MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL MEETING

March 18, 1999

Council Chamber

Councilors Present:  Rod Monroe (Presiding Officer), Susan McLain, Ed Washington, Rod Park, Bill Atherton, David Bragdon, Jon Kvistad

Councilors Absent:  None.

Presiding Officer Monroe convened the Regular Council Meeting at 2:06 p.m.

1.  INTRODUCTIONS

Presiding Officer Monroe presented Lindsey Ray with a plaque for her meritorious service to

Metro over the past ten years.

Councilor McLain also thanked Ms. Ray for the help and stability as well as her organizational skills throughout the past ten years.

Councilor Washington added that it had been a real pleasure working with Lindsey over the past ten years.

Councilor Kvistad commented that Ms. Ray had worked with distinction for a number of Metro Councilors and thanked her those years.

Councilor Park said he had only known Lindsey a short time but stated that it had been a pleasure working with Ms. Ray

2.  CITIZEN COMMUNICATION

Art Lewellan, 3205 SE 8th #9, Portland OR 97214, said he was here today to testify on the problem of the Ross Island Bridge. He said there was a deficiency in the use of the Ross Island Bridge since it should be carrying half of the traffic from the Sellwood bridge. He thought the Ross Island Bridge should be widened and was integral to the smooth operation of the bridge system. Since Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) was about to spend a large sum of money to resurface the bridge, he felt they should look at doing the widening now. He showed his reconfiguration concerning exiting the Ross Island Bridge and the access to I-405.

Councilor Washington commented that he felt that since Oregon Department of Transportation had been preparing to do major work on the Ross Island Bridge, Mr. Lewellan must certainly present this material to ODOT.

Mr. Lewellan said he felt that was a cop out and that he would continue his crusade to get the information to the public.

3.  EXECUTIVE OFFICER COMMUNICATIONS

Mike Burton, Executive Officer discussed projections and the fact that they would be brought into the final budget discussions next. He added that projections had been reviewed and would be brought in to the final budget discussions next week. For informational purposes, a drop in the tonnage coming through the transfer stations that would have an effect on Metro’s revenues. Metro had tightened its forecast processes of the last couple years and these forecasts would exert some effect on Metro’s revenues.

Presiding Officer Monroe stated that he was aware of the fact that Metro would most likely influence the decision in this matter but stated that he preferred the other option.

Councilor McLain said that she hoped that councilors would understand the dropped tonnage in perspective of what had been assumed to be dropped tonnage. Last year’s system and this year’s system with the direct haul was very different. She expressed her desire that this information be placed in the above-stated scope.

Executive Officer Burton answered there would most likely be a significant effect in the final analysis due to dropped tonnage.

Mr. Burton said he would see to it that it was done that way. He added that he had received telephone calls concerning local jurisdiction budgets. Mr. Burton explained that the second-quarter excise tax would show a decrease in tonnage and an excise return as a result of that. In light of this, further decreased tonnage forecasts had been made.

Mr. Burton said that he had received several calls from the cities concerning their budgets. Gresham had noted that they were reviewing their budget on March 18, 1999. They anticipated major reductions in their budget as a result of Ballot Major 47. One of Gresham’s proposals would be to reduce their long-range planning staff by cutting three of their long-range planners. Mr. Burton said that when he talked with Gresham’s Planning Director he was told that such action would affect their ability to accomplish urban reserve planning as well as compliance planning. Should those cuts be implemented, the staff would need to put in place some alternative strategy options.

Mr. Burton explained that Fairview had made cuts in their police forces. The police had requested that Metro try to assume some of the costs for the police patrols at Blue Lake and Chinook Landing. Mr. Burton explained that although Metro provides a park for the people in that community there was clearly a cost for the Police Department in reference to those particular facilities. The policy question for this council was whether they wished to establish a precedent to pick up some local government costs by the imposition of other governments. He indicated that those cuts occurred due to the impositions of other governments upon the resources of Fairview. He stated that many of the smaller governments were wrestling with the fallout from Measure 47.

Mr. Burton made reference to a letter, from the Chair of Regional Arts and Culture Council (RACC), (a copy of which is included as part of the meeting record), which discussed a conversation between he and Mr. George Forbes regarding RACC funding. Mr. Burton placed this matter into perspective for the Councilors and said that it had been his intent not to put RACC appropriations in the budget simply because Metro did not have the funds.

A contribution to RACC had been made through the allocation process which was part of the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) process that Multnomah County and Metro entered into when Metro assumed the facilities. That nexus belonged in the earlier budget, not in the current budget. The Executive Officer’s discussion with Mr. Forbes led him to sense that Metro Council wanted to give some support to RACC.

Approximately $25,000 had been identified for RACC by shaving some dollars off Cost Of Living Adjustments (COLA) and, while The Executive Officer said although he was not comfortable with that as a fiscal management tool, there was something that might be done. He indicated to Mr. Forbes that he hoped RACC would understand the fiscal situation here at Metro in that the council had made both decisions on what was going to happen with the result of Change Order 8. Metro’s budget was uncertain and there might be some opportunity to return to Metro Council after next January for another attempt at funding. A copy of Executive Officer Burton’s statements was placed in the permanent record of this meeting, numbered 031899c-01.

Mr. Burton stated that the tax dollars collected to operate the facilities came from lodging taxes collected by Multnomah County. They were subject to whatever Multnomah County decided to do with them. In the last IGA the decision was made to specifically allocate lodging taxes to two different entities. In that, Portland Oregon Visitors Association (POVA) had made the decision to specifically allocate lodging taxes to different entities. POVA, in collaboration with the RACC was to get $300,000 in the F/Y 1997 – 1998 and each fiscal year thereafter they were to receive that amount plus annual percentage increases equal to the lesser of the change in the Portland SMSACPI to the overall change in the proceeds. He encouraged RACC to reapply in January in the hope that some dollars would be available at that time.

Presiding Officer Monroe indicated that Metro was very tight with dollars.

Councilor Park asked if this was being done now in terms of the particular agreement that was passed out.

Mr. Burton replied that the allocation in the current budget called for the first $300,000 in addition to a Consumer Price Index (CPI) in the 1997-1998 budget in addition to whatever had accumulated in the CPI since that time.

4.  AUDITOR COMMUNICATIONS

None.

5.  MPAC COMMUNICATIONS

Councilor McLain said at the MPAC meeting they dealt with the Metro Code changes and specifically with the process for making those changes. These suggestions were sent to Metro Transportation Advisory Committee (MTAC).

Councilor McLain spoke briefly regarding SB 1031. She indicated this legislation was designed to give Metro greater control over changes in its own boundaries.

6.  METRO LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

Mr. Dan Cooper said he had been in contact with Mr. Ray Phelps regarding HB 2512, the Metro Builders Business license program bill. It had continued to move without opposition. It had been through the House and was passed out of the Senate Committee on a unanimous vote and should be scheduled for a full Senate vote soon.

Another series of four bills concerned Parks and Open Spaces conservation easements in Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zones. SB 838, the EFU zone bill had been printed and released. The chair of the relevant Senate committee, Verl Tarno had expressed interest in it and appeared to be willing to move it. The conservation easement bill had been introduced. The Metro Boundary change bill was not released at the time of this meeting. He said that Ray Phelps reported potential opposition from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) at the staff level.

Mr. Cooper stated that SB 87, the twenty-year land supply bill for economic development purposes had a hearing today at the senate committee level. Metro had engaged in conversations with the sponsors. They had proposed technical amendments which, at the staff level, made it workable for Metro’s staff.

Senate Bill 85, the compost facilities and EFU zone bill, was discussed by the REM committee. It passed the senate committee and was sent to the house. A schedule of hearings had not been released.

Councilor Park stated that this bill proposed to remove restrictions for siting an urban use facility in an EFU zone on prime agricultural lands. He felt that the bill was akin to allowing an urban school in an EFU zone. He questioned Metro’s policy concerning these types of circumstances. He proposed opposition to SB 85 in its current language and suggested that Mr. Phelps and Metro staff be creative in their support of these types of activities.

Councilor McLain said that the committee had taken a “wait and see” attitude with this legislation. The committee felt, since there were conflicting goals in the language of this legislation, more dialogue on this issue was required.

Councilor Washington stated that the vote was “right down party lines.” The Governor had stated that he would veto this bill.

Mr. Cooper said that the Joint Fish Committee would have a hearing in the Metro Chamber on March 23, 1999. Presiding Officer Monroe stated that the committee primarily wished to hear from Metro’s staff, Mr. David Moskowitz and The Presiding Officer.

Councilor Park wondered if the proponents of House Bill 2082, the gas tax, had a better idea of what this bill would be likely to accomplish. He also asked questions concerning the Voter’s Pamphlet as to whether Metro candidates should be in the state-wide Voter’s Pamphlet.

Councilor McLain stated that Metro Council had done it both ways and neither had been particularly successful.

Councilor Park stated that although candidates were currently allowed to be in the voter’s pamphlet, Metro measures were not.

Mr. Cooper replied that the law, pre-1993, stated that a Metro measure was eligible to be placed in the state voter’s pamphlet. Metro collected the fees and paid the bill that the Secretary of State sent. When the law was changed in 1993, Metro Council repealed those provisions of Metro Code that provided enabling legislation. When the law came back into effect, it came with that requirement intact.

Councilor Park asked about the fiscal impact of such a change.

Mr. Cooper said it was not a great fiscal issue.

Executive Officer Burton felt the State of Oregon had wanted Metro out of the state pamphlet all along. He suggested an amendment to that bill might be that the state would agree to pick up Metro’s election costs. He stated that counties did not had to pay for their fair share of this at

present.

Presiding Officer Monroe said that, since Metro represented half the population of the state and since many of Metro’s districts had crossed state lines as well as the fact that the Executive Officer Burton and Alexis Dow were elected region-wide, he would ask Mr. Ray Phelps to discuss our request with legislators.

Presiding Officer Monroe stated that it seemed silly to connect fish-related bills, water pollution and safe swimming facilities and he knew that Metro would not have much voice on transportation funding.

7.  CONSENT AGENDA

7.1  Consideration meeting minutes of the March 11, 1999 Regular Council Meeting.

 Motion:  Councilor McLain moved to adopt the meeting minutes of March 11, 1999 Regular Council Meeting.

 Seconded:  Councilor Washington seconded the motion.

 Vote:    The vote was 7 aye/ 0 nay/ 0 abstain. The motion passed as amended.

8.  ORDINANCES - SECOND READING

8.1  Ordinance No. 99-793, For the Purpose of Adopting the Annual Budget for Fiscal Year 1999-00; Making Appropriations, and Levying Ad Valorem Taxes; and Declaring an Emergency.

Presiding Officer Monroe noted that it had been recommended that another public hearing be held before the final hearing on the budget. He noted that this could be scheduled prior to the April 29, 1999 hearing on the budget. This could be scheduled on April 15, 1999.

Presiding Officer Monroe then explained the process which involved studying, discussing and receiving comments from the public.

Presiding Officer Monroe opened a public hearing.

Mike Houck, Audubon Society of Portland, 5151 NW Cornell Road, Portland OR 97210 appeared before Metro Council regarding Goal 5, Storm Water Management, Watershed Planning and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). He expressed concerns about Metro attempting to obtain grants. Much work needed to done under Goal 5. It did not appear that enough resources were available to get the job done.

Councilor Atherton asked Mr. Houck if the point under discussion was if the budget policy needed to be a part of the committee work.

Mr. Houck replied in the affirmative.

Councilor Bragdon asked if the City of Portland actually wanted Metro to take on responsibilities of a response to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). He wondered if this might be the start of an intergovernmental sharing of tasks as well as resources and asked Mr. Houck for his thoughts.

Mr. Houck replied that he sat in on a City of Portland meeting on the ESA and found it ironic that a city councilor suggested that Metro ought to “step up to the plate” and take this opportunity. He stated that the City of Portland had committed significant funds toward addressing the ESA. He said that the spirit of collaboration with Metro needed to prevail and the two agencies needed to figure out how to capture transportation money, understanding that Metro was short of dollars in transportation.

Councilor Atherton asked why Mr. Houck felt that the amount of money to be spent on the ESA was inadequate.

Mr. Houck said he was basing this on his own budget being that of a small non-profit organization. $50,000 of his own budget was in the form of grants and if this money was not allocated from the granting agency there was a budget shortfall.

Councilor Atherton stated that he believed it was performance that counts. We had done a lot of talking. He stated his worries about Metro’s conversations with the Oregon Legislature. The bottom line was that when he started at the Lake Oswego Council five years ago he knew the region was going in the hole $20 million annually. That number had changed upward.

Sharon Wood-Worthman 3270 SW Fairmont Boulevard Portland OR 97222, author of the Portland Bridge Book, read a poem which addressed many of the problems baby boomers face these days regarding driving automobiles upon our crowded roads. Ms. Wood-Worthman closed with the information that Oregon Historical Society (OHS) would open an exhibit entitled Bridging the City.

Another Transportation Ditty For the Rose Region and City

Hey, Baby Boomers and you born before,

‘Member travel by car when it was still a chore?

When forty was speeding and highways two-lane

And restaurants, each different, not part of a chain.

Now do you remember when you were a kid

On family car vacations, the things you did

Count out of state plates, ask twenty questions and such

That first morning was fun and then there was lunch.

But back out on the road, things would start getting old.

“Aren’t we there yet?” You’d whine and then you’d be told.

You know that we are going as fast as we can,

Just look out the window, don’t make me tell you again.

How far to that hilltop, isn’t that billboard the same?

Hours yet to the motel, please not another car game.

Then suddenly you’d see it and you’d perk up so quick,

Flying by on the shoulder was a phrase on a stick.

And you knew there’d be more, maybe ten or fifteen

Stretched out down the highway, Yeah, they were keen.

Hey did you see that? What did it say?

Billy, move over, get out of my way.

Everyone in the car read each line as it came

Enjoying the story no matter how lame.

Thanks, Burma-Shave, you helped pass the miles.

Your ditties were corny but they brought lots of smiles.

M’Lou Christ, 904 SE 13th, Portland OR 97214 read into the record a poem which addressed many of the problems baby boomers face these days regarding driving automobiles upon our crowded roads.

Likewise, we hope that we’ve caught your attention

Yes, this too is an ad, there’s something we’d like to mention.

Wherever you’re going, and whether you drive, bike or hitch,

To get ‘round this region, you count on a britch (bridge).

From different decades and designer with notable styles and features,

Like the five that lift up to let by tall river creatures.

Our bridges span and truss us around

And add charm to the flow of this river-borne town.

Why just to see them’s a pleasure from eastside and west

The view’s looking off them, may think are the best.

Yet we grouse if we must wait for our turn o’er the water

And take our bridges for granted more time than we oughter.

Each item and service, things in the garage and the ‘fridge

Everywhere in this region we get via a bridge.

And the thousands of times that we cross them each day

Take their toll on our bridges and wear them away.

‘Course we’re wise to expand our transpo options of late,

More light rail and busses; return of streetcars will be great.

But a full system to the ‘burbs and all around town

Won’t do squat if we get them while our bridges fall down.

Oh yes, rehab is spendy as the Hawthorne work shows

But deferred costs grow faster than current revenue flows.

So each jurisdiction must find a way to pitch in

To raise funds for our bridges, let the campaign begin.

No more hemmin’ and hawin’, No more lookin’ away

The bridge piper is calling and we all must now pay.

Let’s reweave the bridges that lace our region together

And make them foot- and bike-friendly so we can all use them better

And whaddya say as part of the fixin’ we light ‘em up pretty

Show the world what a jewel we know we have in this city.

Then each one, as it’s done, before traffic’s allowed,

Should be the site of a party, we’ll celebrate doin’ us proud.

Jerry Rust, St. Vincent de Paul of Lane County and Enterprise Foundation of Portland, 3417 N Russett St, Portland OR 97217, appeared before the Council to urge members to develop waste based enterprises in the local area. A copy of his comments, dated March 18, 1999, may be found in the record of today’s meeting.

Councilor Washington said the Council members would look closely at this proposition.

Tony Marquis, 17037 Kelok Rd, Lake Oswego, OR 97034, appeared before the Council representing the Regional Arts and Culture Council (RACC). He showed the council graphically how art and garbage can intersect and left a newspaper article, (a copy of which may be found in the permanent record of this meeting). He urged Metro Council’s continuing support of RACC.

Councilor Kvistad stated he had received Mr. Marquis letter. He told Mr. Marquis that 5 out of 7 Metro Councilors had committed to finding his organization $100,000. Councilor Kvistad stated that he felt submarined by Mr. Marquis’ letter.

Mr. Marquis offered his personal apologies to Councilor Kvistad.

Presiding Officer Monroe closed the public hearing.

John Houser, Senior Council Analyst stated that each of the three amendments had been reviewed by the Council. The first amendment dealt with the proposed elimination of the Assistant to the Presiding Officer position that was included in the budget. Both the Presiding Officer and the Deputy Presiding Officer had examined their working relationship with Council staff and believed that their needs were currently being adequately met. Therefore there was no need at the current time to consider the Assistant to the Presiding Officer position. The net impact of making the change was approximately $42,000.

 Motion to

 Amend #1:  Councilor McLain moved to amend Ordinance No. 99-793. This amendment proposed the elimination of new council assistant position.

 Seconded:  Councilor Atherton seconded the amendment.

Councilor McLain stated her belief that council was looking for places to be more efficient in their own office.

Councilor Kvistad urged the Council to keep these funds in the budget.

Councilor Park said he hated to lose this position and later on had to justify it as a new position. He requested a note be placed in the budget that, for accounting purposes only, this position was removed although it should be noted that it was desirable to retain it for future review.

Councilor McLain was appreciative of the other councilor’s comments. She continued that following Councilor Park’s statement, Council might be tied down to a particular dollar amount and a particular description of that job.

Councilor Bragdon said Metro Council was asking everyone to do more with less. He stated that he would vote ‘yes’ on this amendment.

Councilor Kvistad said he thought that having been in the position of Presiding Officer for the past three years and knowing the staff work load when Metro Council hit the urban reserve decision issues and Urban Growth Boundary movement time, a small council staff could be disastrous.

Presiding Officer Monroe said there would be an opportunity in the Fall to further consider this item. At this time, Presiding Officer Monroe felt our office could function lean and mean as well as effectively with the current staffing.

Councilor Washington asked for clarification on this issue.

Presiding Officer Monroe stated that the discussion rotated around the fact that the council office had been getting along without an additional person.

Councilor Washington said we were always prudent and frugal, sometimes almost to a fault.

Presiding Officer Monroe asked Mr. Houser why this position could not be kept in the budget unfilled.

Mr. Houser said technically it could be kept in the budget and not filled. He believed that the answer to this question revolved around the expressed interest of some councilors to enhance the council outreach efforts.

Presiding Officer Monroe said if we left it in and did not fill it, would the Council not have the money?

Mr. Houser replied that this option would not have budgeted the funds in an appropriate fashion.

Councilor Washington said this was not a point of argument but he stated that the council had always been very tight and in his opinion, the council had always led in terms of frugality. He believed that the position should be left in place.

 Motion:  Councilor Kvistad moved to table Amendment #1.

 Seconded:  Councilor Washington seconded the request to table the amendment

 Vote to Table:  The vote was 3 aye/ 4 nay/ 0 abstain. The motion failed and Councilors Atherton, McLain, Bragdon and Presiding Officer Monroe voted no.

Councilor Park commented that he believed that with three new councilors, the staff was currently able to accommodate their requests for information and so forth but this might not be true in the future.

Presiding Officer Monroe suggested that Councilor Park work with staff and have a budget note drafted which would need to be presented on April 29, 1999.

 Vote to

 Amend #1:  The vote was 5 aye/ 2 nay/ 0 abstain. The motion passed and Councilors Kvistad and Washington voted no.

 Motion to

 Amend #2:  Councilor McLain moved to amend Ordinance No. 99-793 which proposed that the Council consider several minor amendments related to pay adjustments for both Councilors and Staff.

 Seconded:  Councilor Bragdon seconded the amendment.

Mr. Houser clarified that this amendment was designed to reflect the possibility that their salaries might increase by as much as six percent rather than five percent depending on legislative action affecting judges’ salaries. It cleared up the nature of potential merit-based pay adjustments for staff in the coming fiscal year.

Presiding Officer Monroe said that Council didn’t know what the Oregon State Legislature would do in regard to Circuit Court judge’s salaries. He stated that this amendment covered any reasonable contingency in this regard. Metro Council did not set their own salaries, that was a matter for the State Legislature which they alone decided. This amendment assured there was enough money in the budget to cover any salary increases the legislature approved.

 Vote:    

 to Amend #2:  The vote was 7 aye/ 0 nay/ 0 abstain. The motion passed unanimously.

 Motion to

 Amend #3:  Councilor McLain moved to amend Ordinance No. 99-793 which would have provided a modest level of funding increase for Council Outreach programs.

 Seconded:  Councilor Washington seconded the amendment.

Mr. Houser explained that currently there were savings of $44,899 between the Council Outreach Office and the Council Office that had been approved. He continued with the fact that the Presiding Officer and Deputy Presiding Officer had recommended that a total $40,000 of this funding be placed in the Public Outreach Office budget for the purpose of enhancing community outreach efforts of the council.

Councilor McLain stated that much work needed to be accomplished by the Outreach Office and they would need the additional funding.

Councilor Kvistad asked for a friendly amendment that these funds be distributed equally among the council districts.

Councilor McLain accepted this friendly amendment.

Presiding Officer Monroe stated that Councilor Park had asked for a minor amendment to the Council Office Budget. He stressed that any other amendment to the Council Office budget should be held until the April 29, 1999 meeting. He also requested that they be submitted to Council Staff not later than April 15, 1999.

 Vote:    

 to Amend #3:  The vote was 7 aye/ 0 nay/ 0 abstain. The motion passed unanimously.

 Motion to

 Amend #4:  Councilor McLain moved to amend Ordinance No. 99-793 concerning the Auditors salary adjustment. The proposed Auditor’s budget reflected a $34,000 reduction from the current fiscal year, staff recommended two changes. The Auditor requested a total of $101,210 for contracted professional services. This represented a reduction from this fiscal year’s budget of $163,288 which included Info-Link related audits that have now been completed. This money was used for specialized audits or projects for which the Auditor had no expertise on her own staff.

The second amendment discussed by Mr. Houser was related to the proposed salary for the auditor. The actual salary was based on the circuit judge’s salary and currently was $68,240. This amounted to $475 less than the amount in the proposed budget or $68,715. It seemed prudent, in view of the action taken on the Councilor’s salaries, to reflect the potential for a 6% increase.

 Seconded:  Councilor Atherton seconded the amendment.

Vote to    

 Amend #4:  The vote was 7 aye/ 0 nay/ 0 abstain. The motion passed unanimously.

 Motion to

 Amend #5:  Councilor McLain moved to amend Ordinance No. 99-793 to reduce the Auditor’s budget in the Contracted Professional Services line item by $10,000.

Seconded:  Councilor Bragdon seconded the amendment.

John Houser stated that both amendments were related to the same line item in the Auditor’s budget dealing with contracted professional services. Historically, the Auditor had been granted an amount over the actual cost of the annual financial audit that was paid for out of this line item to grant discretionary funds to seek help outside the agency when specialized assistance was required in auditing work. The amount historically provided for this purpose had increased throughout the years. In 1997-1998 that amount had been about $25,000. The proposed budget, he said, would provide approximately $31,500 for this purpose. He stated that he had checked the history of this budget item and since it had proved to be less than this amount, some form of reduction was in order. The issue, he stated, was the magnitude of this item.

Vote to

 Amend #4:  The vote was 7 aye/ 0 nay/ 0 abstain. The motion passed unanimously.

Motion toAmend

Amendment #5:  Councilor Park moved to amend the McLain-Monroe Amendment #5 from $10,000 to $5,000.

Seconded:    Councilor Kvistad seconded the motion to amend

     Amendment #5.

Councilor Park asked Ms. Dow if the Auditor’s budget should be reduced.

Ms. Alexis Dow, Metro Auditor, said she did a study five years ago to ascertain the appropriate staffing of an auditor’s office for a government organization of Metro’s size. Considering the present staffing of the Auditor’s office, it was deemed appropriate to request the amount of $10,000 although she had under spent this amount of money for over five years.

Councilor Park stated that the reason he was going for the $5000 amount was that the proposed budget for the Auditor was already $34,000 less than the current budget. Councilor Park stated that he had learned in conversations with Ms. Dow, that this cut would be more in line with the percentage of cuts that the rest of the agency was being asked to take.

Presiding Officer Monroe asked Mr. Houser to verify Councilor Park’s comments.

Mr. Houser clarified for Councilor Park that the amount in the Auditor’s budget for discretionary contracted services would be comparable to the current budget. It would not be less than the current budget.

Presiding Officer Monroe said in a very lean year proven needs, actual expenditures needed to be examined. Presiding Officer Monroe felt that it was appropriate to err on the side of caution. The vote to support Councilor Park in wanting to take $5000 out of the discretionary fund, was a ‘yes’ vote; the McLain-Monroe approach of taking $10,000 out was a ‘no’ vote.

 Vote:    The vote was 4 aye/ 3 nay/ 0 abstain. The motion passed with Councilors McLain and Bragdon and Presiding Officer Monroe voting no.

 Vote to

 Amend #5

 as amended:  The vote was 7 aye/ 0 nay/ 0 abstain. The motion passed unanimously.

 Motion to

 Amend #6:  Councilor McLain moved to amend Ordinance No. 99-793 related to the Executive Officer salary adjustment. Two changes were contemplated in the Executive Officer’s budget. First, the Executive Officer had proposed a centralized communications team. This included the transfer of one public affairs specialist from the Growth Management department and a second from Transportation. Accordingly a budget note was suggested that reads as follows: A total of $95,000 has been allocated for contracted professional services within the Public Affairs and Governmental Relations section of the Office of the Executive Officer. Of this total, $75,000 have been allocated for the general support of the communications and outreach activities of the new central communications team. These funds are not allocated for specific purposes or contracts. Therefore, the Council directs that these funds shall not be expended until the proposed communications plan has been developed, submitted to, and adopted by the Council. The plan shall include a proposal for the expenditure of these funds.

The second change was related to the need to adjust the salary of the Executive Officer to reflect the potential for a 6% salary increase. In the case of the Executive Officer, the change would represent an increase of $853 or an adjusted salary of $90,418.

Seconded:  Councilor Park seconded the amendment.

 Vote:    

 to Amend #6:  The vote was 7 aye/ 0 nay/ 0 abstain. The motion passed unanimously.

 Motion to

 Amend #7:  Councilor McLain moved to amend Ordinance No. 99-793, the budget note concerning the expenditures of the contractor of professional services related to the communication plan.

 Seconded:  Councilor Atherton seconded the amendment.

Mr. Houser related that the Executive Officer’s budget included the assembly of a central communications team, the purpose of which was to facilitate providing a more focused communications message for the agency. Part of the budget for this unit included $75,000 for contracted professional services which, at this point was undefined in terms of how it would be spent. The assumption was that, once this team had produced a formal communications plan for the agency, they would then utilize these monies for contracted professional services.

Councilor Washington asked how this program would work.

Executive Officer Burton explained the mechanics of this program and outlined its working structure.

 Vote:    

 to Amend #7:  The vote was 7 aye/ 0 nay/ 0 abstain. The motion passed.

 Motion to

 Amend #8:  Councilor Kvistad moved to amend Ordinance No. 99-793 to eliminate the new Chief Operating Officer position included in the Executive Officer budget.

 Seconded:  No on came forward to second. Presiding Officer Monroe said the motion failed for lack of a second.

Presiding Officer Monroe called for amendments to the Office of General Council. He stated that there were no proposed amendments.

Motion to

 Amend #9:  Councilor McLain moved to amend Ordinance No. 99-793 in the Administrative Services Department to include a budget note requiring the completion of an independent analysis of Metro business processes.

 Seconded:  Presiding Officer Monroe seconded the amendment.

Mr. Houser stated that the Budget Advisory Committee for the Administrative Services Department recommended that an independent study be done of the department’s business practices to examine the appropriateness of the processes as well as the adequacy of staffing levels to perform those processes. This budget note would recommend that the Council endorse the department conducting such a study. The sentence that had been added stated that “Administrative Services Department shall seek the advice of the Auditor in the selection of a vendor to perform this review.”

Presiding Officer Monroe stated that this review was strongly suggested by Mr. Houser and went along with recommendations forwarded by the Auditor.

Councilor Park asked for background information as to whether this was to be agency-wide.

Mr. Houser replied that this task would be limited to the accounting processes that were performed by Administrative Services Department. It would be limited to those processes that were business-related or accounting. The recommendation for this study came from the Budget Advisory Committee for that department and was limited to that department.

 Vote to

 Amend #9:  The vote was 7 aye/ 0 nay/ 0 abstain. The motion passed unanimously.

 Motion to

 Amend #10:  Councilor McLain moved to amend Ordinance No. 99-793 to include funding for a Tax Study Commission.

 Seconded:  Councilor Monroe seconded the amendment.

Councilor McLain said that most comments received during the budget cycle had indicated that this was the tightest budget season that had occurred within the past eight or nine years. It looks like it would get far worse in the future. She said that it was time for this agency look at what the funding mechanisms were as far as probability for a more stable means for funding. This amendment asked that there be an amendment to the budget that would provide for funding for a tax study authorized under the provisions of the Metro Charter.

Michael Morrissey, Council Analyst, said the Parks Department Budget contained a note that was supportive of a tax study committee. He asked if Councilor McLain would merge those two items.

Presiding Officer Monroe said that a call for a tax study committee by the Parks department would be a separate issue.

Councilor McLain commented that this was done in order to not close off our opportunities.

Councilor Bragdon asked Mr. Houser to repeat what line item was being reduced by $50,000.

Mr. Houser said that a particular line item would not be reduced to fund this. This would be funded from the Support Services fund which was supported by the Cost Allocation Plan.

Councilor Bragdon asked if any other items would be reduced by $50,000.

Mr. Houser answered that none other were to be reduced in this amount.

Presiding Officer Monroe said it was part of the cost allocation formula which was the way Metro paid for things. Some of this came from excise tax and some did not.

Councilor Atherton asked if this item should not be taken care of in an ordinance.

Mr. Houser said he believed the term Tax Study Commission was the term related to the charter as it related to the establishment of an entity of this kind.

Councilor Atherton said if we were to look at other funding needs, would this not be accomplished in an ordinance?

Councilor Kvistad said that he considered this Metro Magic Money. It suddenly appeared when the council wanted to spend money but the rest of the budget was in a constrained environment. He commented that a couple of councilors had said that in a lean budget year Metro should err on the side of caution and should be fiscally conservative if the atmosphere was appropriate.

He also stated that he had heard from other councilors, “We shouldn’t close our options” and “we must make sure we can do it if we need to.” He commented that in the Executive Department, a new, $100,000 position had been created out of thin air when there was another position becoming vacant in the Executive Department that paid $60,000. Councilor Kvistad also noted that a position had been eliminated in the Council Department and thus understaffed because of a presumed appearance of being fiscally prudent. He urged the Councilors to put together a package of planning needs. He asked for hard numbers and hard line items.

Councilor Atherton asked for clarification regarding the process by which we dealt with local improvement districts for funding transportation improvements options.

Mr. Houser said the estimate of $50,000 was based on an analysis by the financial planning staff of the only other financial analysis that Metro had had since the Charter authorized such studies. Approximately $47,000 was spent for outside consulting assistance to facilitate the operation of that commission. It would be appropriate to recommend a $50,000 number for this commission. The scope of work was what the council would set within the ordinance that would be adopted to create the commission.

Presiding Officer Monroe added that many of the things that Councilor Atherton described could be investigated by a tax-study commission.

Councilor McLain stated that the reason it was done this way was to allow the departments to had a true understanding of what that cost allocation plan would be.

 Vote to    

 Amend #10:  The vote was 4 aye/ 3 nay/ 0 abstain. The motion passed with Councilors Bragdon, Kvistad and Washington voting no.

 Motion to

Amend #11:  Councilor McLain moved to amend Ordinance No. 99-793 placing a budget note for the Open Spaces Program. By the end of calendar year 1999, the department will have prepared outlines and policy recommendations for the future of the Open Spaces program, support creation of a tax-study committee and develop processes and criteria for master planning and developing land banked properties.

 Seconded:  Councilor Bragdon seconded the amendment.

Michael Morrissey said that three budget notes had emerged from budgetary conversations with the Presiding Officer, Deputy Presiding Officer and the Parks Department. The first had to do with the Open Spaces Program. It called for the beginning parts of a plan to be developed for presentation as part of the budget for next year. The Parks Department was asked for the beginnings of some policy recommendations to finalize their plan for Open Spaces in the following years.

Councilor McLain said that all the work in Open Spaces created an important need to update the Green Space Master Plan work. She stated that an analysis of need should necessarily be completed before the council faced the question of how to pay for it.

 Vote to    

 Amend #11:  The vote was 7 aye/ 0 nay/ 0 abstain. The motion passed.

 Motion to

 Amend #12:  Councilor McLain moved to amend Ordinance No. 99-793 to include a budget note that supported the formation of a tax study committee in an effort to locate a more stable funding source for the agency.

 Seconded:  Councilor Bragdon seconded the amendment.

Mr. Morrissey said that the second part of this entity called for the creation of a specific tax study committee. This was raised by the Parks Advisory Committee. This would create a stable funding source both for land banking in terms of master planning, development needs, and development of the preliminary numbers in the last budget.

Presiding Officer Monroe asked if this would initiate a tax study commission some time in the next twelve months.

Mr. Morrissey affirmed that this was just a budget note and not an ordinance. He continued that it indicated that the council, within the course of the next year, would create a tax study committee for Parks.

Councilor McLain stated that with the passage of the last study committee, it would be within the ability of Metro Council to ask that committee to address these very specific issues that were addressed in this budget note. She stated that she did not see this as a duplication or the need to be a separate group.

Councilor Washington said that he did not find a cost analysis.

Mr. Morrissey said he had indicated a preliminary set of figures in the Parks budget documents based on a letter from their Advisory Committee.

Councilor Washington asked why this budget note had no funding. He pointed out that the Council would have to come up with monies for the realization of the budget note.

Mr. Morrissey said the budget note did not call for funding. This was something the council would discuss before voting on this amendment.

Presiding Officer Monroe said that the funding just approved could be used for this specific tax study commission.

Councilor Washington said that if the council had one study such as this done, that would cost a approximately $5,000 per year. He asked why they were not done together.

Councilor McLain said that she believed that this budget note simply indicated that this was another reason that a tax study committee was important and appropriate.

Councilor Washington asked if council could get similar studies done for equal amounts of money.

Councilor McLain said the tax study committee amendment that was passed talked about general funding for the agency. The items that were listed in the budget note would be covered by the umbrella of general funding. Funding for solid waste operations, parks, planning operations, and facilities operation would all be included.

Councilor Washington said he heard solid waste, parks, everybody in the world wants funds. Earlier he had heard only one: Planning.

Councilor McLain explained that the definition of planning inherently meant Metro planning, across the board and not just land use.

Councilor Atherton said he understood Councilor Washington’s point in that there really was no need for this budget note because at the time of need, the note would be defined.

Presiding Officer Monroe said that was a good point.

Councilor Bragdon said he thought that the needs of the Green Spaces program should be called out given the point in the acquisition process. They had reached a turning point in the history of the program. Calling it out as a required element of a study was a good idea.

Presiding Officer Monroe asked if the $50,000, that was voted to set aside for a tax study committee, could include the Parks effort?

Councilor Washington said that the budget note was fine. For future references, he stated that confusions should be carefully avoided.

Presiding Officer Monroe said the vote was to ask for a tax study commission to deal with funding for development money in Parks and Open Spaces.

Councilor Washington asked if any monies were needed, would these come from the first amendment?

Presiding Officer Monroe replied that no money had been added. Only one fund had been set aside for tax study commissions for this year and that was $50,000.

Councilor Washington said that the one study would tie into those funds.

Presiding Officer Monroe said that they could be funded from the Tax Study Commission.

Councilor Washington stated that he thought this needed to be said.

Presiding Officer Monroe stated that $50,000 had been approved and was to be used for a tax study for next year if one was commissioned. This specified the need for a tax study commission to deal with Parks and Open Spaces development money. He reiterated that he had ascertained that the funding could come from the funding already approved.

Councilor Washington said that his concern was that two things were going on: one with money and one without money.

Councilor McLain said she thought the point was that the Parks & Green Spaces Advisory Committee supported the council’s last action which was that a tax study committee was needed to deal with the activities of planning at Metro.

Councilor Washington said he would be OK with that as long as there was some wording that would say the Parks and Green Spaces tax study would be funded out of the $50,000.

Councilor McLain accepted a friendly, conceptual amendment from Councilor Washington and asked staff to draft the exact language.

Councilor Bragdon seconded the friendly amendment.

 Vote to

 Amend #12:  The vote was 6 aye/ 0 nay/ 0 abstain. The motion passed with Councilor Kvistad absent from the vote.

Presiding Officer Monroe considered item 9.1 at this time due to time constraints of the filing notice.

9.1  Resolution No. 99-2769, For the Purpose of Authorizing a Notice of Withdrawal of Ordinance No. 98-788C, for Reconsideration.

 Motion:  Councilor McLain moved to adopt Resolution No. 99-2769.

 Seconded:  Councilor Washington seconded the motion.

Councilor McLain said that there were two Urban Growth Boundary ordinances that remained on appeal from the vote in December, 1998. One ordinance was for Site 55 which included 350 acres. 48 acres of that was Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) land. Four appellants had been involved in conversations with Metro’s Legal Department. Three of those appellants agreed to continue discussions so that some of the issues they had on their appeals could be settled. Those parties were the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), 1000 Friends of Oregon, and the Farm Bureau. Mr. Lawrence, a citizen, had not agreed to do anything other than listen. The Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) had allowed Metro to file a motion to withdraw a decision for purposes of reconsideration on or before the date that the record was due. This suspended the LUBA appeal until a decision on the reconsideration was filed. A consideration must be filed within 90 days of Metro’s withdrawal of that notice. This would allow time for potential dismissal of those appeals.

Councilor Atherton suggested that when the Council came to reconsideration, the scope of the discussion not be restricted just to the Exclusive Farm Use lands.

Presiding Officer Monroe stated that there would be conditions of approval that would be part of this process.

Councilor McLain pointed out that out of the 350 acres, the rest of that acreage was exception land. That was why it was designed as an ordinance.

 Vote:    The vote was 6 aye/ 0 nay/ 0 abstain. The motion passed with Councilor Kvistad being absent from the vote.

Presiding Officer Monroe returned to considering amendments to Ord. No. 99-793.

 Motion to

Amend #13:  Councilor McLain moved to amend Ordinance No. 99-793 to include budget note related to Master Planning and land banking.

 Seconded:  Councilor Bragdon seconded the amendment.

Michael Morrissey stated that budget note #3 directed the department to establish a process and criteria for master planning and developed land bank property. During the next budget year, they intend to do master planning for the first of their Open Spaces purchases, the Tualatin River access points. The amendment asked that Parks and Green Spaces be very clear about the order in which to proceed master planning their acquisitions.

Councilor Atherton asked why there was a need for this. Would the department be better advised to consider this micro management?

Mr. Morrissey said that this amendment did not set the criteria. He noted that there may be increasing interest in beginning master planning as lands were purchased. This amendment came up with a rationale by which sites were to be chosen. This amendment improved the process and made it more meaningful to the people.

Councilor Bragdon said he believed that retaining stewardship of these properties was the responsible thing to do.

Councilor McLain said the local jurisdictions had shown support for doing this as well as the advisory committee. The process had been that if any local jurisdictions wanted to take over the actual master planning and management of these sites, Metro was more than willing to invite them to come and ‘sign on the dotted line.’ These were sites that had not been given any support by a local partner.

 Vote to  

 Amend #13:  The vote was 6 aye/ 0 nay/ 0 abstain. The motion passed with Councilor Kvistad being absent from the vote.

 Motion to

 Amend #14:  Councilor McLain moved to amend Ordinance No. 99-793 for consideration of miscellaneous monies.

 Seconded:  Councilor Washington seconded the amendment.

Mr. Houser explored some of the options that had been presented for RACC funding. Three different options were on the table. One was the Executive Officer’s proposed budget which included no funding for Regional Arts and Culture Council (RACC). The second option would be the proposal from the Presiding Officer and the Deputy Presiding Officer calling for a $25,000 appropriation for RACC.

Presiding Officer Monroe pointed out that his proposal called for the issue to be reopened in the midyear budget amendment process. He said that his intent was to find the other $75,000 at that time.

Mr. Houser said that the third proposal was from Councilor Kvistad for a $100,000 appropriation that was in part tied to and paid for by the elimination of the Chief Operating Officer position in the Executive office. One potential funding source for RACC was identified. This was the COLA for non-represented employees. Originally 2% had been proposed for the cost of living adjustments. It now appeared that the COLA might be closer to the 1.5% to 1.6% range. For every one-tenth of a point that the COLA for non-represented employees was less than 2%, savings would amount to approximately $2900. Two positions, one in the Executive Office and one in the Council Office, were unfilled presently. If either of those were filled at a salary less than that in the proposed budget, some general fund savings might be associated with that.

Presiding Officer Monroe pointed out that when a senior person resigns, normally the replacement was started at a lower salary level.

Mr. Houser suggested that another source of funding for RACC would be the General Fund Contingency. That contingency was proposed at $500,000 and was another source of funding.

Presiding Officer Monroe said that he had not heard a lot of support for that source.

Mr. Houser said that there was now money available from Change Order 8 affecting the Waste Management contract.

 Vote to

 Amend #14:  The vote was 6 aye/ 0 nay/ 0 abstain. The motion passed with Councilor Kvistad absent from the vote.

10.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

Councilor Park said he had been thinking about some things Councilor Kvistad said and, given the scope and the size of the potential move in the Executive Officer’s office makeup, if Councilor Kvistad did bring his amendment back on April 15, 1999, he would second it for discussion purposes.

Councilor Bragdon announced that starting this week, Metro Council was on television in Milwaukie.

Presiding Officer Monroe announced that Metro Council would not meet next week.

11.  ADJOURN

There being no further business to come before the Metro Council, Presiding Officer Monroe adjourned the meeting at 4:56 p.m.

Prepared by,

Chris Billington

Clerk of the Council

031899c-01    12/17/96    Intergovernmental    Executive Officer

         Agreement regarding  Mike Burton

         Arts funding

031899c-02    3/18/99    Budget Amendment  To: All Councilors    Ord. No.

         Considerations at the  From: John Houser  99-793

         March 18, 1999    Michael Morrissey

         Council Meeting

031899c-03    3/18/99    Flagged Items not    To: All Councilors    Ord. No.

         Scheduled For    From: John Houser  99-793

         Discussion Today    Michael Morrissey      

031899c-04    3/17/99    RACC letter    To: Mike Burton    Ord. No.

               From: Tony Marquis  99-793

031899c-05    3/18/99    Testimony at    To: All Councilors

         Tri-Met Open    From: Art Lewellan  

         House

031899c-06    3/18/99    Testimony at    To: All Councilors

         Tri-Met Open    From: Art Lewellan  

         House

031899c-07    3/18/99    Letter regarding    To: Susan McLain    Res. No.

Tax lot      From: Linda McQuinn  99-2279

         1S216A-00804  

031899c-08    3/18/99    Letter authorizing    To: Susan McLain    Res. No.

         Notice of Withdrawal  From: City of Hillsboro  99-2769

         Of Ordinance No.

         99-788C for

         reconsideration

031899c-09    3/18/99    Letter noting    To: Susan McLain    Res.

         withdrawal    From: Larry Shaw    99-2769

         of UGB Ordinance          Ord No.

         for (URA 55)          98-788C

         reconsideration

031899c-10    3/18/99    Letter      To: Susan McLain    Res.

         Regarding property    From: Linda McQuinn  99-2769

         at 4100 SW River Road

         Hillsboro, Tax lot #

         1S216A-00804

031899c-11    3/11/99    Newspaper    To: All councilors    Ord. No.  

         Clipping  regarding          99-793

         Arts funding          

031899c-12    03/18/99    Letter regarding    To: All councilors    Ord.

         1999-2000    From: Jerry Rust    99-793

         Metro Budget

031899c-13    03/18/99    Memo regarding    To: All councilors    Res.

         Withdrawal of    From: Susan McLain  99-2769

         Ordinance 98-788c          Ord.

98-788C