As previewed in an earlier article, the Metro Policy Advisory Committee met April 28 to look at how best to plan and pay for important public structures and services before new land is brought into the urban growth boundary.
Discussion focused on two questions. First, should new areas brought into the urban growth boundary only be served by existing cities? And second, should neighboring cities, counties and service districts be required to agree on who will provide services and create plans before land may be included in the urban growth boundary?
Metro and local cities and counties are trying to make the most of existing roads, bridges, sewers, water systems and parks to reduce the cost of service new areas that may be brought into the urban growth boundary. Metro and its partners also are working to ensure that neighboring cities and communities have a voice in the planning of new areas.
The Westside Economic Alliance and the Clackamas County Business Alliance raised concerns that requiring existing local governments to serve new additions to the urban growth boundary may not always be feasible due to requirements for voter approval of annexations in some areas, geographic limitations and other factors.
Other committee members expressed support for requirements that new urban areas be incorporated into existing cities or that those areas incorporate as new cities rather than allowing them to be in unincorporated areas where county governments struggle to provide urban services. "Cities are where urbanization should occur," said Clackamas County Commissioner Charlotte Lehan, a former Wilsonville mayor.
Some committee members were skeptical of a proposed provision that would require Metro to assume responsibility for planning if neighboring local governments could not agree.
"Metro does not have the ability to concept plan as well as cities," Lehan said. "Metro does not provide infrastructure." Others expressed concerns about Metro providing plans that local governments cannot support or implement. Paul Manson, a citizen representative from Multnomah County, indicated that some form of planning, even if it was done by Metro, would better than no plan at all.
The committee gave direction to its technical advisory committee and Metro staff to revise the proposals for consideration and approval at its May 12 meeting. The Metro Council is scheduled to vote on the proposals on June 3.