Metro Council President Tom Hughes said Thursday he'd like to see a regional growth management decision as soon as this fall, calling for an end to the discussion about the ongoing urban growth boundary review.
Hughes said the uncertainty about urban reserves in Clackamas County, as well as the depth of discussion that's already taken place about the region's growth, means it's time to call the question about this year's urban growth review.
The Metro Council is required to ensure the region has enough land within its urban growth boundary to accommodate 20 years of growth. Metro's economic analysis of the region's growth wrapped up in late 2014, and forecast steady growth in the coming decades.
Metro's forecast is primarily based on a review, by economists and demographers, of the region's economic trends and the growth plans adopted by the region's 25 cities and three counties.
But there was controversy in the forecast. Some said the report forecasted too much growth in multi-family housing, particularly in Portland proper. Others said the forecast expected too much growth in Damascus, which has struggled to see development.
Hughes said those issues have been satisfactorily discussed by the Metro Council and by the Metro Policy Advisory Committee, which consists of representatives from around the region.
He called on Metro chief operating officer Martha Bennett to issue a recommendation on this UGB review within a month.
The problem with the current UGB cycle lies with the uncertainty of urban and rural reserves in Clackamas County. The Oregon Court of Appeals struck down part of Clackamas County's reserves in 2014 because of technical inconsistencies in the Stafford urban reserve area. But Metro, Clackamas County and the cities surrounding Stafford have yet to agree on a solution that would settle the urban reserve issue.
Until Clackamas County's urban reserves are resolved, the reserves in Clackamas County can't be used for a UGB expansion. The only city in the region that expressed a willingness to support a UGB expansion in the current cycle was Wilsonville, in Clackamas County.
Metro could ask state regulators for an extension of its current UGB review, but, Hughes said, that poses its own problems.
"Asking for an extension creates a situation in which the data and analysis contained in the draft UGR may become stale by the time the extended deadline arrives," Hughes said. Some of the economic data in that draft urban growth report – accepted by the Metro Council in 2014 but still not finalized – dates back to 2010, in the nadir of the Great Recession.
In Thursday's Metro Council work session, Hughes said new data won't necessarily bring a dramatic change to the region's growth forecast. But it could help answer some questions about whether controversial elements of the growth forecast were trends or anomalies.
"It's not going to be conclusive, but it can give us some arrows pointing in a particular direction," Hughes said.
To that end, Hughes hopes the Metro Council can review the UGB again in 2018, emphasizing that he didn't want a permanent three-year review cycle for the UGB. He said the specific issue with Clackamas County's reserves prompted the need for a shorter cycle.
Metro councilors generally supported Hughes's timeline, which would have them voting on a final growth report sometime early this autumn.
Councilor Craig Dirksen said he'd like to remain flexible in case a deal for Clackamas County's reserves can be struck, but was open to Hughes' suggestion if no deal was possible.
"If there's a thought that resolution could come soon enough that an extension (into 2016) would allow us to do that, I would say that's probably the better course," Dirksen said. "But if we can't, the best thing I think we could do is suggest to end this now, or as soon as we can, and work hard to get that resolution."