METRO POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING RECORD

November 13, 2002 – 5:00 p.m.

Metro Regional Center, Council Chambers

Committee Members Present: Chair Michael Jordan, Charles Becker, Nathalie Darcy, Rob Drake, Andy Duyck, Eugene Grant, Ed Gronke, Judie Hammerstad, Alan Hipólito, Tom Hughes, Vera Katz, Richard Kidd, Mark Knudsen, Doug Neeley, Cheryl Perrin, David Ripma, Dan Saltzman

Alternates Present: Meg Fernekees, Jack Hoffman, Dave Lohman, Roger Vonderharr

Also Present: Bob Adams, West Linn City Councilor-elect; Dawn Adams, West Linn Parks Advisory Board; Hal Bergsma, City of Beaverton; Beverly Bookin, The Bookin Group; Al Burns, City of Portland; Brian Campbell, Port of Portland; Bob Clay, City of Portland; Tom Coffee, Consultant; Valerie Counts, City of Hillsboro; Brent Curtis, Washington County; Rob De Graff, Portland Business Alliance; Mike Dennis, TriMet; David Dodds, West Linn Mayor; Kay Durtschi, MCCI; Sandi Farley, City of West Linn; Elissa Gertler, Portland Development Commission; Stacy Hopkins, City of Tualatin; Jim Jacks, City of Tualatin; Greg Jenks, Clackamas County; Gil Kelley, City of Portland; Stephan Lashbrook, City of Lake Oswego; Doug McClain, Clackamas County; Leeanne MacColl, League of Women Voters; Mary Kyle McCurdy, 1000 Friends of Oregon; Irene Marvich, League of Women Voters; Laura Oppenheimer, The Oregonian; Lynn Peterson, Lake Oswego City Councilor-elect; Pat Ribellia, City of Hillsboro; Kelly Ross, Home Builders Association; Richard Ross, City of Gresham; Doug Rux, City of Tualatin; Jack Simpson, West Linn Budget Committee; Julia Simpson, West Linn citizen; Kimi Sloop, Parsons Brinckerhoff

Metro Elected Officials Present: Liaisons – Carl Hosticka, Presiding Officer; Susan McLain, Council District 4; Rod Park, Council District 1. Bill Atherton, Council District 2; Rex Burkholder, Council District 5; Brian Newman, Metro Councilor-elect, District 2.

Metro Staff Present: Dick Benner, Brenda Bernards, Dan Cooper, Andy Cotugno, Suzanne Myers Harold, Mike Hoglund, Lydia Neill, Michael Morrissey, Mark Turpel, Ray Valone, Mary Weber

1.  INTRODUCTIONS

Michael Jordan, Clackamas County Commission and MPAC Chair, called the meeting to order at
5:04 p.m. Those present introduced themselves.

2.  ANNOUNCEMENTS

Chair Jordan announced that the committee would meet one more time in 2002, on December 11th. In January, MPAC would need new leadership. Currently, Tom Hughes, Mayor, City of Hillsboro, was Vice Chair of MPAC and in line to be the next MPAC Chair. Larry Cooper, Multnomah County Special Districts, was the Second Vice Chair. Traditionally, MPAC leadership had included a representative from each county, and the Chair of MPAC had been a representative from either a city or a county. Since Mr. Cooper represented special districts and Lisa Naito, Multnomah County Commission, was the MPAC Chair in 2001, MPAC needed a representative from a Multnomah County city to serve as Vice Chair in 2003. In addition, MPAC would need a new representative from Clackamas County to serve as Second Vice Chair. Chair Jordan said he would be calling members by phone to ask if they would be willing to serve.

3.  CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS

There were none.

4.  CONSENT AGENDA

5.  COUNCIL UPDATE

Carl Hosticka, Metro Presiding Officer, said the Council had been working its way through Ordinance No. 02-969, which would approve Task 2 of Periodic Review and the urban growth boundary (UGB) expansion. The Community Planning Committee had several extended meetings last week, and would have more extended meetings next week. Last week they struggled through the Urban Growth Report item by item. Most of the votes on each of the controversial items were 4 to 3, but not always the same four votes. In the end, the committee voted 6/0/1 to adopt its actions. Individual Councilors raised some concerns along the way, which they may wish to discuss during agenda item 7.

Rod Park, Metro Council District 1, said the Community Planning Committee would meet next Tuesday, November 19, at 1:00 p.m., and go as late as possible. The committee would meet again at 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 20, and also continue for as long as necessary. He hoped the committee would complete its actions on Wednesday, so that staff could complete the findings and background work necessary for the ordinance’s first reading at Council on November 21. The Community Planning Committee was also scheduled to meet on November 26^th to continue its work.

6.  ORDINANCE NO. 02-981, For the Purpose of Amending Ordinance No. 95-625A to Amend the 2040 Growth Concept Map and the Title 4: Industrial and Employment Areas Map, November 2002; and Declaring an Emergency

Andy Cotugno, Metro Planning Director, introduced the item. He said these map amendments were not really part of the UGB process. Instead, they reflected refinements from the local planning process.

Brenda Bernards, Senior Regional Planner, reviewed Ordinance No. 02-981A, the staff report to the ordinance, and the accompanying maps (Attachment 1 to Ordinance No. 02-981A Staff Report). A copy of the documents is included in the meeting record. She noted that the ordinance had been revised in the Council Community Planning Committee to retain the rural reserves designation. In addition, the City of Gresham had asked that the map change for the brickyards be removed from the ordinance and wrapped into the city’s UGB expansion concept plan for Springwater.

Chair Jordan asked if Ordinance No. 02-981A would be adopted by the Council as part of the UGB expansion, or separately.

Mr. Cotugno said it was a separate ordinance, and Council would take action on it tomorrow.

7.  PERIODIC REVIEW – UPDATE AND DISCUSSION OF ADOPTION PACKAGE

Chair Jordan said the Community Planning Committee was diligently working on UGB issues. The purpose of this agenda item was to update MPAC on the status of the Council’s work and allow for discussion among MPAC members. Some of the Metro Councilors had requested discussion of particular issues to give them some flavor of MPAC’s opinion. However, MPAC was not in a position to make or remake its formal recommendations to the Council. He asked Mr. Cotugno to begin by explaining the status of the ordinance. Councilors would then have an opportunity to state their concerns about issues, followed by a discussion of any related topic of interest to MPAC members.

Mr. Cotugno reviewed the Periodic Review and Related Legislation Decision Products Checklist, a copy of which is included in the meeting packet. He asked Dick Benner, Senior Assistant Counsel, to give a more detailed explanation of Exhibits A, B, and C.

Mr. Benner said the Metro Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC) had reviewed Exhibits A through C, and would complete its review on Wednesday, November 20. He reviewed Title 1 Table 1 and noted that the nature of Table 1 had changed. When the Metro Council first adopted Table 1, the numbers were targets for local jurisdictions. Almost every jurisdiction met its target numbers. The new table reflected the zoned capacity that had been achieved. Its intent was to preserve the capacities that had been achieved and prevent backsliding.

Judie Hammerstad, Mayor, City of Lake Oswego, noted that the new Title 1 Table 1 included more land than the original. Therefore, the new table might not be as dense or show as much capacity as the original.

Mr. Benner said that was correct. Generally speaking, each city and county went through the process required by Title 1. Not every jurisdiction reached its housing target numbers. The Council recognized that not every jurisdiction would reach its target and consequently expanded the UGB in 1998 and 1999. When the UGB was expanded, design types and densities were assigned to increase the capacity of the UGB, and those changes were reflected in the new Title 1 Table 1.

Ms. Bernards added that when Title 1 Table 1 was initially adopted, MTAC and MPAC voted to try to prevent expansion of the UGB. Therefore, each jurisdiction accepted a higher capacity number. Not all jurisdictions could meet that higher number. She distributed a revised copy of Table 3.07-1, Zoned Capacity for Housing and Employment Units – Year 1994 to 2017 (Title 1 Table 1; Ordinance No. 02-969 Exhibit A), a copy of which is included in the meeting record.

Chair Jordan noted that the new table did not include any upcoming UGB action in December 2002.

Mayor Hammerstad noted that Gresham added to its land through the urban reserves, and its capacity increased. On the other hand, Beaverton did not add any land and its capacity decreased.

Ms. Bernards said for some cities, the Table 1 targets were very easy to meet. They simply had to adopt minimum densities. Other cities, including Beaverton, had to do extensive work to increase zoning.

Vera Katz, Mayor, City of Portland, asked if Metro made a judgmental decision on whether or not jurisdictions really made an effort to meet their capacity targets. Was it a hands-on process or hands-off process?

Mr. Benner described Title 8 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, which enforced the Functional Plan and allowed opportunities for citizens and jurisdictions to testify before the Metro Council if they believed a jurisdiction was not in compliance with the Functional Plan.

Mr. Cotugno added that Metro staff participated throughout the process and tracked whether jurisdictions were meeting their requirements. In addition, the Executive Officer’s annual report to the Council listed the actions taken by jurisdictions to comply with the Functional Plan. The report was public, and allowed people other than Metro staff to review and comment on jurisdictions’ compliance efforts.

Susan McLain, Metro Council District 4, said the Metro Council took the compliance reports seriously, and sometimes challenged jurisdictions with hard questions.

Mr. Benner reviewed Exhibit B to Ordinance No. 02-969, which would enforce Measure 26-29 by limiting density increases. He described Exhibit C, which would adopt a Title 12 to the Functional Plan to protect residential neighborhoods, as directed by Measure 26-29. He reviewed Ordinance No. 02-964, which would amend Metro Code to allow expansion of the UGB onto land outside Metro’s district boundary, on the condition that the territory could not be urbanized until it was brought into the district boundary. Title 11 restrictions would be enforced through an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between Metro and the appropriate county and/or city.

Nathalie Darcy, Washington County Citizen Representative, asked about Exhibit C of the ordinance. Assuming that Metro adopted a functional plan for parks and local jurisdictions then established a level of service, would Metro simply suggest voluntary strategies to comply with that level of service, or would it be mandated?

Mr. Benner said the Regional Framework Plan did not talk about Metro adoption of level of service standards, but rather Metro adoption of criteria to guide local adoption of level of service standards.

Ms. Darcy said that currently, the urban community plans for unincorporated Washington County identified areas that were park deficient. The parks district might be advised when a development was occurring in a parks-deficient area, but there was no ability for the local government to mandate more parks. Was the intent to change the voluntary nature of this?

Mr. Benner said he would expect that the local level of service standards would have to determine a way to address those types of situations, for example through an acquisitions program.

Mayor Becker asked what would happen if Metro voted to include an area in the UGB, the local jurisdiction developed a concept plan, and then the local voters rejected the annexation proposal.

Mr. Benner said there was not a solution to that situation in the annexation ordinance. There were situations like this all over the state, particularly in jurisdictions that had charter provisions that allowed voter approval or rejection of any annexation.

David Ripma, Councilor, City of Troutdale, said in the checklist about Exhibit E, the Regionally Significant Industrial Areas Map, there was a cryptic note that MPAC had recommended it for Task 3. Did that mean that there was no Exhibit E currently going before the Metro Council, as voted on by MPAC?

Mr. Cotugno said MPAC recommended not adopting an Exhibit E map. However, the Council felt that some kind of Exhibit E map was necessary. Currently the Community Planning Committee was considering the Exhibit E map that identified broad concept areas, and recognized the language in Title 4 that called for a yearlong process to identify the specific locations within those concept areas. He clarified that the Council had not yet voted on this, but had discussed Title 4.

Councilor Park said the Community Planning Committee had voted on Exhibit E, which signified those areas within the current boundary. There was also an Exhibit N, which addressed those areas that would potentially come into the UGB but be governed under Title 11.

Councilor Ripma said MPAC recommended not including the Title 4 map. Why did MPAC discuss things if staff went ahead and recommended it?

Presiding Officer Hosticka said staff reported MPAC’s recommendation. The Council itself decided to make the change.

Mayor Becker asked for clarification: did the Metro Council or the Community Planning Committee make this decision?

Chair Jordan said it was his understanding that the issue was raised at the committee level, and the committee decided that a map should be included. The committee’s recommendation would then go to the full Council. The full Council had not yet made a decision. He noted that any recommendation made by MPAC was only a recommendation.

Mark Knudsen, Washington County Special Districts, noted that Metro did not ask local jurisdictions to negotiate density, but did ask them to negotiate parklands. Were different enforcement standards used for parks as compared to the other recommendations such as housing?

Mr. Cotugno said parks were being addressed in two ways in the package. First, the Urban Growth Report calculated the overall capacity of the UGB, the shortfall, and the amount of UGB expansion needed. That was not a regulatory action. There were a lot of assumptions in the Urban Growth Report about how much of the land inside the UGB would be used for streets, schools, churches, utilities and parks. There was currently a disagreement about what the assumption should be for parks. Second, the Council was considering Title 12, which acknowledged that MPAC did a parks report and recommended that Metro do a parks functional plan to establish requirements for local governments to set standards for parks. The functional plan had not yet been done.

Councilor Ripma asked for an explanation of the Community Planning Committee’s decision to not follow MPAC’s recommendation on the Title 4 map.

Councilor Park said the Regional Partners and MPAC recommended that certain pieces of exclusive farm use (EFU) land be added to the urban growth boundary. Metro’s attorneys advised that in order to sustain the decision to urbanize EFU land, Metro needed to demonstrate protection of the region’s current industrial supply. Some local jurisdictions, including Fairview, expressed concerns about the map, and language was added to the Title 4 code to address those concerns. The new language specifically mentioned working with local jurisdictions and MPAC over the next year to finalize what industrial lands were regionally significant. The committee’s decision was a compromise and the map was still fluid. At the same time, the committee also addressed the issue of protecting new lands coming into the UGB.

Councilor Ripma said that explained why there should be a regionally significant industrial lands policy. However, he wanted to know why the committee included the map. MPAC had recommended going forward with the policy, but had asked that the map be left out and addressed in Task 3.

Councilor Park said Metro’s attorneys had advised that in order to do what MPAC suggested, the Council would have to omit any EFU land until Task 3. However, there were jurisdictions that would like EFU land brought into the UGB under Task 2.

Councilor McLain said the Council received a lot of advice – from MPAC, from local jurisdictions’ staff, from Metro staff, from the Executive Officer, and from citizens all over the region. MPAC made two recommendations, and the Community Planning Committee tired to honor both of them. The first was a request to have a difficult set of industrial lands come into the UGB in Task 2. The second was that the Council delay identifying specific sites as regionally significant industrial lands to allow more time to talk with local jurisdictions. The committee honored that recommendation and added language clarifying that the attached map was nonspecific, and that Metro would talk with jurisdictions over the next year and complete the specific map by December 2003.

Mr. Cotugno reviewed a memo from Councilor Park to Chair Jordan, dated November 12, 2002, regarding review and comment on the Urban Growth Report factors of parks and vacancy rate. A copy of the memo is included in the meeting record. The memo requested that MPAC further discuss the parks and vacancy rate factors.

Rob Drake, Mayor, City of Beaverton, said earlier that afternoon, MPAC members received a copy of a memo to Kelly Ross, Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland, from Stephen Grover and Randall Pozdena of ECONorthwest, regarding vacancy rates and forecasts of housing demand. A copy of the memo is included in the meeting record. He asked Mr. Cotugno to comment on the memo.

Mr. Cotugno said he had not yet read the memo and could not comment.

Mayor Drake asked that Mr. Ross be invited to speak to the memo.

Chair Jordan said he would invite Mr. Ross to comment after the Metro Councilors had an opportunity to explain what direction they needed from MPAC.

Presiding Officer Hosticka said the memo from Councilor Park implied that this was a formal request for MPAC action from the Community Planning Committee. In reality, individual Councilors had asked for discussion from MPAC to get a flavor of that discussion to help inform them about what individual actions they might take if the Council revisited these issues. The Community Planning Committee was not requesting a new recommendation from MPAC on these particular questions.

Councilor McLain said David Bragdon, Metro Council District 7, requested that she pass on two comments that he made at committee about the parks issue. First, nobody was opposed to parks. The committee’s concern was that it could only verify that 1,100 acres of parks would actually be built. Second, everyone wanted to reach a higher level of parks. The region probably could add 2,300 acres of parks if the parks functional plan was completed. But so far, it had taken the region five years to agree that it wanted to do the work. Both she and Councilor Bragdon asked how they could put in the report’s findings that the region needed 2,300 acres for parks, when they could not guarantee that the land would be used for parks and not strip malls.

Councilor Park said Councilor Bragdon was concerned about the level of commitment from the region to make the parks figure real. He was looking for some type of language or assurance that 2,300 acres of parks would be developed.

Councilor McLain spoke to the issue of vacancy rate. About five years ago, MPAC had a long discussion about whether the 20-year land supply was a ceiling or a floor. MPAC recommended that it be a ceiling for market reasons and because of what could be accurately forecasted. Regarding the vacancy rate, the law did not require it, and Metro had never conducted a study to determine the right vacancy right. The Home Builders had submitted material today stating that the vacancy rate was anywhere from two to seven percent. Staff had material indicating that the rate could be between four to six percent. There was nothing in the work submitted since August that indicated what the vacancy rate should be or why it should be included in the Urban Growth Report. The other concern was the fifteen-year friction. If Metro was required to include a five-year supply of land inside the UGB, maybe a vacancy rate would be necessary in order to provide a cushion. However, there was a supply of fifteen more years that would be replenished in another five years.

Presiding Officer Hosticka said there were two questions regarding vacancy rate. First, did they need one? The Community Planning Committee had voted no, a vacancy rate was not needed. If a new vote said a vacancy rate was needed, the committee would ask a second question.

Mayor Kidd said the parks factor was discussed at length in the MPAC Parks Subcommittee. First, system development charges (SDCs) would not buy 2,300 acres of parks. MPAC understood that. Those jurisdictions that wanted parks and livability would provide those parks. In Forest Grove, the voters approved a bond measure for parks about every five years. In addition to bond measures, parkland was also occasionally bequeathed to the city or purchased with SDCs. Forest Grove’s portion of the 2,300 acres was easy to achieve with the attitude of its community. MPAC talked about this, and he thought some of the other communities could do the same thing. They all understood that if land was designated as parkland, it must be diligently kept as parkland and not used for strip malls or anything else.

Dan Saltzman, Commissioner, City of Portland, said as much as he liked the 2,300 acre number, where would the resources come from to make it happen? He shared the concern that a higher parks number would result in land being brought into the UGB without the actual park elements being followed through. He thought 1,100 acres had been identified as within the region’s resources and ability; 2,300 acres was a stretch. As Mayor Kidd said, SDC charges would not achieve the higher number.

Mr. Knudsen said he supported Mayor Kidd’s comments. In addition, he was disturbed by the sudden change in logic. Every number in the Urban Growth Report was aspirational, including population growth, industrial land development, and housing units. All of a sudden with parks, everyone sat down and asked if the resources were available. The signal was that parks were a second-class function and did not really matter that much, despite what people said. If they did not set the target at 2,300 acres, MPAC was implicitly saying that they were accepting a lower standard of parks service in the next 20 years, because that was what would happen. What concerned him more than the exact number was the shift in logic and assumptions when analyzing park needs as opposed to all the other needs in the region.

Mayor Hammerstad said the difference was that local jurisdictions were not purchasing housing or industrial land, but they were purchasing parkland. It was not a shift in logic. It was land that, if the local government did not own it, was not a park. As a representative of the only jurisdiction that actually passed a parks bond measure in the last election, she felt she could call herself a parks advocate. But even though the City of Lake Oswego passed a parks acquisition bond, it was only for $4.5 million. If the city could buy property outside the UGB, the money would only purchase 80 acres. If the city had to buy parkland within the UGB, $4.5 million would buy 22 acres. It would take $220 million to purchase 1,100 acres of parkland within the UGB. Purchasing 2,300 acres of parkland would take nearly half a billion dollars. Historically, the region had not done that. She did not think they could use an aspirational number for parks, in which they will be required to buy it. She had chaired the Parks Subcommittee, which recommended 1,100 acres. In almost every jurisdiction, the zone underlying parks was residential. If a jurisdiction could not buy those parks, it would result in too much capacity within the UGB. She added that one of the ways Lake Oswego was maximizing its parks bond was by installing artificial turf fields on land owned by schools. By doing so, the usage was increased about twenty-fold over a grass field, using the same amount of land. In addition to adding more land for parks, they needed to look at how to use the land more intelligently. She thought they were deluding themselves that they would come up with a half a billion dollars, even in 20 years. She recommended using the 1,100 acres figure. It was justifiable and would pass muster with the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). It was a mistake to use the 2,300-acre number and have additional, unused capacity within the UGB.

Doug Neeley, Commissioner, City of Oregon City, asked if MPAC’s recommendation on the parks factor made a distinction between parks and publicly owned open spaces.

Chair Jordan said the 2,300-acre number was based on the historic average of the acquisition and development of active parkland, such as ball fields and playgrounds.

Presiding Officer Hosticka said he did not think a separate logic applied to the parks factor. For every Urban Growth Report factor, the Community Planning Committee was advised that they needed either data or policy to support their decisions. Parks was not singled out for special consideration and a different logic.

Bill Atherton, Metro Council District 2, said that with the higher parks number, there was also an assumption that the future would be like the past. There was substantial evidence in the record that it would not. Changing factors included demographics, overpopulation, more development of linear parks, and protection of privately-held open space along streams and corridors.

Councilor Park said Councilor Bragdon would like to know the level of commitment to the parks functional plan (Title 12).

Commissioner Neeley said he and Mayor Kidd served on a previous MPAC Parks Subcommittee, chaired by Jim Zehren, former Multnomah County Citizen Representative. In his opinion, Metro should use the aspirational number. Mr. Zehren had distributed to the first MPAC Parks Subcommittee a copy of the Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, parks package. The Minneapolis-St. Paul area had an aspiration and made it work. Was there any reason the Portland metropolitan region could not do the same? An email from Mr. Zehren regarding tonight’s MPAC meeting/parks issue is included in the meeting record.

Mayor Becker said he would like to have some history on how much park acreage the region actually bought in the last ten years. Dividing 1,100 acres by 23 jurisdictions did not result in much land per jurisdiction. In addition, they were not looking at just the next 20 years. If jurisdictions did not purchase or designate land for parks, the land would be gone forever. As density increased, there would be demand for small parks. He recommended using the 2,300-acre number.

Chair Jordan asked for comments about the vacancy rate.

Mayor Drake said ECONorthwest provided a very compelling explanation of vacancy rate in its memo to Mr. Ross. He recommended looking broadly at how removing the vacancy rate would impact affordable housing in the future. The need for affordable housing units was projected to be 90,000. If there was not a natural level of vacancies, and there was upward pressure on pricing because housing was not available, might it push up the cost of housing even more and make it less affordable?

Chair Jordan asked Mr. Ross to summarize the memo from ECONorthwest.

Mr. Ross said he preferred to let the memo speak for itself. He said when he left the Community Planning Committee meeting at which the decision had been made, he himself was perplexed. It was a new issue that had not been discussed. Therefore, he had asked ECONorthwest to explain the impact of vacancy rates.

Councilor Park said he had two questions. First, did MPAC believe a vacancy rate existed in the real world? If a vacancy rate existed and was not factored into the Urban Growth Report, what potential effect would that have on livability issues?

Mayor Kidd said there was a vacancy rate and it varied by community. In Forest Grove, the vacancy rate ranged between two and nine percent, depending on the month, how recently the construction was completed, and whether the university was in or out of session.

Mayor Hughes said the assumption with the vacancy rate was that, when housing stock was maximized, there was actually a five percent vacancy rate. If the goal was to have enough housing stock to not impact price, then they must take into account the vacancy rate. If the natural vacancy rate averaged about five percent, it seemed him that at two percent vacancy rate, there would probably be upward pressure on the cost of housing. It seemed logical that the vacancy rate had to be taken into account. It was not zero.

Presiding Officer Hosticka said Metro was not building houses, it was allocating land either within or outside the UGB. In any particular moment in time, the housing market would have a vacancy rate. The question was, would that housing market accommodate that vacancy rate within the land that was already in the UGB, which by law had to be a minimum of 15 years more than was needed today? As a general policy question, what was the effect of having more land in the UGB than the market needed?

Councilor McLain said the Community Planning Committee also discussed which mistake would be easier to fix: a number that was too high or too low? If the vacancy number was too high, it could negatively affect Metro’s policies on centers and corridors.

8.    PERIODIC REVIEW TASK 3: REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

Mayor Drake said there had been a lot of discussion and undercurrent in the region about Metro and economic development. He asked Ethan Seltzer, Director of the Institute of Metropolitan Studies at Portland State University, for his perspective. In his opinion, Dr. Seltzer had a reputation for being credible and looking at both sides of an issue. Dr. Seltzer wrote him a memo about economic development and Metro, a copy of which is included in the meeting record. The memo helped him understand that as part of Goal 9 requirements and the urban growth boundary expansion, Metro did have to look at aspects of economic development.

Chair Jordan said the actual work program discussion around Task 3 would be a process in which the Department of Land Conservation and Development and Metro would work out the work plan for Task 3. As MPAC had discussed previously, one of those elements would be some kind of coordinated economic development discussion. Mayor Drake was currently chairing a group facilitated by Dr. Seltzer regarding economic development in the region. He was certain there would be more discussion at MPAC about what Metro’s economic development work program should look like within the context of periodic review. He encouraged everyone to read Dr. Seltzer’s memo and think about the issue.

Mr. Cotugno said he thought about the question in three parts. First, what work program activities should involve Metro staff? Second, in what way did MPAC want to be involved with the economic policy group? The policy group was not trying to set an economic development policy; it was trying to set a direction on to do an economic development policy and what should be in it. Third, what type of action should the Metro Council take, such as UGB decisions, special needs for industrial lands, Title 4 industrial protections, centers objections, or freight improvements for transportation?

Chair Jordan reminded the committee that MPAC would not meet on Wednesday, November 27, 2002. He wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving.

Mayor Hughes noted that on the evening of December 9, there would a large summit about economic development, which would provide MPAC with another opinion on economic development.

There being no further business, Chair Jordan adjourned the meeting at 6:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne Myers Harold

MPAC Coordinator

ATTACHMENTS TO THE RECORD FOR NOVEMER 13, 2002

The following have been included as part of the official public record: