AGENDA

Baker City Council Regular Meeting

Tuesday, June 8, 2010
7:00 P.M. Regular Session
Baker City Hall Council C
Item Staff Person Action
1. Call to Order
2. Pledge of Allegiance/Invocation (Councilor Calder)
3. Roll Call J. Watkins
4. Consent Agenda Motion/Approve
a. Minutes of May 25, 2010 Regular Meeting J. Watkins
5. Citizens' Participation
6. Request to Award Bid for Public Works Parts M. Owen Motion/Approve
7. Request to Award Sidewalk Grants M. Owen Motion/Approve
8. Resolution No. 3646 Authorizing Temporary Parking Restrictions J. Watkins Motion/Approve
for Elkhorn Classic Stage Race
9. Discussion of Councilor Appointment Process S.Bogart Motion/Approve
10. City Manager/Director Comments
11. Council Comments
12. Adjourn
Baker City operates under an EEO policy and complies with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans
with Disabilities Act. Assistance is available for individuals with disabilities by calling 523-6541.
#1) Call to Order
#2) Pledge/Invocation
#3) Roll Call
#4) Consent Agenda
a. Minutes of May 11,
2010 Regular Session
b. Approval of Fund
Exchange
Agreements
c. National Suildin
Safety Proclam .
BAKER CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, May 25,2010
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by
Mayor Dennis Darrah in Baker City Hall Council Chambers.
The Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation were led by
Councilor Milo Pope.
Th ,xt item was requested to be moved to agenda
. number 6 as the presenter was present.
Taken from staff report:
Background:
The City of Baker City currently disposes of treated
effluent from our wastewater treatment lagoons into the
Powder River. The Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) has informed the City that new limits for discharge will
be put in place as the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
are determined for the Powder River. These additional limits
or restrictions will require the City to modify its current
disposal method in order to meet dilution, temperature,
storage and other limits. It is anticipated that these new limits
will be imposed on the City's next NPDES permit issued within
Page I of7
City Council Minutes Regular Meeting April 27, 2010
the next few years. The exact date of required compliance is
still unclear, but the indication from DEQ officials is that the
next five year permit issued will require the City to make
substantial changes to its wastewater disposal process.
The 2005 Wastewater Facility Plan adopted by the City
Council outlines several options for the City to consider as
alternatives for wastewater disposal. Recently engineers from
Anderson-Perry and Associates (AP) re-evaluated the
alternatives and put together an updated cost comparison of
the options.
""""J,"'t:.
U1
t goon system has several potential
den i cies inc t:J 9 storage capacity due to a dilution ratio
t, algae blooms causing Total Suspended Solids
( S) c ns, Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) limits in
~ n rand uture concerns with temperature and turbidity.
E c alternative mitigates the issues with our current lagoon
fa iii , but at different levels and different costs.
Alternatives:
The Council can select the low cost option of wetlands
reuse and authorize staff to proceed with the first phase of
development including land owner discussions and test wells
development. This phase could be accommodated within the
current rate structure for the next fiscal year.
The Council may also select a different disposal option
and request staff to proceed with that alternative
development.
Page 2 of7
City Council Minutes Regular Meeting April 27, 2010
#7) Request for Assistance
with Kirkway Reach
Project
#8) Request for Approv;
of Criminal Forfeitu
Distribution Agreem. t
The Council may delay decision until a later date. It is
unlikely that any new options will become available in the near
future. It is also unlikely that the cost of proceeding with any
of the options will be reduced in the future.
Brett Moore, Anderson-Perry, presented options for the
Wastewater Treatment Method. The recommended option is
the wetlands reuse option at an estimated cost of $4.8 million.
After some discussion, Mr. Button made a MOTION to
accept the wetlands reuse 0 '. n as the preferred treatment
plan. The motion was se ( j ~ c : t by Mr. Pope and, with all in
favor, it was APPROVED
rN::alrt...etated that a grant is now in
'ng requested to partner
'Il for transporting rock.
a 'nitial estimate of
Bac'g u d.
regon st t e sets the distribution percentages from
. Dee of criminal forfeiture. Each County in Oregon can
d ermifle nich treatment provider will receive the 40%
l ated or.. tJrug treatment. Based on recommendations from
th aker County Narcotics Enforcement Team, the District
A ~ ey, the Local Public Safety Coordinating Council, the
a er County Mental Health Advisory Committee and the
/;peal Alcohol and Drug Planning Committee Baker County's
focal disbursement plan states that the 40% for drug treatment
will be disbursed to the Baker County Drug Courts.
This plan has been approved by the Baker County
Board of Commissioners and the District Attorney is asking
this to be approved by the Baker City Council.
Analysis (Include impacts on City resources and
community:
The Baker City Police Department has an active
Page 3 of7
City Council Minutes Regular Meeting April 27, 2010
#9) Request for Approval
of Task Order #2 with HDR
Engineering for LT2
Treatment Project
member of the Baker County Narcotics Enforcement Team,
which is primarily involved in these criminal forfeitures. The
Baker City Police Department supports the recommendation
to allocate the 40% for drug court, as we have seen first hand
the success of the program. In addition the program has an
accountability factor, for those participants who fail to meet
expectations.
District Attorney Matt Shirtcliff presented the agreement
to Council. In 2001, Oregon passed the Criminal Forfeiture
Law. The funds are used to fu . er drug activities in a positive
way. In 2007, Baker Co . gan drug court and in that
same year the agree .;,t anged to allow 40% of the
monies to go to drug 00 rt
ope, seconded by Mr.
was APPROVED.
The City contracted with HDR Engineering, Inc. last
s fin to clarify our compliance requirements, determine
vailable options and recommend the best alternative. Bryan
BI ck, P.E. of HDR, Inc. attended the December 8, 2009
Council meeting to discuss the options in further detail and
staff requested and received approval for the recommended
alternative of Ultra Violet light treatment. This
recommendation was further supported by the Public Works
Advisory Committee.
Analysis
The UV light treatment was selected as the low cost
alternative to meeting the EPA requirements. The first phase
of the project involves selecting the appropriate equipment.
Page 4 of?
City Council Minutes Regular Meeting April 27,2010
The equipment is site specific and the procurement of the
appropriate equipment requires a high level of technical
support. Bryan Black, PE of HDR, Inc. will be assisting City
staff with the technical specifications required for our future
facility.
May Dorrah indicated that he is uncomfortable with
sp ntling a large amount of money without clear direction
fli m the EPA. He believes that the City may not have to
"YVIIJ... lete the treatment project at all. Ms. Owen indicated that
City has an unfiltered system, and therefore, must comply.
Ms. Calder stated that the information received has
been confusing and unclear. Ms. Owen explained that the
City can hope for a waiver. However, if any cryptosporidium
is discovered, then the City will have to comply.
Mayor Dorrah commented that he would like to see
something directly from the EPA stating that the City must
meet the requirements.
Page 5 of7
City Council Minutes Regular Meeting Apri127, 2010
#10) City Manager/Director
Comments
In response to a question from Mr. Pope, Ms. Owen
indicated that this request would only approve the next step in
the process. Each task order would be brought to the Council
for approval. This will allow the project to proceed in a timely
fashion while still allowing for further investigation with the
EPA.
Mr. Pope made a MOTION to approve the task order.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Bass. With Mr. Bass and
Mr. Pope in favor, and Mayor Dorrah, Ms. Bonebrake, Ms.
Calder and Mr. Button opposed, he motion FAILED.
stated that there is another grant
available through the Oregon
d 'Council comments, Mr. Pope thanked Ms. Owen
~ er presentation at the ASR conference. She was very
w II eceived and Baker City is the only city in Oregon that
h s permit to do this.
Ms. Calder asked if Auburn street is addressed in the
ike/Pedestrian grant opportunity. Ms. Calder also asked if
there would be an executive session to discuss the pending
lawsuit. Mr. Bogart indicated that this would be up to the
attorney handling the case.
Mr. Bass reminded everyone to have a safe Memorial
Day weekend.
Ms. Bonebrake applauded the Circuit Court Judge and
DA's office on the drug court activities for juveniles.
Page 60f7
City Council Minutes Regular Meeting April 27. 2010
#11) Adjourn
Mayor Dorrah stated that the City needs to really look
at the LT2 project before approving $2 million dollars.
With no further business to discuss the meeting was
ADJOURNED at 8:25 p.m.
SIGNED: _
Mayor
ATTEST: ~ _ _ . . . , : ~ ~ - -
Page 7 of7
City Council Minutes Regular Meeting April 27. 2010
CITY OF BAKER CITY
Meeting Date: June 8, 2010
Agenda Item: ~
Agenda Title: Public Works Ductile Iron
Pipe Bid Award
Action Statement
Type of Action Requested:
Resolution No.
---
Ordinance No.
X Formal Action/Motion
----
___Other
The City's purchasing rules require Council approval of bid awards for purchases over
$50,000.
Background
The City advertised for bids for ductile iron pipe and fittings and received five responses.
The Bid Tabulation is attached to this report. The parts include pipe and fittings for
completing the approved capital plans for this year and a portion of next fiscal year.
The current year budget includes sufficient funds for the purchase of a portion ($100,000)
of the pipe requiring delivery before June 30
th
with the remainder of the purchase and
delivery taking place in the month of July.
Analysis (Include impacts on City resources and community)
The approved capital plans require ductile iron pipe and fittings in various sizes.
The total bid award for this Public Works Ductile Iron Pipe and Fittings Bid will be
$441,130.99 if the low bid is awarded.
Alternatives
1. Award the bid to the low bidder, HD Fowler. This will allow construction plans to
remain on schedule and within budget.
2. Do not award the bid. This will cause a delay in planned work and require additional
purchases at higher prices in the future.
Recommendation
Alternative 1
Is this recommendation supported by an advisory committee? Check those that apply:
o Airport Commission
o Golf Board
o Historic District Design Review Committee
o Planning Commission
o Public Works Advisory Committee
o Transient Lodging Tax Committee
o Tree Board
o Other
o Not Applicable
o No.
Suggested Motion
Move to award the ductile iron pipe and fittings bid to HD Fowler of Hermiston, OR for
$441,130.99. (\ /'
Prepared by: Michelle Owen, Public Works Director '"IXtr
City of Baker City
Bid No. 2010-02 Ductile Iron Pipe
Bid Tabulation
3-Jun-10
$1,490.00
$872.99
$706.95
$410.63
$402.00
$3,252.60
$3,202.20
$3,467.52
$3,202.92
$3,213.00
$1.805.00
$1,063.23
$856.57
$497.53
$487.25
$1,650.00
$971.88
$782.97
$454.78
$445.50
CITY OF BAKER CITY
Meeting Date: June 8, 2010
Agenda Item: 7
Agenda Title: Sidewalk Grant Award
Action Statement
Type of Action Requested:
___ Resolution No.
___ Ordinance No.
X Formal Action/Motion
----
Other
---
The City Council is required by Resolution 3643 to approve qualified sidewalk grant
applications received during the most recent application period.
Background
In August of 2008 the City Council approved Ordinance No. 3284 which imposed a
sidewalk utility fee for the purpose of providing funds for construction, reconstruction and
maintenance of sidewalks within the public right of way. The ordinance requires that at
least 25% of the fees collected be set aside for a property owner grant matching program.
In April of this year Resolution No. 3643 was passed which defined the rules for the 2010
property owner grant program authorizing up to 75% of the sidewalk utility fees collected to
be used for property owner grants.
Analysis (Include impacts on City resources and community)
The application period for this year's property owner grant program began May 3
rd
and
closed June 1st. The grant was well advertised in the newspapers, website and via
posted flyers. The eligible grant applications are summarized on the attached
spreadsheet. We received 25 applications totaling $16,804. There are sufficient
dollars available to meet the requested grants.
The funds available for grants total $20,875. The applications received total $16,804.
This leaves $4,071 remaining for additional grants if the Council chooses to extend the
deadline for 30 days and allow for additional applications to be submitted. This is the
process that was used in 2009. The new applications could be considered for award at
the first Council meeting in July.
Alternatives
1. A. Approve the eligible grants as listed on the attached spreadsheet in the amount
of $16,804.
B. Extend the application period for 30 additional days to allow for additional
property owners to apply for the remaining $4,071 in grant funds.
2. Do not approve some or all of the grants.
Recommendation
Approve Alternatives 1 A. and 1B.
Is this recommendation supported by an advisory committee? Check those that apply:
o Airport Commission
o Golf Board
o Historic District Design Review Committee
o Planning Commission
o Public Works Advisory Committee
o Transient Lodging Tax Committee
o Tree Board
o Other
o Not Applicable
o No.
Suggested Motion
Move to approve the grant applications as submitted and extend the deadline until June
30, 2010 for the remaining funds.
Prepared by: Michelle Owen, Director of Public Works ?
2010 Sidewalk Utility Fee Grant
1 2010 dM 3t J R A r f ,ppJ lea Ions ecelve ay 0 une ,
klI Date Siibm.:i!
r Applic'itiOJilNb.i
Ir lir total siie"oti I
I: ,

.....
.
,s I. "'" '!J, !!_I?'" IIiJp . ft.)a fII I .. $Z/sq. ft.)Jf

5/412010 2010-01 1540 Valley Avenue 260 sq. ft. $ 520.00

5/4/2010 2010-02 2015 Chestnut Street 500 sq. ft. $ 1,000.00
5/5/2010 2010-03 415 2nd Street 685 sq. ft. $ 1,000.00
51712010 2010-04 2050 Oak Street 150 sq. ft. $ 300.00
517/2010 2010-05 2I55 Clark & 1525 Broadway 500 sq. ft.* $ 1,000.00
517/2010 2010-06 2483 Court Avenue 307.5 sq. ft. $ 615.00
5/10/2010 2010-07 3655 Plum Street 75 sq. ft. $ 150.00
511112010 2010-08 2515 Valley Avenue 260 sq. ft. $ 520.00
5111/2010 2010-09 2038 Grove Street 212.5 sq. ft. $ 425.00
511812010 2010-10 1000 Court Avenue 595 sq. ft. $ 1,000.00
5119/2010 2010-11 2511 Court Avenue 250 sq. ft. $ 500.00
5/24/2010 2010-12 1206 Broadway St. 300 sq. ft. $ 600.00
5/26/2010 2010-13 3450 9th Drive 350 sq. ft. $ 700.00
5/2612010 2010-14 1505 Washington Ave. 432 sq. ft. $ 864.00
5/27/2010 2010-15 2290 7th Street 569 sq. ft. $ 1,000.00
5/2712010 2010-16 2225 6th Street 435 sq. ft. $ 870.00
5/2812010 2010-17 3000 Grandview Drive 185 sq. ft. $ 370.00
5/28/2010 2010-18 24018th Street 515 sq. ft. $ 1,000.00
5/28/2010 2010-19 3030 Grandview Drive 55 sq. ft. $ 110.00
5128/2010 2010-20 2340 Church Street 175 sq. ft. $ 350.00
611/2010 2010-21 1315 Walnut Street 255 sq. ft. $ 510.00
611/2010 2010-22 2345 3rd Street 505 sq. ft.* $ 1,000.00
6/112010 2010-23 2514 Valley Avenue 200 sq. ft. $ 400.00
611/2010 2010-24 2750 Madison Street 530 sq. ft. $ 1,000.00
61112010 2010-25 1945 8th Street 825 sq. ft. $ 1,000.00
r,OT:AL GRA&MONE'flI&aURSEE1;fPHASBIi a';' d W'1:au' "'16,804.00,
*Property owner awarded sidewalk grant last year.
TOTAL SIDEWALK GRANT DOLLARS DISBURSED $ 16,804.00
CITY OF BAKER CITY
Meeting Date: June 8,2010
Agenda Item: t
Agenda Title: Authorizing Temporary
Parking Restrictions
for Elkhorn Classic
Stage Race
Type of Action Requested:
[gJResolution No.
DOrdinance No.
D Formal Action/Motion
D Other
3646
Action Statement
With approval of this resolution, Council will enact temporary parking restrictions
downtown for the Elkhorn Classic Stage Race.
Goal Addressed
n/a
Background
Once again, organizers are planning the annual Elkhorn Classic Stage Race to be held in
Baker County on June 18, 19 and 20, 2010. The third stage, the criterium event, is
scheduled to be held in downtown Baker City on Saturday, June 19.
Analysis
The criterium event is a race around several city blocks. In order to provide for the safety
of the riders, we need to eliminate parked vehicles along the race's course. The City
Council has, in the past, approved a resolution authorizing a temporary restriction of
parking within the course. Signs announcing this temporary restriction must be posted at
least three days in advance.
As in previous years, much care will be taken to locate those people whose cars are
parked in a restricted area. The race is meant to be fun for both the riders and the
spectators.
Alternatives
1. Approve Resolution No. 3646.
2. Do not approve Resolution No. 3646. This would jeopardize the ability of race
organizers to hold this event downtown. The race brings about 400 riders to the
area and is reportedly one of the best events for many retailers downtown.
Recommendation
Alternative 1
Is this recommendation supported by an advisory committee? Check those that apply:
o Airport Commission
o Golf Board
o Historic District Design Review Committee
o Planning Commission
o Public Works Advisory Committee
o Transient Lodging Tax Committee
o Tree Board
o Other _
Not Applicable
D No. Explanation:
Suggested Motion
MOTION to approve Resolution No. 3646.
Prepared by:__ C=o.:.:,m:.:.m:.:,:u::.:n:.:,:i.:.ltvl...iD=ev.:.;e:::,:l..:,o.c;p.:.:,m.:.;:e:.:.:n:.,:.t.:D;..:.:ir:.,:e;.:;c.:;:to:::.:r __
RESOLUTION NO. 3646
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TEMPORARY PARKING RESTRICTIONS FOR
DOWNTOWN BICYCLE RACE.
WHEREAS, the downtown area of the City of Baker City will be the site of a
regional bicycle race on Saturday, June 19,2010, and
WHEREAS, this race will take the form of a criterium which involves a number of
laps around a certain number of city blocks, and
WHEREAS, in order to provide for the safety of the competitors in this race, the
streets must be free of all parked vehicles, and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to enact temporary parking restrictions for
the streets to be used in said bicycle race,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Baker
City, Oregon. that parking along the following streets shall be prohibited on Saturday,
June 21,2008, between the hours of 9:30 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.:
East and west sides of Main Street from Broadway Street to Auburn
Avenue;
North and south sides of Broadway Street from Main Street to Second Street;
East and west sides of Second Street from Broadway Street to Washington
Avenue;
North and south sides of Washington Avenue from First Street to Second Street;
East and west sides of First Street from Washington Avenue to Valley Avenue;
North and south sides of Valley Avenue from First Street to Main Street.
PASSED by the City Council of Baker City, Oregon, and signed by the Mayor of
Baker City, Oregon, this 8th day of June, 2010.
Mayor
ATTEST: _
City Recorder
.... II
= I ~
tMllttWlDn ...
D ...-.-.
STUDY AREA
BOUNDARY
BAKER HISTORIC
DISTRICT- - --
e=
1
JI
CITY OF BAKER CITY
Meeting Date: June 8, 2010
Agenda Item: 4
Agenda Title: Discussion of Councilor
Appointment
Process
~ p e of Action Requested:
UResolution No.
DOrdinance No.
[gJ Formal Action/Motion
D Other
Action Statement
Councilor Andrew Bryan has resigned his position on the Baker City Council. The City
Council needs to decide on a process for selecting a replacement.
Goal Addressed
N/A
Background
Mr. Bryan resigned his position on the Baker City Council May 28, 2010. The City Charter
makes provision for the City Council to appoint a replacement. The City will need to
confirm eligibility for the office. Any person considered for appointment must be a qualified
elector and a resident of the City for at least 12 months prior to appointment.
There is no direction in the Charter as to the method of selection or any timelines. The
Charter is clear in that the appointee will serve until the expiration of the term of the
predecessor who has left the office vacant. In this case it will be until the first council
meeting in the year immediately following the election (January 2011).
Analysis
This City Councilor position is up for election this November, so the term of any
appointment is for less than seven (7) months. Leaving the position vacant until filled by
election could be an option though it could possibly create issues with meeting quorums
and perceptions of a more limited perspective. Additionally, the City Charter indicates that
the vacancy "shall be filled by a majority of the Council." Choosing to leave the position
vacant may not meet the intent of the City Charter language.
City Councils in the past have selected candidates in various ways:
Open recruitment, i.e. asking interested residents to fill out an application followed
by interviews
Councilor recommended candidates
Individuals who ran for the office of Baker City Councilor in the last election and
have a continued interested in being a councilor.
Alternatives
1) Not fill the position
2) Create an open recruitment process
3) Accept recommendations from Councilors
4) Accept recommendations from the community
5) Accept offers of interest of former candidates for the City Council
Recommendation
Any of the alternatives listed above with the exception of #1 (Not filling the position) is
viable to the Manager.
Is this recommendation supported by an, advisory committee? Check those that apply:
D Airport Commission
D Golf Board
D Historic District Design Review Committee
D Planning Commission
D Public Works Advisory Committee
D Transient Lodging Tax Committee
D Tree Board
D Other _
f2] Not Applicable
D No. Explanation:
Suggested Motion
Council Discretion
Prepared bY:__ __
~
LEAGUE
of Oregon
CITIES
P.O. Box 928 Salem, Oregon 97308
(503) 588-6550 (800) 452-0338 Fax: (503) 399-486
www.orcities.org
By
May 24,2010
Dear Chief Administrative Official:
For the last three months eight policy committees have worked very diligently to identify and propose
specific actions as part of the league's effort to develop a pro-active legislative agenda for the 2011
session. They have identified 28 legislative objectives as set forth in the enclosed ballot and legislative
recommendations materials. These objectives span a variety of issues and differ in the potential
resources required to seek their achievement. Therefore, it is desirable to prioritize them in order to
ensure that efforts are focused where they are most needed.
Each city is being asked to review the recommendations of the policy committees and provide input to
the Board of Directors as it prepares to adopt the league's 2011 legislative agenda. After your city
council has had the opportunity to review the 28 proposals and discuss them with your staff, please
return the enclosed ballot (please note that the ballot is double sided) indicating the top four issues that
your city council would like to see the league focus on in the 2011 session. The deadline for response is
July 16, 2010. The Board of Directors will then review the results of this survey of member cities, along
with the recommendations of the policy committees, and determine the league's 2011 legislative
agenda.
Your city's participation and input will assist the Board in creating a focused set of specific legislative
targets that reflect the issues of greatest importance for cities. Thank you for your involvement, and
thanks to those among you who gave many hours of time and expertise in developing these proposals.
Do not hesitate to contact me or any member of the Intergovernmental Relations Department with
questions.
Sincerely,
Craig S. Honeyman
Legislative Director
cc: Oregon Mayors (letter only)
"Getting it done for Oregon's cities!"
INSTRUCTIONS
I. Each city should submit one form that reflects the consensus opinion of its city council on the top four legislative
priorities for 2011.
2. Simply place an X in the space to the left of the city's top four legislative proposals.
3. The top four do not need to be prioritized.
4. Return by July 16
111
via mail, fax or e-mail to:
Angela Carey
League of Oregon Cities
P.O. Box 928
Salem, Oregon 97308
Fax - (503) 399-4863
acarey@orcities.org
Thank you for your participation.
City of: Please mark 4 boxes with an X that reflect the top 4 issues that your city
recommends be the priorities for the League's 2011 legislative agenda.
Community Development
o A. Support an urban growth boundary agenda that would provide for a more efficient urban growth management system (as
outlined in the full Community Development Committee long-term recommendation).
oB. Support legislation that would: I) create an exception to allow cities to propose and adopt population forecasts using a
specified methodology, taking into consideration certain factors; 2) include conflict resolution procedures between cities and
counties when adopting or amending population forecasts.
o C. Support legislation that provides conflict resolution procedures between cities and counties when adopting or amending an
urban growth boundary or urban reserve area.
o D. Continue efforts to resolve the conflicts between the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) and other statewide land use
planning goals by changes to Oregon Department of TransportationlDepartment of Land Conservation and Development
(ODOTIDLCD) procedures and rules, or by legislative action. (Note: this priority is duplicative of priority "S" forwarded by
the Transportation Committee. Both priorities are brought forward here, representing the discussion of the Community
Development and the Transportation policy committees.)
Energy
oE. Reauthorize the Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC) to leverage local investments in energy conservation, fuel conservation,
renewable energy projects, as well as recruitment and expansion of renewable energy resource equipment manufacturing
facilities.
Finance & Taxation
OF. Take an active role in facilitating and promoting processes and measures to bring about an overhaul of the state property tax
system. The outcomes of this overhaul must create a system which taxes property equitably, brings assessed values closer to
real market values, and is stable and predictable to both governments and taxpayers.
oG. Maintain and strengthen the state's historic commitment to the State Shared Revenue funding formula. Any additional taxes
or surcharges on these items must be incorporated into the current formula so cities may continue to provide services related
to these revenues.
o H. Allow local governments a more flexible use of transient lodging tax to meet the increased demands placed both on essential
services and infrastructure created by tourism activities.
General Government
o I. 9-1-1 tax for pre-paid cell phones.
OJ. Restore the Department of Public Safety Standards and Training (DPSST) Regional Training program and protect DPSST
from further cuts.
oK. Attach municipal court fines to tax returns.
Human Resources
oL. "Manager" designation for local governments.
OM. Lengthen time for last best offer submission from 14 days to 28 days.
ON. Allow employers to require paperless pay.
00. Work to achieve healthcare cost containment and protect local decision making authority in benefit design.
o P. Allow employees to choose alternative retirements option and protect the integrity and stability of Public Employee
Retirement System (PERS).
o Q. Eliminate the requirement for employers to provide identical health benefits for retirees as they do for active employees.
Telecommunications
OR. Address tax equity issues in the context of state telecommunications laws including removing existing preemptions that have
led to declining revenues. Work towards an alternative revenue system for telecommunications providers. Oppose
preemption of city franchising, rights-of-way and taxing authority_
Transportation
OS. Resolve the disconnect between the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) and other statewide land use planning goals. (Note:
this priority is duplicative of priority "D" forwarded by the Community Development Committee. Both priorities are brought
forward here, representing the discussion of the Community Development and the Transportation policy committees.)
Turn overfor more issues
LOC Policy Committees' Legislative Recommendations
Priority
Community Development
A. Support an urban growth boundary
agenda that will:
o Determine problems to the
current urban grown boundary
and urban reserve system from a
statewide perspective;
o Consider different policies for
the annexation of areas that are
pre-urbanized (those that receive
services annexations vs.
greenfield annexations (those
without current services);
o Evaluate upcoming Court of
Appeals decision re: 1,000
Friends v. LCDC/City of
Woodburn for parameters to
codify clear standards/rational
basis in ORS 197.298 for the use
of higher priority land with less
appeal opportunity;
o Streamline the Oregon Land
Conservation and Development's
(LCDC) review of urban growth
boundary and urban reserve
decisions by adding a "raise it or
waive it" requirement to such
reviews.
o Propose conflict resolution
procedures between cities and
counties when adopting or
amending urban growth
boundaries or urban reserves;
o Consider legislation that would
allow the sequential adoption of
urban growth boundary
expansion components for cities
over 25,000.
o Consider the effects of the
transportation planning rule on
urban growth boundary
management;
o Consider the concerns of
individual cities per their recent
urban growth boundary, urban
reserve and annexation
experiences; and
o Propose appropriate legislation.
Description
Appeals of urban growth management amendments are growing exponentially, and are
time-consuming and expensive for cities. The Community Development Committee
recognizes that long term solutions require a broad, systemic approach that may take
extensive evaluation.
Surveys, work groups, focus groups, and professional and technical assistance from city
planners and attorneys will be used to evaluate and formulate appropriate changes to
existing statutes to provide a more efficient urban growth boundary management system.
Page 1 of 7
LOC Policy Committees' Legislative Recommendations
Finance & Taxation
-
.. ~ ~ . -.
F. Take an active role in facilitating Severe limitations imposed on local governments by Measure 5 and 50 to raise revenue
and promoting processes and have seriously jeopardized the ability of cities to provide essential services and foster
measures to bring about an economic growth. A comprehensive property tax fix is necessary which, along with
overhaul of the state property tax equity, stability, and a stronger correlation between assessed value and real market value,
system. The outcomes of this should include an allowance for local control in setting appropriate long term local tax
overhaul must create a system rates and grant consideration of the impact of the state's school funding methods on the
which taxes property equitably, property tax system. To this end, in a multi-year effort, the League of Oregon Cities will
brings assessed values closer to take a lead and active role in forming a coalition to facilitate conversations across the state
real market values, and is stable and develop an education program to inform legislators and the public of the current crisis
and predictable to both and the options available.
governments and taxpayers.
G. Maintain and strengthen the state's State Shared Revenue stand as a historical commitment by the state to local governments;
historic commitment to the State cities accepted preemptions on certain taxes and fees in exchange for a state promise to
Shared Revenue funding formula. share in their revenues of liquor, cigarettes, 9-1-1, and gasoline taxes. These distributions
Any additional taxes or surcharges are a critical facet of each cities' ability meet increased demands on local services from
on these items must be alcohol related incidences, traffic impacts, and public safety issues. Any further cuts to
incorporated into the current State Shared Revenue will jeopardize the ability of cities to provide essential services.
formula so cities may continue to The state should respect local government's reliance on State Shared Revenue and honor
provide services related to these its historic commitment.
revenues.
H. Allow local governments a more Current preemption restricts cities to control of just 30 percent of their own local transient
flexible use of transient lodging lodging revenue. Tourism activities can place increased demands on city infrastructure
tax to meet the increased demands and services, but this preemption necessitates these added costs be borne by local
placed both on essential services residents rather than tourists and may jeopardize the ability of cities to provide other
and infrastructure created by essential services. Increasing city flexibility in the use of local transient lodging revenue
tourism activities. lessens the burden on local residents.
General Government
-"
I. 9-1-1 tax for pre-paid cell phones. Support legislation to require pre-paid cell phones to contribute to pay 9-1-1 tax as all
other telephones capable of dialing 9-1-1 do.
J. Restore the Department of Public Work to restore regional training services and other critical services provided by DPSST.
Safety Standards and Training
(DPSST) Regional Training
program and protect DPSST from
further cuts.
K. Attach municipal court fines to tax Support legislation to allow municipal and other local courts to seize income tax returns to
returns. pay delinQuent municipal court fines.
Human Resources
~
". ..
L. "Manager" designation for local Allow cities to designate an employee as a "managerial employee" under the PECBA for
governments. purposes of collective bargaining (currently limited to only the State).
M. Lengthen time for last best offer Currently when a strike-prohibited union advances their collective bargaining to Interest
submission from 14 days to 28 Arbitration, the parties' Last Best Offers (LBOs) are not due until 14 days prior to the
days. actual hearing. ORS 243.746(3). This leads to a number of problems/issues:
0 If the parties' submit their LBOjust 2 weeks prior to the actual hearing, only to
discover that they are "very close" to a possible settlement, they can be discouraged
from settling since the 14-day time frame is beyond most arbitrators cancellation
policy. In other words, the parties still have to pay the full cost of the arbitrator fees for
each day of the scheduled hearing and any non-refundable travel costs.
o The 14-day period does not encourage either party to get to their "bottom-line" until
just before a hearing.
o Most hearing exhibits are developed in conjunction with a parties LBO, including
costing of the LBOs. Therefore, many of the exhibits are unnecessarily delayed in
development until you see the other party's LBO. This would also apply to the decision
Page 3 of7
LOC Policy Committees' Legislative Recommendations
Oregon has a strong commitment to planning, and the nexus between land use and
transportation planning has become very evident. While this has properly contributed to
good coordination between land use and transportation development, it also creates
adverse impacts due to the mismatch between planning requirements, development
timelines and the availability of financial and other resources. This can sometimes
impede development and create conflicts with other statewide land use goals.
The sheer complexity of issues attendant to land use and transportation planning can result
in confusion or even conflict between competing goals and priorities. Objectives such as
reduction of vehicle miles traveled, transit-based land use, increased population density in
some urban areas (UGBs), reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, compliance with other
clean air standards, and interchange and access management are but a few of the interests,
sometimes competing, that factor into transportation fland use policy discussions.
Transportation
S. Continue efforts to resolve the
disconnect between the
Transportation Planning Rule
(TPR) and other statewide land
use planning goals. The TPR
should:
o Be used as a growth management
tool that avoids burdening cities
with unintended transportation
consequences which unduly add
to the cost of city infrastructure;
o Be consistent with land use
decisions;
o Not be used to effect a
moratoriumon growth;
o Encourage partnerships to avoid
disproportional funding
contributions from local
jurisdictions.
(Note: this priority is duplicative
of priority "D" forwarded by the
Community Development
Committee. Both priorities are
brought forward here, representing
the discussion of the Community
Development and the
Transportation policy
committees.)
T. Ensure that existing and new
transportation/land use planning
requirements, especially those
established to address greenhouse
gas emissions and other air quality
issues, are developed with the
following caveats:
o Cities are stakeholders in the
policy-making process and are to
be included in all discussions.
o Asense of proportionality should
be maintained, taking into
account the transportation
sector's contribution to the
problem.
o There must be a commitment to
identifying and collecting new
revenue to assist cities with
compliance.
o There is clarity with regard to
governance authority and
accountability.
I
.,
- ",' j
1
Page 5 of7
LOC Policy Committees' Le islative Recommendations
Y. Enact legislation establishing a
"shared road" designation
allowing cities, within established
criteria, to set speed limits below
the state-mandated minimum of 25
mph on roads that have limited
capacity but are nevertheless
utilized by motor vehicles,
bicyclists and pedestrians.
WaterlWastewater
Z. Support establishing statewide
product stewardship programs to
ensure recycling or proper
disposal of toxic products at the
end of their Iifecycle.
AA.Recapitalize state municipal
infrastructure funds to fully meet
local demand on as sustained
basis and fully leverage federal
matching funds for water and
wastewater infrastructure.
BB.Protect existing and future water
rights from conditions that would
prevent municipalities from
meeting current or future
demands.
o Limit new ecological flow
conditions to projects funded
through HB 3369 (2009); and
o Oppose water use limits that
interfere with approved water
rihts.
Product stewardship programs improve water quality and reduce the environmental and
health impacts of products that contain toxins through product-supported recycling and
disposal programs. These programs reduce the burden on municipalities and others to
implement water treatment technologies and other costly programs. The Oregon
Legislature created an "E-Waste" product stewardship program for recycling computers
and electronic waste in 2007 and a pilot product stewardship program for architectural
paint in 2009. Additional stewardship programs could include products such as
pharmaceuticals, batteries, and lighting that contains mercury.
The state's Special Public Work Fund and the WaterlWastewater Fund are used to finance
water and sewer systems, public buildings, road construction, downtown revitalization,
energy and communications facilities, land acquisition, environmental clean-up, and port
facilities. The state also must provide a 20 percent match to leverage federal funds
available through the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and Clean Water State
Revolving Fund. State revolving funds have failed to keep pace with growing local
infrastructure demand that totals billions of dollars statewide.
Due to the unique nature of municipal water suppliers' need to plan for growth and
infrastructure investment, cities often "grow" into water rights over time before those
rights become certificated water rights. Cities currently must develop a Water
Management and Conservation Plan (WMCP) for approval by the state to maintain these
water rights. Special interests, however, have called for new municipal water use
standards and limits that would affect existing water rights.
Page 7of7