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

Members Present: Walt Hitchcock (Chair), Councilor Doug Daoust, Nathalie Darcy, 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, Tony Mounts, Jeff Stone, Jeff Tucker

Sue Marshall, Tualatin Riverkeepers, invited the committee to tour access points along the river. John

John Donovan announced that, following the work of the committee, a series of Open Houses would be occurring to give the broader community an opportunity to see the work of the committee before a recommendation goes to Council for final approval. He invited members to be present, if possible, at the evening meetings. He noted that the potential dates are Wednesday, November 7; Tuesday, November 13; and Thursday, November 15. The meetings will be informal, designed for sharing and discussion.

Tony Mounts, Metro Financial Planning Manager, provided background on the options identified in the charge to the committee – Property Tax, Solid Waste Excise Tax, and Regional Parks Fee. He described these three options in terms of rate, authorization, how they would be administered, precedents, and issues, referring to the hand-out distributed at the October 2, 2001, committee meeting.

▪ The question was asked: what is Metro’s charter limitation on excise tax? Mr. Mounts replied that the charter limits how much expenditure can be funded by that type of revenue. At present, the cap is set at $15 million, and Metro is currently at $8 million, leaving room for another $7 million in expenditures before the cap would be reached.

▪ The question was asked: Municipalities have the option to use utility fees; what are Metro’s capabilities in this area? Mr. Mounts replied that most fees run through utility bills must be items that can be metered by usage, or can utilize court-tested models to link usage to the fee charged. He cited examples such as stormwater, wastewater, and transportation fees.

▪ It was stated by one committee member that property taxes seem to be a short-term solution, and Metro requires a funding mechanism that is long-term, meets the needs of inflation, and is clearly defined for greenspaces and trails. Other committee members noted that there are compression issues which would make this a less viable option.

▪ It was noted that excise tax is the only general operating fund Metro has. If used for greenspaces, it will eventually compete against other program funding; also, it is dependent on growth in the use of Metro services and that may be declining. However, using the excise tax for parks operations and maintenance is consistent with present structure.

▪ General agreement that property tax is not a good, or reliable, solution. Excise tax seems like a clearer path; further, if it is referred to the voters, there is the possibility that, somewhere down the line, Metro can request an increase in the Charter cap.

▪ The question was asked: why can’t other revenue sources (such as grants or contributions) be explored? Presiding Officer Bragdon replied that Council had several long discussions regarding alternative sources, which are detailed in the Lewis and Clark Report. The three options identified for the committee to work with are the most viable because a) many other types of taxes are already spoken for (such as a lodging tax), of b) the amount that could be generated would be insufficient.

▪ Comment was made that perhaps there should be two funding sources: one for operations and maintenance, and one for capital improvements. A rebuttal to this was that Metro would then be fighting two voter battles, rather than presenting one cohesive package.

▪ Consensus was reached that Regional Parks Fee was really a tax, and therefore probably not doable. Collection on this type of funding mechanism is also a problem. It was noted that many other fees are already included on utility bills in some jurisdictions, and adding more for any reason would be difficult to justify to the voters.

▪ The comment was made that, regardless of the funding mechanism chosen, if it was to be referred to the voters, there is a timing problem, due to current economic conditions. People may view this as frivolous. We need to look at what the voters want to give us and when, rather than how much we’d like to get.

Jeff Tucker, Parks and Greenspaces Financial Planning Manager, revisited the conceptual frameworks discussed at the October 2, 2001, meeting for financial planning of individual sites. Presiding Officer Bragdon reminded the group that these are ball-park estimates, and master planning would come later.

▪ General discussion ensued regarding the best way to approach choosing sites and funding amounts.

▪ It was noted that whatever dollar amount was recommended, it would be limited by maximum amount of tipping fee which could be charged.

▪ Some committee members felt that a local share component to the funding measure was needed.

▪ It was surmised that the amount required might be closer to $50 million over a 5-year period if operations and maintenance and local support were thrown in to the mix.

▪ It was noted that, because the costs given were only estimates, that capital costs could come in much higher; therefore it would be prudent to go out for more.

▪ In terms of site selection, the group felt that the rankings already indicate where priorities might be for development, and there is no need to be more specific, except to note that several anchor sites should be chosen for more development.

▪ The comment was made that Metro should stay at a lower funding request level because there would be many other funding measures on the ballot in 2002.

▪ After some discussion, the group concluded that a higher amount could be feasible, if it was framed as a cost to the average household of less than $1 per month.

▪ It was estimated that if household costs were increased to $7.50 per year, $12 million annually could be generated, or $60 million over a 5-year period, resulting in a tip fee of somewhere around $75 per ton. If this occurred, the cost to the average household per month would be somewhere around $.63.

Action: Jerry Hermann motioned, and Doug Neeley seconded that excise tax would be the recommended primary funding mechanism for greenspaces and trails improvements and operations and maintenance. Motion was approved.

Action: Eugene Grant motioned, and Doug Neeley seconded that Metro should go out for $35 million for capital development only on all 15 projects. No consensus was evident.

Action: Rudy Kadlub motioned, and Charlotte Lehan seconded that the measure should be aimed at generating $60 million over a 5-year period, for capital, maintenance, and local share combined, with the amount of each component to be determined. Motion was approved.

Action: Rudy Kadlub motioned, and Mike Houck seconded that the measure should specify $12.5 million total out of the $60 million to be used for operations and maintenance purposes with allocation of the other $47.5 million to be determined. Motion was approved.

It was agreed that further discussion on the allocation of funds for capital improvements, landbanking, and local share would be continued to the next meeting. The next meeting, on October 16, 2001, will take place between 5:00-7:00 p.m.