GREEN RIBBON COMMITTEE

October 16, 2001

Metro Council Chamber

Notes of Meeting

Chair Hitchcock opened the meeting at 5:15 PM. Guests introduced themselves.

The notes from the 10/9/01 meeting were accepted.

Chair Hitchcock summarized the committee’s progress to-date. It began with a charge from the Metro Council to analyze 30 sites and make revenue recommendations for developing and opening 8-10 sites. The committee has now agreed to recommend 17 sites, of which 4 are to be anchor sites. Eight trails are among the 17 sites recommended for opening. The committee has also identified a preliminary program that would fit within a 5 year, $60 million budget window. As a part of that program, the committee approved $12.5 million towards operation and maintenance for the 17 sites.

The committee then reviewed a series of options in order to finalize its recommendations.

Restoration and Small Capital Improvements

Chair Hitchcock identified an amount for restoration and capital improvements for parks, trails and open space sites not in the committee’s final recommended development package. The amount was $500,000/year or $2,500,000 over a 5-year period. Charles Ciecko clarified that the success of this aspect will be predicated not only on money, but also on leveraging volunteers and on the # of projects chosen.

Vote-unanimous.

Stewardship and Maintenance

Next, $300,000 annually was identified for stewardship and maintenance (landbanking) for sites not selected by the Green Ribbon Committee for development at this time.

Vote-unanimous.

Local Share and Capital Development

Purpose and scope: The committee discussed the purpose and scope of a local share package. There was discussion of whether local share should go only to jurisdictions that were unlikely to have sites in the final recommended package, or to all jurisdictions to help gather widespread support for a possible revenue measure.

Some committee members recommended allowing non-profit groups and not just local jurisdictions to be eligible for local share dollars. Other members responded that restoration grants were already available for those grants, and that local jurisdictions typically had the first line of responsibility for park or trail improvement anyway.

Rudy Kadlub, in support of comments by Barbara Walker, moved that local share dollars be made available for local jurisdictions in a challenge grant format. Grants would be limited to parks, trails and open spaces that augment or complement the regional system.

Planning and development activities will be eligible for these grants. An emphasis should be placed on community partnerships.

Vote-unanimous.

Amount: Mr. Kadlub then moved a package that included $32 million for development of the 8 top rated projects, $6.5 million for the next 9 projects, and $1 million a year, or $5 million total for a challenge grant program for local jurisdictions.

Discussion ensued over the implications for the 9 lower-rated projects. After further discussion, Mr. Kadlub modified his motion to clarify that the bottom 9 projects should be funded in a manner that honors their ranking. He also included the $5 million that staff had identified for contingency.

Vote-All committee members voted yes, except Commissioner Neeley, who voted no.

Mr. Kadlub then moved to reconsider the $12.5 million that the committee had previously committed to operations and maintenance for priority sites. Given that within a 5-year period, no site will be developed immediately, a ramp-up approach is more reasonable. His motion was to remove $6 million from the $12.5 million, and assign it to capital development for sites. That action would increase the amount available for capital development to a total of $38.5 million. Jeff Tucker then explained to the committee how the original $12.5 million figure had been defined. Chair Hitchcock asked that the motion be amended so that the $6 million be placed in a kind of reserve whose first priority would be for operations and maintenance, if needed during the 1^st five years, but otherwise could be used for capital expenditures.

Vote-unanimous.

Funding Source and Timing Implications: The committee discussed the pros and cons of a recommendation to Council with regard to the source of funds. Briefly, a 5-year, $60 million package funded through an increase in the excise tax, and with a referral to the voters, became option A. Option B would be based on an assessment that voters would not support such a measure in the immediate future. In that case the Council has the authority to increase the excise tax on its own, as long as a revenue-generating cap (currently $7.8 million above revenue generated) is not exceeded. In order to not exceed that cap, a period of time longer than 6 years, and less than 10 years would be needed to generate revenues for the committee’s.package. Inflation for more than five years would increase the total amount needed to accomplish the same objectives to approximately $10 million.

Presiding Officer Bragdon explained that he did not expect other Metro departments to be competing for funds raised through excise tax increases.

A motion by Councilor King to recommend a version of option B, estimated to be 10 years and $70 million (or proportional to the 5 year $60 million option A), passed with three dissenting votes. The motion included a referral to voters at a future date of a measure that would include a permanent line of funding that could include money for acquisition, as well as development and maintenance.

Mr. Kadlub then moved to forward two choices to the council with no recommendation: Option A, and option B extending the same package over a yet-to-be-determined amount (staff are asked to clarify) of time and revenues. This motion was understood to supersede the previous motion. Barbara Walker expressed sensitivity that a Metro measure not negatively influence other local jurisdiction measures that might be on the ballot.

Vote-unanimous.

Progress Review

Doug Neeley moved that a committee be established that will review the progress of this effort on a biennial basis.

Vote-unanimous.

Public Comment

Portland City Councilor Jim Franscesoni urged the committee to not recommend that a revenue measure be referred to voters in either May or November of 2002. He felt that Metro needed to do further polling on this issue. A citizen expressed the opinion that the current Open Spaces bond measure 26-26, passed in good economic times, and was seen as providing protection against density. She felt that with the events of Sept. 11, and a downturn in the economy, voters will be unlikely to pass the package that the Green Ribbon Committee is recommending.

Kudos

Staff were congratulated for providing accurate and timely information and supporting a process that was transparent to participants and observers.

Metro was thanked for working cooperatively with local partners.

Next Meeting:

Tuesday November 27, 2001, 5:00-7:30 pm, in Metro Council Chamber.

5:00 (note earlier time) to 7:30 PM

   Tuesday, September 25, 2001

   Metro Council Chamber

   600 NE Grand Avenue

   Portland