ECONOMIC TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING RECORD

June 5, 2002 – 5:00 p.m.

Oregon State Office Building, Room 120C

Committee Members Present: Chair Andy Cotugno, Al Burns, Ron Carley (alternate), Cindy Catto, Brent Curtis, Rob Degraff, Eric Hovee, Greg Jenks, Jerry Johnson, Tom Kelly, Gene Leverton, Patti McCoy, Terry Morlan, Noelway Netusil, Tom Potiowsky, Kelly Ross, Dick Sheehy, Dennis Yee

Metro Elected Officials Present: Mike Burton, Executive Officer; Carl Hosticka, Presiding Officer; Rod Park, Council District 1; Susan McLain, Council District 4

Also Present: Steve Kountz, Portland Planning; Elissa Gertler, Portland Development Commission

Metro Staff Present: Dick Benner, Suzanne Myers Harold, Paul Ketcham, Carl Krigger, Mark Turpel, Gina Whitehill-Baziuk, Malu Wilkinson

1.  WELCOME

Mike Burton, Metro Executive Officer, welcomed everyone to the first meeting of the Economic Technical Advisory Committee (ETAC) and thanked them for volunteering their time. He noted that most future meetings would be held at the Metro Regional Center.

2.  MEMBER SELF-INTRODUCTIONS

Those present introduced themselves.

3.  METRO GOALS, COMMITTEE CHARGE AND TIMELINE

Executive Officer Burton reviewed the ETAC purpose and schedule summary, a copy of which is included in the ETAC folder under the tab “Roster, Schedule & Steps.”

Carl Hosticka, Metro Presiding Officer, said the Council is in the process of making decisions on fish and wildlife habitat protection. Under state law, Metro is required to conduct an economic, social, energy and environmental (ESEE) analysis. Council is looking for guidance from ETAC on both the methodology used for the economic analysis, and on the actual decisions.

Susan McLain, Metro Councilor District 4, noted that Council has also asked staff to conduct a peer review of the economic analysis. Metro is currently seeking funding for the peer review. She noted that originally the fish and wildlife habitat protection program was on the same timeline as periodic review, which will be completed in December 2002. Because of the importance of the peer review and the work that ETAC will do, Council chose to separate the two timelines.

Rod Park, Metro Councilor District 1, said that the environment is one of the main attractions in the region. People in general want a good environment, but in order to pay for that it is essential to have a good economy. The Council will attempt to balance the work of ETAC against environmental concerns.

Chair Andy Cotugno, Metro Planning Director, reviewed the history and makeup of various Metro committees that are involved in the fish and wildlife habitat protection program. Metro is now moving out of the natural resource phase of the protection plan into its economic impact. He noted that ETAC may wish to meet with the Goal 5 Technical Advisory Committee in the future to discuss how to balance the demands of environmental protection and economic growth.

Executive Officer Burton added that the environment and the economy are not always an either/or choice.

Chair Cotugno said it has been pointed out to Metro many times that development produces the money that pays for restoration of wetlands and streamside corridors. He asked members to read the Streamside CPR Program Outline, which is included in the ETAC member notebooks. He said this year is the analysis phase of the process; next year Metro will begin deciding where to limit versus allow development, and then move into the program stage of how to allow or limit development.

Executive Officer Burton asked Mr. Kelly and Ms. Catto about their expectations for ETAC, as they were part of impetus for the committee’s creation.

Kelly Ross, Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland, said he is anxious to hear differing perspectives.

Cindy Catto, Associated General Contractors, said this concept is meeting the expectation that was the fear of the people she represents.

4.  STATE GOAL 5 LEGAL BACKGROUND

Dick Benner, Metro Senior Assistant Counsel, reviewed State Land Use Planning Goal 5 and the legal decisions surrounding the goal. He referred to a summary sheet on Goal 5 and a paper by Pam Wilson, both of which will be distributed to committee members.

Chair Cotugno noted that ETAC is only focusing on the riparian and wildlife habitat component of Goal 5, not the historic, aggregate or scenic components.

5.  SUMMARY OF METRO’S BIOLOGIC RESOURCE INVENTORY

Paul Ketcham, Metro Principal Regional Planner, reviewed the riparian and wildlife habitat inventories. The two inventories will be integrated in the future. The maps are included in the ETAC member notebooks and are available on Metro’s FTP site: ftp.metro-region.org/dist/gm/goal5/. He noted that if Metro chooses to amend the Functional Plan to address fish and wildlife habitat, the implementing process will require local jurisdictions’ inventories to comply with Metro’s regional inventory.

Brent Curtis, Washington County Planning Manager, said there are two policy choices. In addition to the option Mr. Ketcham described, Metro could finish the inventory and then assign the responsibilities to all local governments. The second option does not appear to be the direction in which the Metro Council is headed.

Al Burns, Portland Planning Bureau, noted that the advantage of the regional program and inventory is that every jurisdiction shares a common framework and starting point.

Mr. Ketcham reviewed the document, “Metro’s Science-based Approach to Defining Riparian Corridors and Wildlife Habitat in the Urban Setting,” a copy of which is included in the meeting record.

Dick Sheehy, Industrial Design and Construction, asked if on-site storm water retention systems impact the setbacks for waterways.

Mr. Ketcham said a retention pond would not necessarily negate the need for a setback because the pond may not be the only source of water draining into the stream. He reviewed Exhibit A, Appendix A to Resolution No. 01-3141C and the June 4, 2002, draft of the Wildlife Habitat Criteria Matrix, copies of which are included in the meeting record.

Jerry Johnson, Johnson Gardner, asked if the riparian and wildlife inventories overlap with the buildable lands inventory.

Chair Cotugno said there is some overlap, however, floodplains, streams and steep slopes are not included in the buildable lands inventory. He said he would supply members with the inventory numbers and a copy of the species list used in the wildlife habitat inventory.

6.  OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED ECONOMIC METHODOLOGY

Malu Wilkinson, Metro Associate Regional Planner, reviewed “Goal 5 Economic Analysis: Metro’s approach and ECONorthwest/Adolfson proposal,” a copy of which is included in the meeting record. She drew the committee’s attention to the request for proposals and proposal for ESEE analysis, both of which are included in the ETAC member notebooks.

Chair Cotugno said this topic would be the focus of the next meeting.

Ms. Catto said she was part of the consultant review, and there was concern that there was only one response to the request for proposals (RFP). At the time the RFP was released, Metro was working under a very different timeline, and it was clear to consultants on the street that they should not submit a proposal if they could not meet that timeline. Since then, the timeframe has changed significantly. She said a different timeline may have given Metro a different result and a choice among consultants. She said this is still a concern for her.

Patti McCoy, Columbia Corridor Association, asked if Metro had executed a contract with ECONorthwest yet.

Chair Cotugno said no, not yet. The consultants are waiting for approval from ETAC on the methodology. He encouraged committee members to think about the adequacy of ECONorthwest’s proposal as they read through it on their own.

Mr. Curtis gave a brief summary of the current ESEE work in the Tualatin Basin.

At Ms. McCoy’s request, Mr. Burns described the City of Portland’s ESEE analysis and Goal 5 program.

Rob Degraff, Association for Portland Progress, asked if the Tualatin Basin approach to wildlife and habitat protection is the same as the approach used by Metro or the City of Portland.

Mr. Curtis said the very nature of the protection program is evolving, but they are committed to coordinating with Metro as much as possible. At the same time, they have a responsibility to independently look at how they make policy judgments.

7.  FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE

Chair Cotugno said he envisions that ETAC will meet one to three more times in the near future to review methodology, then pause for a few months and reconvene after the consultants have done their work. He asked for comment on the number of meetings ETAC would like to schedule, and convenient times to meet.

Ms. Catto noted that Metro’s decision on whether to have an independent peer review of the economic analysis methodology will affect how detailed ETAC’s work will need to be. The Council will make that decision in June.

The committee agreed to have at least two more meetings before the consultants begin their work: one to review the methodology and one to give their reactions. Staff will send out an email poll to determine good days and times for future meetings. The next meeting will be on Monday, June 17, from 2:00 to 5:00 p.m.

Chair Cotugno said he will ask the consultants to attend the next ETAC meeting. There being no further business, Chair Cotugno adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Suzanne Myers Harold

Executive Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE RECORD FOR JUNE 5, 2002

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