and adopting additional riparian habitat corridor protection. It also removed an inference that perhaps the publication of that document was determinative of future policies, because the council did not act on that. With this amendment, the council would be signaling that it had not yet taken a position, and no one should be confused that the publication of the document somehow locked anything in for the future. Likewise on page 3, in paragraph 2 of the “Be it resolved” there was another change to the reference to the future adoption of the Goal 5 regulations, to make it very clear that all the actions taken to date were preliminary and subject to future council adoption. In paragraph 3 of the “Be it resolved,” the discussion of the fact that there was going to be more work on the location of the jobs/housing imbalances was simply moved from the first sentence to being added as a separate sentence at the end, because the jobs/housing imbalance work was not part of determining the overall regional need. The changes were meant to clarify that the resolution was not mixing up two different types of need.

Mr. Cooper said paragraph 4 of the “Be it resolved” contained most of the changes. The first several sentences were restructured to make a parallel with section 3 about additional work. As a result, the description of the final action by Metro before October 31, 2000, was be parallel to the work that was being done in paragraph 3, so that there was be a parallel reference to the density estimated for environmentally sensitive land, the estimated number of accessory dwelling units, and the location of jobs/housing imbalances. In version A, the language existed solely in paragraph 3, and was not mentioned in paragraph 4. The final difference between the two versions was that the B version as published had a sentence, that was in the A version, that referred to final action would not include any new Urban Growth Management Functional Plan requirements to further increase densities inside the UGB. As the motion was made by Councilor Park, that sentence was deleted from the published version of Resolution No. 99-2855B.

Councilor Bragdon asked Councilor Park if the effect of his proposed amendment allow reopening the issues of underbuild, for example; whereas without the amendment, that would be precluded.

Councilor Park said that was his understanding. The council would be able to examine some of the factors, such as the whole density question, the underbuild question.

Councilor Bragdon said he understood that Mr. Cooper had some conversations with DLCD staff with regard to the potential resolution coming forward. Would the proposed amendments affect that in any way, from his understanding?

Mr. Cooper said from his understanding of the conversation with DLCD staff, these amendments did not affect their view of it. In fact, he thought they would agree that adding the parallel between sections 3 and 4 improved the council’s statement. Metro had received additional written comments from Dick Benner, Director of DLCD, and Mr. Cooper understood that the council may have a separate amendment to incorporate some language that Mr. Benner would request, that would also be a clarification and not a substantive change. That would be a separate amendment before the council.

Councilor Park closed by saying that as Mr. Coopers stated, the B version was a cleaner version. It allowed the parallelism that made it cleaner and easier for those that were not familiar with the documentation because they would not have to refer to other sections in order to read the legislation.

Vote on Motion to Amend Main Motion:

The vote was 6 aye/ 1 nay/ 0 abstain. The motion passed with Councilor Kvistad voting no.

Councilor McLain said that they had been in contact with LCDC on the resolution, and LCDC had suggestions for two changes on page 3.

Motion to Amend #2:

Councilor McLain moved to substitute Resolution No. 99-2855C for Resolution No. 99-2855B.

Mr. Cooper stated for point of clarity that the C version as published included the sentence that was deleted from the B version. He said it was appropriate to note that as the motions now lined up, the C was modified because the sentence had been deleted and the amendments that showed in the C version did not show that change.

Presiding Officer Monroe called for discussion of the motion to substitute modified C version for modified B version.

Councilor McLain reviewed the modifications in the C version. There were only two changes, one on the top of page 3 and the other at the bottom of page 3. The first change was a “whereas” clause that LCDC Director asked to have added. He believed it gave clarity on what Metro was asking the extension to be for. It said additional information about the density estimate for environmentally sensitive lands, job/housing imbalances, and estimated accessory dwelling units was needed to complete the calculation of the housing capacity of buildable land within the UGB. At the bottom of page 3, Mr. Benner asked that the underlying Title 3 section 5 be added. That very specifically talked about just the work that Metro was doing right now. She believed that Mr. Benner gave Metro two very good clarity amendments, and she asked for the council’s support. She said the amendments addressed Councilor Washington’s concern about going on indefinitely. This was supposed to be a very limited extension with a very specific piece of work that MPAC unanimously agreed that Metro should go forward with.

Councilor Atherton said he would like to propose a friendly amendment that would be substantive, concerning unfunded mandates. He said this was an opportunity to save some money. He noted that Executive Officer Burton said earlier that it cost several million dollars a year to comply with this state mandate.

Councilor Atherton proposed a friendly amendment, seconded by Councilor Kvistad, to add a clause in the “Be it resolved” section, as item number 6, that would say “Metro will do no further work on this measure until the costs to comply with this state mandate have been paid by the state.”

Presiding Officer Monroe declared that Councilor Atherton’s motion would have to be an amendment to the amendment, and would have to be voted on separately.

Amend #3: Councilor Atherton moved to add a clause in the “Be it resolved” section, as item number 6, that would say “Metro will do no further work on this measure until the costs to comply with this state mandate have been paid by the state.”

Presiding Officer Monroe called for discussion of Councilor Atherton’s amendment.

Councilor Bragdon said he appreciated the sentiment. He was a fan of civil disobedience in some cases, but he thought that it would be a mistake to say that Metro would not comply with the law. He said he would vote no.

Councilor Park said he also sympathized with the sentiments of Councilor Atherton, and thought the council could address the matter in a separate discussion. However, he did not feel that this resolution was the proper vehicle to get the council to that point. He said if Councilor Atherton would like to introduce separate legislation, he would be willing to look at it.

Councilor Atherton closed by saying that he appreciated Councilor Park’s concern that perhaps the council could take this up at a separate time, but frankly, he thought Councilor Bragdon was right: Metro should follow the law. To follow the law, the citizens of this state overwhelmingly passed a ballot measure requiring that the state not make any more unfunded mandates, and Metro continued to blithely go along on this. He noted that the council had a discussion earlier about contracts and allowing the Executive Officer to do contracts for $50,000. The council was penny wise and pound foolish. Millions of dollars were being tossed out, and he thought it needed to go right back to the State Legislature so that they understood and got the discipline they needed when they started meddling in local government affairs. He urged an aye vote.

Vote on Motion to Amend #3:

The vote was 1 aye/5 nay/1 abstain. The motion failed with Councilors Park, McLain, Washington, Bragdon and Presiding Officer Monroe voting no, and Councilor Kvistad abstaining from the vote.

Vote to Motion to Amend #2:

The vote was 5 aye/ 1 nay/ 1 abstain. The motion passed with Councilor Kvistad voting no and Councilor Atherton abstaining from the vote.

Presiding Officer Monroe called for discussion of the measure as amended before the council. He said it was now appropriate for Councilor Washington to ask his questions.

Councilor Washington said he respected the work of the Growth Management Committee, and all the issues they had been addressing. However, he had received several calls on the issue of the timeline of the extension. He asked for someone to come forward to answer a few questions. It appeared to him that Metro had been working on this for five or six years, and it seemed that every time something new had to be done, Metro went back through the entire process. If Metro had all of this information that it had been compiling for six years, and it had to make some adjustments or do some verifications, why would it take a year to do that? He said he was not questioning any of Metro’s employees, but he would like to know so that when people call, he could explain. For example, when he worked for the airlines, one of the most difficult things they had to deal with was the tariff. After a while, he realized that he was writing about 10 or 20 different type tickets all the time, so that when he received an unusual ticket, it was just a matter of going back to what he already knew, and applying that new aspect to what he already knew. He said that was pretty simplified, and he knew that this was not simple stuff, but he wondered if the work could be completed in less than a year.

Elaine Wilkerson, Growth Management Department Director, said they did need the full amount of time. She highlighted the four items in the resolution that needed work: the natural resources program, the density of constrained environmental lands, jobs/housing balance, and accessory dwelling units. She noted the table in Exhibit C to the resolution, and said by next June, staff had to complete that research and work so that they could determine the capacity of the UGB with the benefit of those four pieces of work. From that point, the process was really focusing on the UGB amendments to satisfy any remaining need, because the council would potentially approve some amendments between now and June. She said the most time consuming element of the work was the jobs/housing balance. It was a very comprehensive jobs research and there was a very large work plan being done. Staff would focus on just the jobs/housing balance portion to ensure that it would be done by June, because the whole package would take longer.

Ms. Wilkerson spoke specifically about the natural resources program (Goal 5, Fish and Wildlife Habitat). Staff had never done that before, so it could not go back and look at previous work. It fact, no one had ever done regionally significant Goal 5 work before. In effect, staff was trying to do the entire Goal 5 piece in a time period of about 18 months. It took Metro about 18 months to revise the wording of Title 3, the Water Quality and Floodplain Section, which just required revising the wording and doing a model ordinance. The Goal 5 task included many more properties potentially effected, the development of a new type of program and a complicated type of analysis required by Goal 5 state legislation and regulations. The rules were very difficult to follow. Because there were so many property owners affected, and local jurisdictions would have to implement Metro’s work, staff set up this program. The draft was just coming out now, which had the material for people to look at. Staff set aside a couple of months for interaction with local jurisdictions and the public to try to form a consensus on the program itself. Then staff would move towards writing Functional Plan language, the legal language which took 1½ years to do on Title 3, would be done in about a two-month period. She said it was a very ambitious project, and to be frank, she could not see how it could be done in less time.

Councilor Washington thanked Ms. Wilkerson and said he appreciated the explanation. He asked if another deadline would be needed after this one.

Ms. Wilkerson said she hoped not, as she did not want to this anymore. She had many other things she would like to work on, and if she could get this done, and get the council all the materials it needed to make its decisions in the time frame set out, she would be very pleased, relieved, and grateful. She said she had been working on this since she started at Metro two years ago in February.

Councilor Kvistad said the council already had all of the numbers defined, and was in the process of actually picking the parcels. It only had one group of parcels yet to pick to finish the work it was doing, which would have left the council a full 4 or 5 years to do this work. He asked where and when the decision was made to add this new information, requiring the council to do this, rather than finalizing the work it already had on track.

Ms. Wilkerson said she could not say exactly when the decision was made, but in the work program, staff initiated some work when she first arrived at Metro in response to the appeal of the decision that was made by council in December 1997. There were three areas raised in the appeal, and concerns expressed, so staff focused on those areas. That was the report related to this, called the Addendum, which came out last fall. She noted that Metro did a number of amendments last December, which satisfied about half of the required need of 32,000 dwelling units. Subsequent to that, in preparation for the next round of amendments, which would have been done right now, staff started some additional work because under Goal 14, any urban growth boundary amendments require information that is as up-to-date as possible. There was always new data coming in on building permits. Staff also had much better air photos that year to look at vacant land, which was one of the concerns that had been expressed.

She said the material they had been looking at this year was very influenced by a letter and a discussion they had over a long period of time with the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). DLCD said Metro approach in the 1997 Urban Growth Report, which assumed 200 foot setbacks from all streams, was inconsistent with Metro’s decision on Title 3 in June 1998, where Metro only provided regulation and protection of lands that were set back distances between 15 to 200 feet. DLCD raised that inconsistency and suggested to Metro that it needed to resolve that inconsistency. So when staff redid the numbers this year, what it really did was take the same 32,000 units, identified that close to 18,000 units were approved in the previous urban growth boundary amendments last December, and the balance (15,000 units) pretty much fell in those lands that were different between the 200 foot assumption and the Title 3 decision the council made in June 1998. Staff called that a placeholder, and in effect, that was the land they were looking at now for Goal 5, because staff recognized that Goal 5 would inevitably be much greater than the water quality protections that were adopted by council. She said this was consistent with the December 1997 decision of council, and echoed the 32,000 need. They were just saying there needed to be some certainty about the level of regulation of those 15,000 units that represented the capacity of the lands that lay in between the two measures. In Metro’s Goal 5 work, they would determine how much was to be regulated, and when that happened, then they could proceed with certainty to do all the UGB amendments that were necessary to satisfy the capacity shortfall that would remain. That number would inevitably be more than zero, potentially 15,000, and may be more than 15,000. It was very difficult for staff to judge.

She said a couple of the items that staff would look at would potentially make that number higher. One was the density of constrained land, because staff made some assumptions this year, and they felt that with Title 3 in place in some locations, staff would have a better chance of assessing the capacity. Also, the accessory dwelling units study, because they thought that could give them the opportunity to fine tune the number, and it was possible that with the additional information, the end result might be a higher capacity than 15,000. With jobs/housing balance specifically, she thought it would lead to some conclusions about where to do UGB amendments for industrial and jobs lands, because they knew that about 700 acres of job land was in that difference between Title 3 and 200 feet. That job land needed to go somewhere in the region, and they would like to put it where it would have some assistance and improvement of the jobs/housing balance. Through staff’s additional study which it would do by next June, they hoped to be able to give council a better idea of where those jobs lands should be, and with that, have some defensible positions in which Metro could adopt its UGB amendments by October 31, 1999. She said they wanted to make sure council had the best information available, as required by Goal 14, and that council had the best tools by which to make all these decisions both on jobs land and housing land.

Councilor Kvistad said as he understood Goal 14 and state requirements in terms of finalizing and finishing a decision that was in process, Metro was not required to redo or review its work. He said basically the council’s decision was in process. When LCDC looked at Metro’s numbers and made requests or comments, Metro was not under a mandate to redo the work. It was a suggestion that Metro redo it, and the decision on the suggested was to be made by the council, not LCDC. He asked if that was correct.

Ms. Wilkerson said LCDC suggested that Metro resolve the inconsistency, and Metro’s legal counsel strongly recommended that Metro use Title 3 as the base regulation assumed in the Urban Growth Report this year. Legal counsel also worked with staff on the concept of creating a placeholder so that they would not, in any fashion, give the impression that Metro did not intend to do further regulation. There was a lot of concern expressed that people would say that Title 3 was all there was. They did not want anyone to misunderstand; they believed there would be more regulation. Metro encouraged more regulation because it was absolutely crucial to satisfy the Endangered Species Act and to satisfy some of the Regional Framework Plan requirements.

Amend #4: Councilor Bragdon moved to replace the date of October 31^st with June 30^th in

Councilor McLain said she appreciated the fact that council wanted to be responsive to making sure that it had the quickest turn around possible in the work that the council, Growth Management Committee and MPAC had all agreed was necessary. After listening to legal counsel, staff, and DLCD, she felt very strongly that in asking for an extension, Metro must not ask for an extension that it could not meet. She thought it was important for Metro to be able to show in good faith that it did a good job with its work plan and that it did scope out how much it had in resources, how much in FTE, and how much in tasks. She said Ms. Wilkerson had been in contact with Mr. Benner personally, and he asked Metro for four work plans that described exactly what the work would be and the timeframe. Ms. Wilkerson attached the work plans to the memo she presented to the council yesterday. She could not vote in favor of the June date because she believed that Metro would then fail to meet the June date, and she did not think the council could do that in good faith.

Councilor Park said he could not support the amendment because due to the hiring freeze, Metro had not replaced its Goal 5 person, Rosemary Furfey. He said the amendment would set an unreasonable expectation. Staff’s best estimate was that the technical work would be done by June 30. After the technical work was done, the council would have to go into public hearings. It might be possible to do them simultaneously, but it would be difficult as the council did not know which lands would be under consideration. He had been told that summer was not a good time to take public testimony, based upon attendance, but he did not know if that was still true. In terms of working through the staff, the Executive Officer, looking at realistic timelines and Metro’s financial constraints, he could not support the earlier date. He understood Councilor Bragdon’s desire to be aggressive, but he also understood the realities. He thought the original extension request as discussed was to the end of 2000. It was moved up to October 31, 2000, which gave the council about two months to have its public hearings and finalize its business. Trying to move the date up to June 30, could mean that the work would not be of satisfactory quality. Quite honestly, he did not think it would be the quality of work that he would want to take to court if Metro was challenged legally on either side.

Councilor Washington asked Ms. Wilkerson if June 30, 2000, was an unreasonable date.

Ms. Wilkerson said yes, she thought it was an unreasonable date. Looking at the table produced by staff which summarized the active areas right now, even if every area came in, there would only be 10,000 units available to satisfy the remaining need. As she said before, it could be 15,000 or more. Metro had to work at finding additional lands to bring in, and that required Metro to look at all available lands and determine which was the best to come in, and from that, proceed to do reports. She added that two of the parcels listed did not have any staff reports yet. A number of staff reports were done for last year’s decisions; and they needed to be updated. That process would be time consuming because staff would have to go through the full analysis of Goal 14. Staff would have to do more reports this time than last year, because they learned quite a bit about how they should look at Goal 14 from the LUBA decision on the urban reserves. There were several points raised that suggested to her that if Metro wanted defensible reports, it needed to do more comprehensive analysis in certain areas. Those reports took a long time to produce, and she did not think it was feasible with her present staff. She added that even with the three current vacancies full, she was not sure she could produce all those reports, do the analysis of additional lands around the current UGB to identify the appropriate lands to consider in addition to these, and get those reports available to the council so the public could see them, before the council’s public hearings.

Ms. Wilkerson said she would have to be doing the reports and analysis at the same time as the Goal 5 work, and the jobs/housing balance work, to make the June deadline. She said this as honestly and humbly as she could, because if the council told her she had to do it, she would of course do her very best. Professionally, though, she did not feel that she could produce reports that she could be proud of, nor that the council would be happy with, in that context – not on any of the matters, because everything would suffer. Recently she was asked what would happen if she did not receive any more funding for her department, and her response was that they would have to stop doing certain programs. In effect, with the present freeze and three positions vacant, she has had to put everything into the program to meet the October 31, deadline. She did not have any more resources to apply and still meet what she believed were other deadlines given by the council. She did not want to see all of Metro’s programs suffer entirely, and they would have to stop absolutely everything.

Councilor Washington said he did not mean this as a criticism, but he had received more of a sense of her perspective tonight than during any of the time since she had started at Metro. He hoped that through this conversation she could appreciate the urgency of the people of this region, and the fact that when they called the council, the councilors had to try to provide some kind of an explanation for a particular situation. He would hope that as the council moved forward, they would hear from Ms. Wilkerson. He appreciated Ms. Wilkerson’s candor tonight, but he hoped that during the next several months she would give the council updates with the same clarity as tonight. He said it was not a criticism, but he was trying to understand what she was up against. He hoped she understood what the council was up against, too, when they had to provide answers to people who were asking them.

Ms. Wilkerson thanked Councilor Washington for the question and the opportunity to try to convey this information.

Councilor Atherton said one way to think of it was that waiting until October 31, would give the council more time to collect the bill from the governor.

Councilor Bragdon closed by saying that he appreciated the level of detail in the work plan, and he understood the work that went into it. He thought these were very complicated questions, and in fact some of them would not be possible to answer for 40 years. That was why he thought Metro needed to draw things to a close. He also knew human nature: a work plan would expand to fit the time allowed. If the Council said the deadline was October 31, it would be making its decision in October; if it said it was June, it would be making its decision in June. There was a saying in the computer industry about lots of data, no information, or lots of information, no wisdom. The worst that could happen was that if there was no protection of environmentally sensitive lands under Goal 5, the Council would adopt the report, there would be no expansion, the Council could get on with life, and other people could get on with suing Metro. He said his intent was to get it over with.

Vote to Amend #4:

The vote was 2 aye/ 5 nay/ 0 abstain. The motion failed with Councilors Washington, McLain, Park, Atherton and Monroe voting no.

Presiding Officer Monroe called for additional discussion or debate on the main motion, Resolution No. 99-2558C as amended.

Councilor Kvistad said this had been a very long road, and now the council had returned to the beginning. The council finished the work, and only needed to make some further adjustments, a couple thousand more acres, and then it would have been done. Instead of staying were the it was, the council was moving backwards, and had moved backwards for almost a year. It was unbelievable that on something like this, which the council could have finished and finalized already, that the council was going for another year. It would be another year of staff expense, another year of people having to come and testify on the same thing, another year of putting families who own properties in these areas through the hell of not knowing what Metro’s process was, another year of micromanaging the process, and new staff reports that he did not necessarily believe were true. One councilor mentioned that someone from DLCD requested these four reports. He said he did not care; DLCD was supposed to work for Metro, or at least be partners with Metro. They were not partners with Metro; the state was shooting at Metro, just like the right and the left were shooting at Metro. The earth must have stopped when 1000 Friends of Oregon and the Home Builders Association both agreed that the council should not to pass the resolution. He said he knew he could not change the council’s mind, but it had to stop. Where was the judgment, reason, or clarity of what Metro was doing? In the years he had been at Metro since 1993, the council had never missed a deadline, no matter how hard, how difficult, or how complicated the decisions were. But now the council was saying it was okay to miss the deadline, when all that needed to be done was to complete something that was two-thirds or even three-quarters done. He said it was unbelievable, and he asked the councilors to reevaluate what they were doing. He encouraged the council not to vote for an extension, to finish with this work, and then move on to the other problems Metro faced.

Councilor McLain said she would be voting in favor of Resolution No. 99-2885C for the following reasons. First, it did not preclude the council from acting before the end of the year. In August, the council sent out letters to all the local jurisdictions asking them to bring forward any subregional issues they had. They did, and the first public hearing was tonight. They would be back on December 2, to continue talking with the council. There were parallel issues and parallel decisions that the council would work on. The council acted as if action was important to them, so they would be able to act in December and January on some of the issues brought in the subregional category. She also felt that it was not just a single decision; everyone on the council knew that the management of the urban growth boundary was an ongoing decision. The council did have to follow state law and make sure that Metro’s findings and the accompanying documents to these decisions had the specific data needed to make sure that they were legally solid. She pointed out that the council was not missing a deadline; it was asking for an extension, and there was a difference. The council had said that it wanted to complete the work and that it was not unwilling to act while completing that work. She reminded the council that MPAC was unanimous in suggesting that, as partners, within the constraints of both their budgets and Metro’s budgets, everyone was doing as much as they could. MPAC even created a subcommittee to look at ways to assist Metro with that extension so the work would be completed as soon as possible.

Presiding Officer Monroe asked if there was additional debate on the motion. There being none he asked Councilor Park to close.

Councilor Park suggested that the viewing audience probably was still trying to understand what the Council was talking about. He gave a brief explanation of the resolution. This resolution requested that Metro ask LCDC, through its director, for a 10-month extension to the deadline to assure a 20-year housing capacity inside the UGB. The extension requested was to October 31, 2000. The resolution also accepted the 1997 Growth Report Update, including a range for dwelling unit capacity of certain environmentally sensitive lands, which for consideration of additional protection was scheduled in Metro’s Goal 5 process. The range of this placeholder-housing estimate was between a dwelling unit surplus of 200 to a deficit of as much as 15,000 dwelling units.

He said that Resolution No. 99-2855C established the length between the protection of environmentally sensitive lands and possible expansion of the UGB. It acknowledged the 2040 Growth Concept in RUGGO, adopted into the Regional Framework Plan. It called for protection of sensitive lands inside and outside the UGB. It included services of a livable community, protection of natural resources, balance in the urban environment for the purposes of that livable community, and a link between the natural resource protection of UGB expansion in that current Title 3 Water Quality and Floodplain protections would apply to any land brought into the UGB in this legislative process.

In addition, Councilor Park said, the amount of UGB expansion related to general need would not be calculable until Metro adopted Goal 5 Functional Plan regulations. Simply put, protection equaled expansion and that was what this discussion had been about. Council required the extra time to get to that point.

He said that whatever the feelings on either side of the issue were, once lands were paved over the decision was not reversible. As the Council deliberated and worked through various pieces next year, including the subregional needs analysis, some of what was picked may be farmland. In order to make a better long-term livable community Council must try not to injure the environment and preserve as much as possible. He asked that Council keep this thought at the forefront during coming deliberations. He urged an aye vote on the resolution.

As Amended: The vote was 6 aye/ 1 nay/ 0 abstain. The motion passed with Councilor

10.2 Resolution No. 99-2859, For the Purpose of Developing Performance Measures for Monitoring the UGB and the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan.

Councilor McLain said that the Committee recommended 3/0 to pass the Resolution on to Council. It continued to refine the list and definitions of performance measures and continued the gathering of performance measure data to a mid-1999 collection date. It amended Title 9 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan by finalizing a revised list of performance measures and changed the data collection date to mid-year with a 1999 baseline year. It required performance measures only in years when the Urban Growth Report (UGR) was not due and de-coupled the performance measures analysis from consideration of corrective action. This would allow staff to do the UGR one year and performance measure data in another. There was insufficient staff available to do both in the same year, and no budget for additional hiring. This would also allow review and analysis of the measures prior to taking any corrective action. Staff has been directed to continue collecting data for Council review.

Councilor McLain said that there was no budget impact as it was status quo work under the current budget.

Councilor Atherton mentioned that at the Growth Management Committee meeting he had suggested having a public survey asking “Is this a good place to live today, would this be good place to live 10 years from now?” He felt that this would be a good performance measure. He agreed with Councilor Bragdon’s earlier statement that a lot of data had been gathered, but no wisdom. He said that communities built communities, not Metro. He would like to see public feedback via a survey.

Councilor McLain responded that surveys had been listed in the original data of performance measures that could be implemented. Councilor Atherton was welcome to work with the committee and staff to ensure funding for such a survey. Also, in discussion 2 years ago, it was decided that statistical data should be collected first, then a survey would be considered.

Vote: The vote was 5 aye/ 2 nay/ 0 abstain. The motion passed with Councilors Atherton and Kvistad voting no.

11. EXECUTIVE SESSION HELD PURSUANT TO ORS 192.660(1)(e). DELIBERATIONS WITH PERSONS DESIGNATED TO NEGOTIATE REAL PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS.

11.1 Resolution No. 99-2866, For the Purpose of Authorizing the Executive Officer to Purchase Properties in the Forest Park Expansion Target Area.

Presiding Officer Monroe announced that Executive Session 11 and measure 11.1 on the agenda had been set over to the December 2, 1999 agenda for consideration.

Councilor Bragdon said that Mr. Cotugno’s office reported that a citizen testified earlier that he had been refused a copy of the draft RTP; however, according to staff, in fact he did receive a copy of the plan. All requests for copies had been filled as of today, so if anyone did wish a copy they were available from the Transportation Department. He also expressed his appreciation to Mr. Cooper and Mr. Shaw for the extra work Mr. Epstein did on the Jenkins-Kim locational adjustment.

He gave a brief report on the Budget Task Force. At its second meeting today they reviewed various reports from the solid waste area, Executive Officer Burton gave a presentation, and the task force reviewed a suggested ordinance (Ordinance No. 99-831) that would repeal Ordinance 99-828, adopted October 28, 1999.

Presiding Officer Monroe said that first reading of Ordinance 99-831 would be December 2, with possible final action scheduled for December 9.

Councilor Park asked for clarification. Regarding Ordinance 99-831 he understood that the Budget subcommittee had passed it out – was that correct?

Presiding Officer Monroe said yes, that it was just being reviewed, and was sponsored by the Budget subcommittee.

Councilor Atherton reported that he had an interesting discussion with MCCI. They had considered his draft for a Metro Elections Code. He promised to bring the code before the Council shortly; in the meantime the draft was available for review.

Councilor Park said one of the things that each Councilor brought to this body was his or her credibility and beliefs. Without credibility the system would not work. What the Council did was take ideas, combine them, work them over and hopefully, create good legislation. The process required trust and honesty in order to work, and sometimes members were questioned on it. He said he came in with a good reputation and he wanted to leave with it intact. He hoped that those who came before the Council dealt with Council in the same fashion that Council dealt with them. He said that today had been a great disappointment to him.

There being no further business to come before the Metro Council, Presiding Officer Monroe adjourned the meeting at 6:10 p.m.

Document Date	Document Description	Submitted by
11/18/1999	Letter RE: Metro Council Urban Growth Boundary Public Hearing, includes bound copy of City of Hillsboro Metro Functional Plan Final Compliance Report, City’s testimony from 9/23/1999 at Hillsboro, and a chart showing Hillsboro 2040 design types	John Godsey, Hillsboro City Council
11/18/1999	Testimony RE: highest and best use for UR 42	Stacey Rumgay
11/18/1999	Testimony RE: support of South Hillsboro addition	Doug Draper, Genstar
11/18/1999	Statement RE: UR 53, support of south Hillsboro plan	Joe Hanauer, managing partner, Butternut Creek
11/18/1999	Testimony RE: Hillsboro’s commitment to Region 2040 concepts and Finding a South Hillsboro UGB expansion solution	Darlene Greene, Hillsboro City Council
11/18/1999	Annexation Application packet for Metro District Boundary for Pacific Capital LLC	Leigh Leighton, Westlake Consultants
11/18/1999	Testimony RE: support of adding land to Urban Growth Boundary	Betty Atteberry, Partnership for Sensible Growth
11/18/1999	Testimony RE: support of adding land to Urban Growth Boundary	Ernie Platt, Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland
11/18/1999	Testimony RE: Urban Growth Report, need for balance between transportation and land use	Steve Clark, Community Newspapers, Inc.
11/18/1999	Testimony RE: flaws in Urban Growth Report	Ron Crutcher, Partnership for Sensible Growth
11/18/1999	Letter to Council RE: Urban Growth Boundary and Urban Growth Report	Mary Kyle McCurdy, 1000 Friends of Oregon
11/18/1999	Memo to Metro RE: Metro Annexation Petition UR 49, includes map of proposed annexation and double majority worksheet verification form.	Lee D Leighton, Westlake Consultants, Inc.
11/18/1999	Agenda packet for Council regular meeting 11/18/1999 including attachments	Staff
11/18/1999	Testimony RE: UGB expansion in UR 39	Mike Gates, West Linn-Wilsonville School Board
11/18/1999	Letter to Rod Monroe & Council RE: subregional jobs/housing balance and addition of UR 39 to UGB	Mayor Charlotte Lehan, City of Wilsonville

11/18/1999	e-mail to Council RE: Urban Reserve Area 41	Dave Knierim
11/18/1999	Testimony RE: opposition to including area 45 into UGB	Tom Aufenthie
11/18/1999	Letter to Council RE: Urban Reserve Area 65	Steven M. Ladd, Asst. Superintendent of Beaverton School District
11/18/1999	Fax copy of letter to Rod Monroe RE: support for UGB Amendment for URA 65	Tom Brian, Chair, Washington County Commission