METRO POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING RECORD

MPAC Retreat

January 22, 2003 – 5:00 p.m.

Metro Zoo, Skyline Room

Committee Members Present: Chair Tom Hughes, Charles Becker, Paul Curcio, Nathalie Darcy, Rob Drake, Eugene Grant, Judie Hammerstad, John Hartsock, Alan Hipolito, Vera Katz, Richard Kidd,

Alternates Present: Jim Griffith, Jack Hoffman, Karen McKinney

Also Present: Betty Atteberry, Westside Economic Alliance; Hal Bergsma, Beaverton; Beverly Bookin, CCA/MTAC; Wink Brooks, Hillsboro; Brian Campbell, Port of Portland; Cindy Catto, AGC; Gary Clifford, Multnomah Co., MTAC Member; Phill Colombo, PSU Graduate Student; Valerie Counts, Hillsboro; Brent Curtis, Washington County; Mike Dennis, TriMet/MTAC; Stacy Hopkins, City of Tualatin; Dan Hoyt, City of Wilsonville; Kimi Iboshi Sloop, Growth Management Caucus; Gil Kelley, City of Portland; Stephan Lashbrook, City of Lake Oswego; Mike McKeever, Growth Management Caucus; Rebecca Ocken, City of Gresham/MTAC; Lidwien Rahman, ODOT/MTAC; Pat Ribellia, City of Hillsboro; Kelly Ross, Home Builders Association; Darci Rudzinski, DLCD; Samantha Soma, PSU, Doctoral Student; Ed Trompke, Westside Econ Alliance/MTAC

Metro Elected Officials Present: Liaisons – David Bragdon, Council President; Brian Newman, Council District 2; Rod Park, Council District 1. Other: Susan McLain, Council District 4; Carl Hosticka, Council District 3.

Metro Staff Present: Kim Bardes, Dan Cooper, Andy Cotugno, Lydia Neill, Mark Turpel.

1.  INTRODUCTIONS

Tom Hughes, Mayor of Hillsboro and MPAC Chair, called the meeting to order at 5:07 p.m. Those present introduced themselves.

2.  MEETING PURPOSE

Chair Hughes said that after this meeting there would be roughly 20 meetings left for the year, which would be about 40 hours of work-time. He thought it would be important to start off by focusing on policies, and to talk about the processes they would use within the MPAC Board, and to clarify roles between MPAC and the Metro Council decision-making process. He introduced the facilitator, Mike McKeever. He spoke about the survey participation and survey results.

Mr. Mike McKeever gave an overview of the agenda topics.

3.  POLICY PRIORITIES

Mike McKeever said they had received a pretty good response, but not a universal response. He said that he would ask the members to fill out another short survey. He gave a slide presentation on the original survey results, a copy of the slides are attached and form part of the record.

Rob Drake asked if all high-ranking items would automatically be put on the work plan?

Judie Hammerstad said that an issue could have scored high because members thought it was important, but that as a group, they did not necessarily want to include it on the work plan.

Chair Hughes said they would narrow down that issue with the new survey.

Mr. McKeever asked Mr. Cotugno to comment on the items on the new questionnaire, a copy of which is attached and forms a part of the record.

Mr. Cotugno discussed the 16 items on the yellow questionnaire.

Some questions came up regarding periodic review. Andy Cotugno said that the main advantage of being in periodic review was that they were doing it in partnership with LCDC.

Paul Curcio suggested that to streamline the process and due to state budget issues, perhaps Metro should handle local jurisdiction’s periodic review within the region.

Mike McKeever asked the members to fill out the new questionnaire.

Someone asked what issues/items would the Metro Council like advice from MPAC on?

David Bragdon said that a goal setting session for the Metro Council was scheduled for the following Tuesday to talk about where they felt the emphasis needed to be in the coming year. What he was hearing from councilors, beyond them wanting to know what the scope was for Task 3, were issues pertaining to center strategies, industrial lands, satisfaction of the UGB requirement, regionally significant industrial land, fiscal/revenue throughout the region, fish and wildlife, and performance measures. He said they would have a better list after next Tuesday.

Chair Hughes asked about the issue of urban reserves – he said it seemed that the final product was more secure if they did it in coordination with the state as part of periodic review. The danger, however, was if you included things in the request for the work plan, then the Task 3 work program itself could be appealed, and that would throw everything off timing-wise. Therefore, it was a difficult balance to achieve in terms of what they would like protection for versus what won’t get challenged and thrown out.

David Bragdon said that was exactly the trade-off – the more problematic an issue may be, the safer you were doing it in periodic review. The more complicated issues you put in there, the more problematic the work itself was.

Dan Cooper said the downside of periodic review with multiple tasks, regardless of the appeal of the work order itself, was that it would take longer. The more things loaded into the process the longer it would take. There would also be statutory restrictions on how flexible you could be. Once you put something into the periodic review task, you were allowed limited extensions and you wouldn’t have flexibility on the scheduling. If you were outside the periodic review process the timeline and tasks would be more flexible and Metro would retain control over what they wanted of it.

David Bragdon said that there was a tradeoff implicit in that the external deadlines by the state imposed a certain discipline. He said he felt that this was in part why Metro had made deadlines more frequently in the last few years.

Chair Hughes asked Mike McKeever who should fill out the questionnaire.

Mike McKeever said that the members should fill it out and only the alternates that where present to fill in for the member should fill it out. He asked the members to begin to fill out the questionnaire and forward them to him. While MPAC members were having dinner he and Kimi Iboshi Sloop would tally the results.

Rob Drake asked if the items on the agenda were the only topics that would come before MPAC for the year.

Mike McKeever said that he did not think that the items on the questionnaire were the only items that MPAC would focus on for the year.

Vera Katz spoke to livable communities. The tension that she detected among the members was on the issue of expansion of the UGB. She said she felt that they needed to focus on center strategies. It’s a tough issue, but if they were truly committed to centers, then they were committed to the 2040 goals. She also wanted to talk about agriculture as an industry.

Judie Hammerstad said that she thought centers were what MPAC was about. She said it was an important topic and needed to be part of their work plan. She was concerned that they might not get to other important topics such as parks, and affordable housing, but she said she felt they should be identifying those things that make the community livable. She was worried that by picking out the issues in small bites, they may not attain their goals as a group.

Chair Hughes said that the big picture was good, but that ultimately the big picture gets broken into small bites. He said he wanted to bring focus to what they would do during the year and he felt the questionnaire would help to prioritize those issues.

Rob Drake said time allocation may contain variables depending on subcommittees. A lot of work was done in 2002 by subcommittees. He suggested that some of the work could be allocated to subcommittees for 2003 and then their time could be used more efficiently. He agreed with Vera Katz on the issue of livability. He didn’t want to lose sight of the bouncing ball of livability. He was more interested in narrowing the number of issues that they could cover in 40 hours.

Richard Kidd said that everything on the list would affect livability and their strategies at the centers. He said that his center was downtown and that was his focus. He said that he had not marked anything off of the list totally. He said that he and Rob Drake were on the advisory committee of the LCDC, and one of the main issues they talked about at their last meeting was agriculture as a business and the agri-business support in communities. He said he thought it was still a major industry in the state, especially in those small communities that still had an agriculture base.

Vera Katz said she agreed with Mayor Kidd. The nursery business was a strong cluster for this region. As they talk about expanding industrial lands they should take a strong look at this industry.

Alan Hipolito said it was interesting that they were talking about nurseries because he was trying to figure out how to increase the ownership by Latinos in the tri-county region who work in those nurseries.

Mike McKeever said he wanted to be sure that they had addressed the livability issue sufficiently. Because they all felt so strongly about livability, he suggested that it should either be a priority, which over-arcs all the other items on the list, or they could treat it as another substantial item to add to the questionnaire.

Andy Cotugno said that from the conversation he picked up three topics: livability, social equity, and fiscal equity (tax base sharing).

Rob Drake said he felt that livability fit under the over-arc of all the other issues. He said that he felt social equity was up to the individual communities. Tax-base sharing was not something that he thought the people in Washington County were real excited about. He said that he did not want to set that as one separate issue either.

Alan Hipolito said that he thought it should not be a separate issue. He thought it would be a good tool to help them to prioritize.

Vera Katz said that depending on what the legislature does, she felt that MPAC was one group that could deal with education issues independently of the legislature. She said it was a serious issue and that although it was not traditionally a charge of this regional body, she felt that they should add it as a discussion piece if the legislature failed them.

Chair Hughes said he thought that was a good suggestion, particularly as they wade through the legislative session and see how the election comes out next week. He said they should start with a discussion to which MPAC would invite other regional players, other mayors, and superintendents of schools. He said he agreed that MPAC was a unique body, a unique gathering of folks who represent all the communities in the region. He thought MPAC should play a role in figuring out what MPAC could do to help resolve the crisis and the effects on livability.

Judie Hammerstad said that the questionnaire requires them to arrive at 100% with 40 hours of work time. She was worried that if they actually allocated 100%, then they would not have time for anything else. She said that if they allocate over 75% then they had over-allocated their time.

Chair Hughes said that if they prioritize the items listed on the questionnaire, then they could assume they would buy some time through the use of subcommittees. The goal was to have a rough prioritized list for the amount of time they had available.

Mike McKeever discussed the results of the new survey taken during the dinner break. Results are attached and form a part of the record.

Rob Drake, regarding urban reserves, wanted to make a case to upgrade it because it allowed for good long-term planning and some certainty for landowners.

Judie Hammerstad said she would like to see them get through the last decision, get the acknowledgment behind them, and finish up. She said she had no stomach, this year, for discussion on urban reserves. She said she would be willing to discuss it rationally in another 2-3 years.

Jack Hoffman said he thought urban reserves were important, but since they had a limited amount of time and limited staff support, this discussion would take too much of their time.

Mike McKeever said that the questionnaire was to focus on what they wanted to accomplish this year, and that items that may fall off the list could always be revisited.

Chair Hughes said that he agreed with Rob Drake that urban reserves were an opportunity to look at long-range planning. He thought this might be a topic that they could create a subcommittee in order to hash out the issue and bring back to MPAC. It could even be carried over into subsequent years. He wanted to know if it had much support to be part of Task 3.

Mike McKeever said no.

Nathalie Darcy, regarding parks functional plan, said that the MPAC committee had appointed a subcommittee some time ago to create a parks report. She said that the only way to implement any of that report would be through a functional plan. She felt that it didn’t make sense to have spent their resources on producing a plan/report for parks and then not move forward with it. She said that a subcommittee could also handle this issue.

Mike McKeever wanted to know how vital she felt it was to devote significant attention to this issue, this year.

Nathalie Darcy said that there had already been significant discussion on this issue last year. She felt it was time to take some action. She pointed out that it was definitely a livability issue.

Rod Park said that he thought that on 26-29 there was a timeline, a notification process, a parks plan, standards for neighborhoods, and so on. These all tie in with livability and what Nathalie Darcy was talking about, and maybe these issues would have to be looked at also.

Alan Hipolito, addressing to Title 7, affordable housing, said that the information from the monitoring would be very relevant to center strategies.

Charles Becker, referring to the RTP update, said because of JPACT, the committee (MPAC) would not necessarily need to spend a lot of time on that issue.

Andy Cotugno said that staff had an obligation to bring back some small amount of information to MPAC, but due to its low score they should not spend a lot of time on it.

Charles Becker said the issue was how does MPAC relate to JPACT?

Richard Kidd said that the original score showed that MPAC felt it was an important issue and that the new low score was a statement of confidence in JPACT. He said it should be done but that MPAC would like a report or some input on JPACT issues.

Chair Hughes, referring to the state legislature, said it would be helpful to have an update/report on issues that Metro was pursuing with the legislature.

Dan Cooper said that during the last session the chair had him give updates on legislature at each MPAC meeting.

Chair Hughes asked him to continue to do that.

Dan Cooper said it would not replace the work that their local staff did, but he said he could always give a brief report.

Paul Curcio, pertaining to the DLCD/LCDC role, said that MPAC needed to let them know what they should do less of.

Charles Becker said that he felt DLCD and Metro should get together on that and asked for a subcommittee to monitor what they were doing and report back to MPAC.

Paul Curcio said they could do that. He said it was not just periodic review. He felt that the real topic should be the LCDC/Metro partnership. He wanted to know what DLCD could do to streamline the system so that people did not have to duplicate efforts for both Metro and DLCD.

Rob Drake said he would question whether everything that was required was pertinent or relevant to the end product. He wanted to be assured that whatever was asked by Metro and LCDC was relevant and usable. For instance, performance measures – if they were not used, then what was the point?

Susan McLain said that there were many overlapping topics on the questionnaire. She wanted clarification about the mid-range numbers and if time would be spent on them.

Mike McKeever said he thought it was unlikely that they would want to devote the entire year to three topics, and therefore he felt that the mid-range topics would be on the work plan.

David Bragdon, referring to the subregional rule, said that the subregional rule was just a means to an end or various ends. He said that he thought part of the rule was to enhance centers and part of its function could be UGB expansion, basically there were different reasons why people might want to apply this rule.

Mike McKeever said he did not think to consider subregional rule without contemplating a UGB expansion.

David Bragdon said that there were other routes to that end and he didn’t want people to think that was the only or most preferable option.

Jack Hoffman said he saw it only as a tool, so there was no need to discuss it unless they were going to use it for the expansion analysis.

Rob Drake asked if subregional rule could be used for school expansion.

Dan Cooper said that Metro dealt with the school sites as specific identified land needs under the priority hierarchy. The subregional rule was written to allocate broader categories of need such as housing, or employment in general.

Rob Drake said that he agreed that special needs was neater or cleaner, especially for school sites. Those who would advocate for its use would do so for industrial or housing expansion. He agreed that it was for boundary expansion and nothing more.

Rod Park said that the tool as it was written was an allocation of regional need on a subregional basis. The need may be planned, but may not lead to an automatic UGB expansion.

Rob Drake said he was reminded that they had not yet defined what subregions could be. In reference to Bethany, they didn’t know what the subregion was at that point to make that case. At some point Metro should define what subregions could be.

Dan Cooper said that the subregional rule was adopted by the commission and was now on appeal at the Court of Appeals. The rule required Metro to define what subregions were and to define boundaries. It would also adopt the policy to identify what the goal was by allocating need to subregions. Then there was a test to determine whether or not allocating need to subregions actually made things better region-wide and not just in one particular subregion to the detriment of other subregions. The question was did you need an UGB expansion or were there other measures that could be taken within those subregions, such as increasing efficiency of land uses to avoid the UGB amendment. It was a lengthy process.

Vera Katz asked what those members who rated the regional economic strategy high were hoping would come out of it?

Rob Drake said that he thought Mayor Katz was referring to regional partners made up of both public and private groups. He said that he was a little confused about how Metro would fit into regional economic development planning. He wondered how regional economic development planning would fit into Metro’s goal. He said that Ethan Seltzer had generated a memo, which states that Metro did perform certain Goal 9 tasks, so it seemed that Metro would be a partner, but should Metro be driving it? He said he would have no problem discussing it.

Carl Hosticka said it was hard to understand why they would be expanding the UGB for industrial purposes if they didn’t know the strategy behind it; similarly with agriculture. Would they be discussing agriculture in the context of what else was happening in the region from an economic perspective? A number of the items on the work plan would depend on some shared understanding of what was the regional strategy. He suggested that before moving ahead on some of those items they should have a common sense of where they would be going on the economic front.

Chair Hughes said that there were areas where Metro had significant impact in terms of how an economic development strategy would play out. It would depend on what they agreed was Metro’s role. On the basis of unique land need for larger lots, the proposal was to add 200 acres to the City of Hillsboro UGB. It would be hard to make that case at the regional level unless those who were in the regional partnership agreed with Metro as to what was the regional strategy. He said that he did not see Metro capable of providing what they all collectively provided the region, just based on staffing restraints alone.

David Bragdon said that he didn’t think that Metro had institutional aspirations of being an economic development agency in the sense of industrial recruiting or sending out brochures. Metro, however, did make a lot of decisions that relate to the economy. There were a lot of different public agencies involved that weren’t the “lead” agency. The Board of Higher Education was a very important economic influence on the region, for instance, but they were not the leader. Nevertheless, their decisions affect the economy and so does Metro’s decisions. MPAC needed to discuss how Metro fit into the process so that Metro was not making those decisions in a vacuum.

Paul Curcio said one of the big points of the Special Committee on Industrial Commercial Lands by the legislature was that there really was nothing in the land use system that militates against the condition of short term and long term supply of industrial land. There were a couple of things they noted in practice that hadn’t helped. To Carl Hosticka’s point he wanted to underscore the importance of an economic strategy as the starting point for determining industrial/commercial land use. It made sense that jurisdictions had some shared notion of what that strategy was. He said he wasn’t sure what MPAC’s role would be in formulating strategy, but as they moved forward with the UGB expansion they wanted to have a shared understanding of the strategy at the regional level.

Rod Park said he wanted to go back to how #4 “Subregional Rule” and #7 “Implementation of Title 11 Concept Plans, especially Damascus area” on the questionnaire, related in terms of agriculture and economic development. In the policies that they had adopted they made a judgment call on economic development between industrial land and commercial land. Those lands needed to be protected. Choices were made in the economy and choices would need to be made for agriculture. He said that when they got to the discussion of economic development that “Subregional Rule” actually did fold into “Implementation of Title 11 Concept Plans.” The real issue was trade-offs in parts of the economy and creating a balance. How would that be accomplished just looking from one side of the fence? There were certain segments of agriculture that were very valuable, and others that could be done elsewhere. That was the type of information they would need in order to make decisions on where to move the boundary over the long term. Mike Burton had said when bringing some of that agriculture into the economy, recognize that it was an important part of the region.

Jack Hoffman said that #6 on the questionnaire, “Urban Reserve” was also related to #7 “Implementation of Title 11 Concept Plans” because if you are deciding to go on farm land or industrial land, it should be a regional decision based on regional economics. They couldn’t look at one side of the region in a vacuum and not consider the region as a whole.

Vera Katz said that they wanted to know what each other’s economic strategy was, not that they actually wanted to create a regional economic strategy.

Mike McKeever asked the members to fill out one more survey, a copy of which is attached for the record.

After the break, Chair Hughes introduced councilor Karen Mckinney, Hillsboro City Council – his new alternate for MPAC.

Mike McKeever showed the third survey results, which are attached and form a part of this record. The work plan when completed, would go to the Council, back through the MPAC Coordinating Committee and then go back to MPAC before completion.

4.  PROCESS ISSUES AND POSSIBLE CHANGES – PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION

Mike McKeever presented three more PowerPoint slides that are attached and form a part of this record.

Chair Hughes, pertaining to the Non-Metro Organizations slide, said that according to the data, MPAC’s lowest relationship was with low-income communities and as an institution they had not done anything to connect with those communities.

Andy Cotugno said that there should be more discussion on the economic development structures. They had membership on MTAC so they participated through that. Whatever direction Metro ended up heading towards on an economic development strategy they were certainly a player in that. He wondered if MPAC wanted a more formal/better connection to that group.

Richard Kidd said that if they weighed in on economic development then it would be very important to hear from those low-income communities.

Mike McKeever reviewed the final slide, which ranked MPAC’s relationship with JPACT, Goal 5 TAC, WRPAC, and Greenspaces TAC.

Andy Cotugno suggested that when they had topics from one of those committees the staff should do a better job of providing a roster of membership, and they should provide someone from the committee to speak to MPAC instead of using Metro staff.

Rob Drake said it was important to hear MPAC’s practitioners on these issues because they were the ones doing the micro level work, whereas Metro staff did the macro level. He said that some subcommittees had a broader representation than others. There were some very issue-oriented advocates on those committees who could potentially bring a level of tension or suspicion. These groups had a broad range that could be helpful.

Chair Hughes referred to his memo from the last meeting, which is attached and forms a part of this record. He asked David Bragdon, Council President, to speak to MPAC issues that may have been addressed at the Council Retreat.

David Bragdon said that they had talked about procedural issues at the retreat. He said that the Council agreed that official requests to MPAC would be put in writing. He said that as the work plans were completed he would bring those back to the MPAC chair to review at the Coordinating Committee meeting.

Chair Hughes said that MPAC had worked through a ton of issues last year that were fairly contentious and the time pressure had been pretty intense. He wasn’t sure that any of that would go away for this year, but it appeared that they would not have to deal with anything as intense as the UGB issues of last year. He felt there was confusion about who on the Metro Council was requesting action and what happened to MPAC’s decisions once they went before the Metro Council. He felt that having requests from the Metro Council in writing would be helpful, and having David Bragdon come to the Coordinating Committee meetings would also help eliminate confusion regarding Metro Council actions.

Vera Katz said if they were going to be talking about expansion in any part of the region there should be discussion about it in MPAC.

Chair Hughes said that he wanted to focus on the role of MTAC relative to MPAC. MTAC was a committee created by MPAC bylaws and therefore it served MPAC. He said that part of the concern was the degree to which MTAC operated on its own agenda independent of MPAC’s request for information. He said that there were instances where MPAC would get the technical advice ahead of the policy questions. He said that because MTAC included advocates the committee would sometimes bring issues to MPAC that were not necessarily on the agenda. He said he would attempt to clarify the relationship between MTAC and MPAC. He wanted to ask MTAC to respond more directly to MPAC’s requests for information. He also pointed out confusion regarding MPAC’s time frame for issues, and he felt it was important to coordinate MTAC’s meeting schedule with MPAC’s meeting schedule. He said it was his intention to continue the Coordinating Committee meetings as a way to bring focus to issues.

Rod Park said that the intense work load last year made the Coordinating Committee essential to keeping the flow of work/steps well coordinated between Council and MPAC.

Susan McLain said the Coordinating Committee was an important conduit of information. She expressed interest in receiving Coordinating Committee agendas ahead of time so that people could take part. She said it would be beneficial to allow for others to give comments at that stage.

Chair Hughes said that some things came from the Council ad hoc and that made it difficult to set out an agenda ahead of time. He said he would look into a broader distribution of items for the Coordinating Committee so that people who were interested could, at the least, contact one of the attendees and give input on a topic.

Gil Kelly, City of Portland, from MTAC said that they would welcome more direction from MPAC and then gave an example of how they had experienced some confusion also. He said that they had tried to operate as best they could with direction from several entities. He said that trying to find some kind of structure to get through a difficult decision would be helpful.

Chair Hughes said that he liked the decisions that they had made over the last year, but he felt the process had offered opportunity for mischief. He thought it would be cleaner to eliminate opportunities for mischief.

Gil Kelly said that MTAC was there at MPAC’s pleasure.

Chair Hughes said that the information that MTAC provided was vital to MPAC. He said he just wanted to be clearer about how the information flowed.

Cindy Catto, Associated General Contractors, spoke on behalf of those who did not have an individual representing them on MPAC. She said that she hoped MPAC would continue to welcome input from them at MTAC, as they often had a different prospective, before they made decisions.

John Hartsock said that MPAC special district representatives did not have the same relationship with the special district members that the planning folks had with the mayors. He said that it was their own fault and that they needed to work much harder at making sure they were representing those special districts.

Andy Cotugno said that MTAC was a very good, hard-working group that had devoted quite a bit of time and expertise. He said that there was no problem with MPAC making it clear what they want out of MTAC. He said that he also saw a desire on MTAC’s part to be active and to help develop all those proposals. He said that they had expressed a desire to have their own retreat to help define what they think they out to be working on. He asked Chair Hughes if he didn’t want MTAC to work on anything but what MPAC asked for, or should they be developing their own ideas about what they should be working on but make sure that MPAC’s requests take priority.

Chair Hughes wondered what would happen to any project/information that they worked on that was not directed by MPAC.

Andy said it would come to MPAC.

Chair Hughes said that he was not trying to shut out a good source of information mixed with advocacy he just wanted to get the priorities of MTAC and MPAC in alignment.

Andy Cotugno said that MTAC members had talked about tracking information such as data collection needs, and building permit data. He said it was a complex problem that MTAC needed to wrestle with along with Metro staff. He spoke about in-depth work done by MTAC that sometimes resulted in being a small update item for MPAC. He felt it would be a mistake not to tackle that issue because MTAC experienced a conflict of requirements from the state, from Metro, and from local entities often producing the same thing. That discussion should focus on making sure that MTAC was tackling the right stuff; getting the system information between jurisdictions; and getting better and more streamlined processes. Once MTAC resolved those issues, it would need to come to MPAC for approval in order to make sure that what got implemented was really needed.

Rob Drake said they were trying to focus MTAC and that he felt it was a healthy mix as policy guiders for Metro, and that he wouldn’t want to stifle the two extremes because they help MPAC make a wiser decision. He said he also felt that the dynamics of the table worked well because no one harbored bad feelings from one meeting to the next. He said he felt it was that diversity and openness that drew him back to MPAC each year.

Susan McLain said that she felt that the Council had depended on the element of being able to ask questions which Andy Cotugno would test through MTAC.

Chair Hughes said he felt that was beneficial. He was, however, concerned that in that particular process MPAC would be bypassed.

Susan McLain said then Andy Cotugno should be taking that request for information to the MPAC chair at the Coordinating Committee meetings and getting approval for MTAC to work on it. Then results should be filtered back through Andy Cotugno and the Coordinating Committee to see if it should go to MPAC and then to Council, or directly to Council. She acknowledged that sometimes they got conflicting advice from MTAC and MPAC, so that process might help. She also said that she didn’t want to lose creativity.

Richard Kidd said he put a lot of credence in the information that came from MTAC. He said the only real concern he had was that the information that MPAC needed in order to make a decision was timely. The Coordinating Committee working with Andy Cotugno could help MPAC and MTAC keep the issues on a good timeline that made certain MPAC had on-time delivery of that product.

Chair Hughes said he wanted it to be a clean but not sterile process. He said that the flexibility had served them well previously. He felt that as long as there was an established procedure and as long as they provided timely information, their input would always be welcome.

Jack Hoffman said he was frustrated when he had to respond to the advocacy issues through MTAC. He said that he got the impression from some of the economic development groups that they were proposing an agenda and taking it to MTAC to get a vote, and then using that vote to influence their MPAC representatives. He felt that he had to respond to that and it created a difficult situation.

Chair Hughes said that process got uncomfortable for a lot of the members. He said he felt they should examine that and see what they could do to clean it up. He said the concern came from the fact that MPAC placed such value on MTAC’s opinions.

Vera Katz said she was sometimes confused and uncomfortable when there were advocacy groups from all sides versus the planning people. The economic development issues were truly uncomfortable.

Rob Drake said that some advocacy people do sit on MTAC. He said he felt that the advocacy groups were on both sides of the spectrum. He said he didn’t know if it was inappropriate for them to bring some things forward, but their issues were a little different than the planners.

Chair Hughes said that in the cities they were used to a division between policy and technical advice. MTAC had a mix of technical and policy advisors along with advocates, which made it a little messy. He said that the mix had value, but it was an area of some concern. He said he thought there needed to be an avenue where the advocates could also make recommendations.

Wayne Brooks, Planning Director, MTAC, said that one of the awkward things he found with MTAC was that they do have to vote on recommendations. He said that sometimes he felt like a politician and not a technician. He said that it would help for MTAC to know if MPAC wanted a recommendation or just information on each issue.

Mike McKeever said he was looking at the bylaws and MTAC’s purpose was to provide MPAC with technical recommendations on growth management subjects as directed by MPAC. It also said that MTAC should provide MPAC with information including differing opinions with an emphasis on providing a broad range of views on likely positive and negative outcomes of alternate courses of action.

Chair Hughes said the language was clear, they just needed to work on implementation.

Andy Cotugno said that the reason the bylaws were written that way was that MPAC wanted to know not only that MTAC had an 8 – 7 vote on something, but who made those votes and why.

Chair Hughes said he would work it through with the Coordinating Committee and then bring it back to MPAC. He said they also needed to look at the creation of subcommittees on specific topics and issues. He said that he felt that the committees he had worked on were effective, but they had seen some legitimate concerns about that process.

David Ripma said he thought there were too many large subcommittees studying very important issues that came back to MPAC and MPAC didn’t have time to digest the information. Therefore, he said he felt that the subcommittees, in essence, made the decisions for them. He advocated doing fewer things better. His pitch was for not having large subcommittees deciding large issues. He said that MPAC was a regional voice then we should have small subcommittees and the decision should be made by MPAC.

Rod Park said the only way to have minimized the subcommittees last year was to shrink down what was requested of them to work through periodic review. With the amount of time versus the amount of work needed to be done, he did not see how subcommittees could be minimized.

Susan McLain said that the larger committees were inclusive of MTAC members, which seemed productive. She suggested that maybe the length of time a committee spent on an issue was more productive than how large the committee actually was.

Chair Hughes said for issues on the questionnaire that had scored lower than others, perhaps those interested parties could create a subcommittee to put together a short presentation for MPAC.

Andy Cotugno said it was important that if they did assign a subcommittee a job that information was brought back to MPAC for discussion.

5.  CLOSING COMMENTS

Chair Hughes thanked the members for their time.

There being no further business, Chair Hughes adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Kim Bardes

MPAC Coordinator

ATTACHMENTS TO THE RECORD FOR JANUARY 22, 2003

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