Council Retreat

November 5, 2003

Attendees: David Bragdon, Rex Burkholder, Andy Cotugno, Alexis Dow, Carl Hosticka, Michael Jordan, Susan McLain, Rod Monroe, Brian Newman, Rod Park, Bill Stringer

Andy Cotugno reviewed the Planning Department Work Program Options. There was a lot of in-depth discussion pertaining to the work program.

Growth Management:

The general consensus seemed to lean towards achieving the “major effort” for the A: Urban Growth Boundary Review process, section 3.

Suggestions from councilors included:

•  Incorporating accessibility for option I.A.3. bulleted item stating “Competition between Centers, Industrial areas, and Employment areas for economic growth.”

•  A 50-year urban reserve might be a good thing to work towards, but would need to include “agreements” between boundaries, regulated by LCDC rules

Centers:

Andy Cotugno made a point that while the centers portion of the work plan had three parts, they were not arrayed in terms of importance, but rather three different possibilities that could entail parts from each section.

Suggestions:

•  Study costs of performing all 3 alternatives.

Fish & Wildlife:

Andy Cotugno said that at present there was no course of action set for the future once the current work was completed and adopted. He asked councilors to consider if they wanted to do more work and to what level.

Conversation points: What would Metro’s role be and what was not being done in the region that Metro could/should have participation in getting done or providing?

Suggestions:

•  Take a year or more to consolidate/take stock of what Metro had achieved thus far and then from that base look at what the region needed for the future.

Framework Plan:

Of the 3 phases of the Regional Framework Plan only the first one was required of Metro.

Suggestions:

•  At least two of the phases were needed or the plan was not really useful.

Performance Measures:

Andy Cotugno asked if these were to be a measure of Metro’s work or a broader measure for the whole region.

Conversation points: the Councilors wondered if smaller “updates” on an alternate schedule, followed by a comprehensive update every 4^th year would be more productive.

Suggestions: It was suggested that “spreading” the work and not having a huge undertaking at one given time would be better as it would engage the community more, keep issues current, and perhaps lessen the work impact for any one given year.

New Urban Area Planning:

Conversation points: Discussion included Metro’s role in new urban planning, sub-regional planning, and brownfields.

Suggestions: It was suggested that a special work session on this issue be conducted.

Affordable Housing:

Discussion points: There was some concern that Metro was viewed as an inappropriate vehicle for this issue. Some wondered if Metro should expand the minimum requirements that Metro had, or finish up those and not revisit the issue at all.

Suggestions: It was suggested that this particular issue be discussed in more detail as it came before Council at a later date. It was thought that this issue did tie in well with the centers issue by way of reducing road trips and providing housing were people wanted to live.

Economic Development Planning:

Discussion points: The bigger picture needed to include Economic Development Planning or at least a Regional Economy perspective. Metro’s role in this discussion was discussed.

Suggestions: Define what economic development really meant. They were in agreement that more information was required before they could decide what Metro’s role might be. There was a feeling that economic development was integral to the community and therefore had consequences in all the decisions that Metro made.

Water Supply Planning:

Discussion points: This was a long-term issue that would affect future decision-making. Metro’s role: consolidate or coordinate water districts, or simply monitor the issue?

Suggestions: If Metro were to undertake working with water districts, it would be good to consider regional emergency planning for the water supply.

Transit-Oriented Development (TOD):

Andy Cotugno said that this was an MTIP driven activity and that the level of funding established the level of spending.

Discussion points: It was not likely that Metro would be a big player in housing, but the program provided a good resource and example for local jurisdictions. It could potentially help centers get off the ground.

Suggestions: Discuss in greater detail the long-term role of TOD in the region. Correlate the TOD program into the centers program.

Regional Travel Options:

Andy Cotugno said that TriMet wanted to get rid of the Van Pool program (TDMs).

Suggestions: It was suggested that the Travel Smart Program be added to the Regional Travel Options.

Corridor Studies:

Andy Cotugno said that the Council had to decide if they wanted to implement a broad strategy plan for rail.

Discussion: Was rail TriMet’s or Metro’s purview?

Suggestions: Integrate TriMet’s plan with a Metro plan.

General:

•  Council should prioritize and sequence Planning Projects and Programs.

•  Council should set a direction for priorities.

•  Council should decide to either remain revenue neutral or look to enhance revenues.

•  Should Council institute tax increases before cuts and streamlining of budget was complete?

•  Might be good to have Solid Waste provide a Work Program for their department.

•  Moving forward on Jim Desmond’s proposal for parks: should they raise3

•   excise tax (hidden from public) or produce operating levy (public buy-in) to raise money to fund the proposal?

Priorities:

•  Provide more implementation of the centers program.

•  Look at performance measures on a regional level.

•  Sequencing Metro issues/projects in a better format might help with good utilization of funds.

•  Research other revenue sources.

•  Lengthen cycles of projects and programs so as to prevent “bottle-necking” of Metro resources and staff.

•  Develop a legislative agenda while integrating planning work programs.

•  Focus the Metro public and legislative face.

•  Attempt to make Planning Department Work Program A-3 happen.

Outcomes:

•  Continue to look at possible cuts to budget and processes in place and retain and increase excise tax.

•  Excise increase would need to be “packaged.” They could pre-authorize funds and state how they would be shifted.

•  Andy Cotugno would bring back cost breakouts for A-3 of his work program.

•  Bill Stringer would bring back scenarios that would match responsibilities to the budget.

•  Solid Waste should present a Solid Waste Work Program at one of the retreats.

Respectfully submitted,

Kim Bardes