Compliance - Archives and Special Collections Management - Metro Archives and Special Collections Records

Members Present: Walt Hitchcock (Chair), Councilor Doug Daoust, Nathalie Darcy, Ralph Gilbert, Mayor Eugene Grant, Jerry Herrmann, Mike Houck, David Judd, Rudy Kadlub, Robert Kincaid, Councilor Mary King, Mayor Charlotte Lehan, Sue Marshall, Terry

Staff/Council Present: David Bragdon, Charles Ciecko, Peggy Coats, Jim Desmond, Michael Morrissey, Tony Mounts, Jeff Stone, Jeff Tucker

Chair Hitchcock restated the mission of the group: to demonstrate what has been done with the Greenspaces program to the public; to bridge from an acquisition phase to an implementation phase; to pave the way for further development and later acquisition; and to reach out to as many people as possible.

He proposed a strategy for development of sites which would focus on four key sites, or “anchors” for highest development, followed by cursory initial development on the remainder of the sites as finances allowed. He stated that the four sites he proposed (Mt. Talbert, Wilsonville Tract, Smith & Bybee Lakes, and Cooper Mountain) represent the four corners of the regional system; that each touches upon or is part of the regional trail system and that the sites are accessible to everyone so they can be a visible representation of what the Greenspaces program is capable of.

He further proposed that, if the committee accepted the concept of focusing on key sites for development, the questions remained as to what level of development the sites would be assigned, and to what extent development would be limited on the remaining sites.

Jeff Tucker, Parks & Greenspaces Financial Manager, showed the committee where the proposed anchors are located on a map of the regional system.

▪ There was a concern expressed regarding the need to focus on trails as well as key regional sites. Trails could potentially reach the largest number of people. A suggestion was made to prioritize the remaining sites, apart from the key sites, as to their access to the regional trail system.

▪ Restoration still needs to be an important focus. The question was asked whether, in the budget for ongoing capital improvements, there would be money set aside for restoration purposes, and, if not, should that be part of the overall package proposed to Council.

▪ It was stated that it makes sense to approve a base package for the top 12-15 sites as a starting point -–this would touch more sites in the region, and provide greater access overall, rather than starting by assigning more dollars to fewer sites.

▪ The question was asked whether the target dollar amount of $20,000,000 for projects and $10,000,000 had changed to $30,000,000 for projects alone? Hitchcock responded that, in his proposal, the $30,000,000 does not include maintenance and small capital projects. He said, realistically, that would add another $6,000,000 to $10,000,000 to the total cost. He further questioned whether, if the committee recommends going forward with a lot of sites which are only moderately visible, if they have fulfilled their mission of showing the importance of sites and regional appeal?

▪ One member questioned how the committee could make a decision on site selection if they don’t know how they’re going to pay? Presiding Officer David Bragdon responded by stating that, at this point, we don’t know. Council has given the Committee rough parameters in which to make a decision, but, ultimately, Council will decide what is realistic or feasible to ask the voters for.

▪ A comment was made that the proposed strategy had a lot of merit, and that the overall concept of funding anchors at a higher level as a visible part of the system while funding the remaining top sites at a restoration level is good.

▪ There was general agreement that it would be desirable to have some money in the package go back to local jurisdictions for matching to get some of the regional trails moving ahead. There was also a need expressed to understand what cities and other local partners would be willing to do.

▪ There was a concern expressed that the committee’s original charge was to select 8-10 sites, and they were now up to 15. A suggestion was made to review the top 11 sites financially, then review the remainder, rather than stating that all will be opened or developed at some level.

▪ It was asked that staff provide a list of the trails already completed, with graphics so the committee can see what has already been completed.

Action: Eugene Grant motioned, and Nathalie Darcy seconded that the group accept the proposed recommendation to continue reviewing all 15 sites for now and to leave it to Council to make cuts later. Motion was approved.

Action: Eugene Grant motioned, and Mike Houck seconded that the group accept the concept that the four sites mentioned would be funded and developed at a higher level and more fully than the remaining sites. Motion was approved.

Jeff Tucker talked about how trail costs were put together, referring to hand-outs on individual sites distributed to the committee. He stated that the committee could decide upon a mix of segments to arrive at a price for development. He also stated that he had applied conservative inflation factors to existing master plan estimates to arrive at the figures noted on the site selection sheets. He then reviewed the financials on all the sites, and responded to questions and comments regarding specific sites and trails, addressing outstanding issues overall, and per site. He stated that the “infrastructure improvements” of $5,000,000 was to address potential unanticipated road improvements related to the sites.

Jim Desmond, Open Spaces Acquisition Manager, discussed the hand-out distributed to the committee on general trail costs. He noted that cost could vary greatly depending upon development requirements which might be imposed by the Portland Department of Transportation (PDOT) or other jurisdictions.

Jeff Stone, Council Chief of Staff, briefly addressed funding mechanisms available to Metro, referring to the hand-out on Revenue Options distributed to the committee, stating that there would be an opportunity to discuss these options in more detail at the next meeting.

▪ It was stated that Metro has the greatest control over excise tax as a funding mechanism.

▪ It was reiterated that, at this point, Council has not decided upon a specific funding mechanism, and whether a specific recommendation from the committee will require a vote.

▪ The issue of compression was discussed as less of an impact now than in the period preceding Measure 47 (approximately five years ago), and that it is principally a Multnomah County issue.

▪ It was stated that there is timing issue in regards to the possibility of going out for a Regional Parks system fee (e.g. utility tax), given the current high utility rates. There was a concern that Metro be able to “sell” the package, and, if this is chosen as a funding option, that we wait until the current pressure on utilities is over. It was also stated that this type of funding mechanism will probably become more popular with other local governments in the future.

▪ Some members felt that property taxes should be eliminated as an option, because they are not long-lasting; they are too difficult to pass; and they would not ultimately sustain the program.

▪ It was questioned whether an increase in the Solid Waste Excise Tax would fly politically. Another member expressed his opinion that the haulers could stand a higher fee, and this would be a logical place to adjust for funding.

▪ There was discussion regarding the number of funding measures planned for the ballot from other jurisdictions in 2002, with the caveat that, if Metro goes out as well, there could be a lot of competition and it might be a “tough sell”. If Metro chose funding options which did not require voter approval, we could leverage our opting out of the ballot (and thereby reducing competition with other agencies) by asking others who ARE going out to support Metro’s decision.

▪ The committee requested a legal opinion on whether there was a need for Metro to go to the voters if they selected the parks system fee as an option.

It was agreed that site selection would be continued to the next meeting, along with further discussion of revenue options. The next meeting, on October 9, 2001, will take place between 5:00-7:00 pm.

Dick Jones distributed a hand-out regarding potential costs for developing the Portland Traction Company Trail, and expressed his, and others’, interest in seeing this occur.