METRO POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING RECORD

February 26, 2003 – 5:00 p.m.

Metro Regional Center, Council Chambers

Committee Members Present: Larry Cooper, Nathalie Darcy, Rob Drake, Andy Duyck, Eugene Grant, Ed Gronke, John Hartsock, Alan Hipolito, Tom Hughes, Michael Jordan, Richard Kidd, Doug Neeley, David Ripma

Alternates Present: Larry Haverkemp, Jack Hoffman

Also Present: Hal Bergsma, City of Beaverton; Al Burns, Portland Planning; Brian Campbell, Port of Portland; Cindy Catto, AGC; Brent Curtis, Washington County; Rob DeGraff, Portland Business Alliance; Michael Dennis, TriMet; Bob Durgan, Andersen Construction; Stacy Hopkins, City of Tualatin; Holly Iburg, Neuland Communities; Gil Kelly, City of Portland; Stephan Lashbrook, City of Lake Oswego; Irene Marvich, League of Women Voters; Richard Meyer, City of Cornelius; Rebecca Ocken, City of Gresham; Laura Oppenheimer, The Oregonian; Pat Ribellia, City of Hillsboro; Amy Scheckla-Cox, Cornelius Councilor

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.

Metro Staff Present: Kim Bardes, Dick Benner, Dan Cooper, Andy Cotugno, Lydia Neill, Mark Turpel, and Mary Weber.

1.  INTRODUCTIONS

Tom Hughes, Mayor of Hillsboro and MPAC Chair, called the meeting to order at 5:03 p.m. Those present introduced themselves.

2.  ANNOUNCEMENTS

There were no announcements.

3.  CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS

There was none.

4.  CONSENT AGENDA

Meeting Summary for February 12, 2003.

5.  COUNCIL UPDATE

Council President Bragdon said that the objection period for Council’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) December decision closed. There were 73 objections lodged. He said that Council had discussed unmet industrial lands needs two weeks ago and they gave direction to staff who were creating a time table to take back to Council on March 11^th and 13^th. Once that received Council review it would be provided to MPAC. He mentioned the Centers Team and involvement of MPAC and MTAC, which would be addressed later in the meeting. The Council had a long discussion on Goal 5 and gave some direction to staff in terms of overall goals for the next 12 – 18 months. That was a couple weeks behind the additional industrial lands project in terms of providing MPAC with information.

Andy Cotugno said that the LCDC commission had scheduled two milestones for acknowledgement of the Metro Council December 2002 Task 2 decision. The commission would do an early review on March 19 and 20 on several pieces of industrial land and then the comprehensive consideration of the balance of the December decision at the May 8 and 9 meeting.

6.  MPAC WORK PLAN

Chair Hughes presented his letter and spreadsheet, which was included in the packet and forms part of the record, on the MPAC Work Plan for the members.

Councilor Newman submitted a list of possible participants for the Centers Team, which is attached and also forms a part of this record. He invited discussion on the list.

Ed Gronke said they should consider adding at least one citizen representative.

John Hartsock said they should consider including a special districts representative and someone from the Damascus area.

Doug Neeley wanted to know how the decision was made for the regional representation in terms of the elected officials on the list.

Councilor Newman said the decision on representatives was not geographically based, but rather by interest in the subject, existing centers, and expertise in various fields. He said the Centers Team was open to suggestions or volunteers.

Nathalie Darcy also suggested at least one citizen representative be added to the list.

Councilor Newman said that members could contact him directly with comments or recommendations.

Chair Hughes moved on to his proposal of creating a subcommittee for Subregional Rule. The purpose of the subcommittee was to define and apply a workable rule. The first priority would be to define what subregions were. He wanted a region-wide representation for that committee. He said that the process he would like to utilize was to have MPAC approve a subcommittee, and then he would appoint the chair of the subcommittee, and then those interested in serving on the subcommittee could contact the subcommittee chair, and he/she could then work out the details from there and report back to MPAC. Chair Hughes nominated Richard Kidd as chair of the Subregional Rule subcommittee.

Andy Cotugno requested that the subcommittee chair bring the roster back to MPAC for approval once the list was finalized.

Rob Drake said that regardless of membership anyone could attend the meetings.

Andy Cotugno, spoke to the issue of MPAC/MTAC Regional Partners. He said that MTAC was going to have a retreat on March 19^th in part to be responsive to Chair Hughes directive to them and so that they could develop their own work program. He said he expected a report back from MTAC after the 19^th. He said that MPAC periodically received reports from the Regional Economic Development Partners group, and he wanted to know if MPAC wanted a more formal and regularly scheduled report/presentation. He also wanted to know how MPAC wanted to interface with the Institute of Metropolitan Studies group.

Chair Hughes said he would like a report and maybe a presentation.

Mayor Drake said the committee was scheduled to finish in mid-June, and he wanted to know if Chair Hughes wanted a report at the end, or updates along the way?

Council President Bragdon said that Ethan Seltzer was to give a background presentation to the Council on March 20^th and that Mr. Seltzer had state that he was willing to make a presentation to MPAC.

Chair Hughes supported the idea of a presentation, perhaps for the March 26^th meeting. Once they had an idea of where the group was, they could then talk about whether they needed updates before June.

Chair Hughes asked if anyone had a question about the MPAC work program.

Nathalie Darcy said they had talked about identifying a parks functional plan and the most current plan features a regional local park partnership. She said that those were two separate issues and while she supported MPAC looking at both of those, she did not want to see the discussion of a functional park plan excluded.

Chair Hughes said the question was whether Metro staff was capable of pulling together both discussions.

Council President Bragdon said that development of a functional plan was not part of the work plan of the parks group.

Chair Hughes asked if functional plan process could evolve out of a regional local parks partnership?

Doug Neeley said local jurisdictions would meet regional needs. He said that they were different issues and that neither should fall off the Metro scope.

Council President Bragdon said that the Greenspaces Program was a step toward defining partnerships locally and regionally. He said that a functional plan was a logical extension of that discussion.

Larry Haverkemp questioned how, on the MPAC Goal Setting Retreat Summary, the subregional rule had been under limited support, but now was one of the top priorities.

Chair Hughes said that there were some items that had mixed support. It was felt that a subcommittee would prevent MPAC from spending too much time on it, but still allow those that felt it had value, to have a discussion on it.

Council President Bragdon said that the subregional rule committee was to talk about how to define the subregions and what the objectives where. He said that they needed to submit a Task 3 work plan to DLCD, which they hoped to have in the second half of March.

Jack Hoffman said the subregional subcommittee should pick up from where it left off last year and flesh out the rule. He said he thought it was at least a multi-month project. He said it was a complicated and significant work. He said that the subcommittee should be inclusive of all those who wanted to be part of it.

7.  PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Andy Cotugno reviewed the information in the packet pertaining to the performance measures, which is attached and forms a part of the record.

Doug Neeley asked what the specific decision for this agenda item was to be.

Andy Cotugno said the resolution approved the report previously submitted to the committee and called for its transmittal to DLCD. The ordinance amended Title 9, and to incorporate those amendments was part of the recommendation. He said that the Ordinance on Exhibit B had the fundamentals of the overall framework for describing these performance measures. The overall framework laid out the vision for the 2040 growth concept. The resolution was calling for the fundamentals to be included with the 2040 growth concept. It was, however, being added to Title 9 at this time as noted in the attached ordinance.

Doug Neeley said he had a comment on the 5^th fundamental. He asked if it applied to only communities within Metro’s jurisdiction.

Andy Cotugno said yes.

Doug Neeley suggested it include agricultural and forest lands.

Andy Cotugno said that bullet was aimed at the urban form inside the urban growth boundary.

Jack Hoffman said it was more about preserving the physical sense of place.

John Hartsock said it might help if in the 4^th bullet, about maintaining separation between Metro and the neighboring cities, where it was “Metro Region” and in the 5^th bullet where it was “Metro Area” to call the outlying areas “jurisdiction” in both of those cases.

Andy Cotugno said to substitute “Metro Jurisdiction” in both those areas.

Brian Newman said the Metro jurisdiction and UGB were not the same line. He wanted to know what the implication of that change would be for areas around Boring and Stafford – would it water down the separation of communities or strengthen it?

Andy Cotugno said it was an urban intent, and that it might be more appropriate to say “maintain separation between the Metro UGB and neighboring cities.” He said it was an urban question rather than a jurisdictional boundary question, because the rural territory outside the UGB but inside Metro was part of that separation between us and our neighbors.

8.  REMOVE POSITION #37 OF MTAC BYLAWS

Chair Hughes said that there was a position in MTAC that no longer had significance and it was suggested that the position should be removed.

9.  MPAC MEMBERSHIP

Andy Cotugno asked members about terms of positions. He wondered if some positions needed reconfirmation. He also mentioned that there were several alternate vacancies that needed to be filled.

David Ripma said they had purposely kept terms open ended in order to have some consistency and follow-through on the committee. He said that it sometimes took two years to just figure out what was going on with some issues. He also announced that he himself would no longer be an MPAC member but rather an alternate. He informed the committee that his replacement was Dave Fuller.

Chair Hughes thanked him for his years of service.

There being no further business, Chair Hughes adjourned the meeting at 6:05 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Kim Bardes

MPAC Coordinator

ATTACHMENTS TO THE RECORD FOR FEBRUARY 26, 2003

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