local - bend, oregon

LOCAL FOCUS

The Magazine of the League of Oregon Cities

LOC Conference Recap

What is “Claimology”?

The ADA & City Services

November 2014

The Magazine of the League of Oregon Cities

Claimology

3www.orcities.org November 2014 | LOCAL FOCUS

LOCAL FOCUS November 2014

On the Cover

Departments

25

56

41464747

CONTENTSThe Magazine of the League of Oregon Cities

From the Executive DirectorAt the LeagueCity NewsLegal Briefs City EventsJobs

10

38

Transportation Funding: A City Priority

11 The Local Need – Comprehensive Funding

12 Who Pays for It? A Primer on Funding for Oregon’s Highways, Roads and Streets

14 Investing in a Multi-Modal System

17 Local Tools Available to Cities

18 Creating Alignment in Transportation Decisions

20 City Case Studies: Portland, John Day, Coos Bay

23 Developing a 2015 Transportation Package

Features2538

LOC Conference Recap

What is “Claimology”?

Claimology

4 LOCAL FOCUS | November 2014 www.orcities.org

LOCAL FOCUS

Non-member subscription rate: $96 per yearPublished articles and views expressed in Local Focus do not reflect any direct or implied endorsement by the League of Oregon Cities unless specifically stated as such. Publication of any advertisement should not be considered an endorsement of the product or service involved.

MAGAZINE STAFFEditor Kevin Toon, [email protected] Editor Kim Bentley, [email protected] Julie Oke, [email protected]

2014 LOC BOARD OF DIRECTORSOFFICERS President Ron Brean, Mayor, YachatsVice President Peter Truax, Mayor, Forest GroveTreasurer Brad Nanke, Councilor, SalemImmediate Past President George Endicott, Mayor, Redmond

DIRECTORS Bob Andrews, Mayor, NewbergJonathan Bilden, Councilor, Eagle PointDenny Doyle, Mayor, BeavertonSteve Forrester, City Manager, PrinevilleJoseph Gall, City Manager, SherwoodJim Lewis, Councilor, JacksonvilleSherilyn Lombos, City Manager, TualatinJulie Manning, Mayor, CorvallisJohn Oberst, Mayor, MonmouthDan Saltzman, Commissioner, PortlandTimm Slater, Councilor, North BendSandy Toms, Mayor, Boardman

Local Focus is published monthly by:League of Oregon Cities 1201 Court St. NE, #200 Salem, Oregon 97301 (503) 588-6550 • Fax: (503) 399-4863 www.orcities.org

How Values Define Leadership

David Frohnmayer’s keynote ad-dress at the annual conference contained many insights into

leadership and public service. There was a recurring theme of the impor-tance of values in shaping effective conversations and effective leaders. Mr. Frohnmayer talked about several characteristics of successful leaders, and there were numerous take-aways from the speech. I would like to focus on his thoughts regarding values and communication. He described a sense of shared values among Oregonians as documented in the 2013 Oregon Values and Beliefs Project, which concluded that “…we have much more in com-mon than not.”

So how do we tap into that commonal-ity in public service? One way is to build on those common values. But in order to do so, public leaders must be effective communicators.

Referring to Aristotle, Mr. Frohnmayer outlined three parts of an effective message:

1. Ethos2. Pathos3. Logos

He described ethos as identifying with what the audience values. Pathos is an emotional connection with the audi-ence and logos is the logic, which would be the technical/factual information related to the issue at hand. But as Mr. Frohnmayer points out, good intentions without being well informed do not deliver results. Doing your homework is essential. Without all three elements, we will not be able to effectively engage people in the public debate toward building on the common values for the common good. The challenge is to overcome the lack of consensus on means, even though there is consensus

on values. I would translate this mes-sage as: if I don’t trust you and don’t think you care about who and what matters to me, I don’t believe or care about your facts.

Mr. Frohnmayer compared what people want from a city to Google’s project to determine what employees wanted from their employer. People want to belong to something greater than themselves, have people around them care about them, a sense of community, and to be nurtured. This nurturing desire may be part of the consensus on the importance of taking care of children as indicated in how strongly Oregonians value K-12 education and support children’s welfare.

His message was that we have a set of common beliefs/values that are assets to be built upon.

Given the audience, Mr. Frohnmayer probably assumed that it went without saying that the messages and intentions would be genuine. I would contrast that with the barrage of communi-cations we have just endured from political campaigns. Those campaigns, though disingenuously, certainly under-stand the power of values identification. Campaign literature for candidate Y trumpeted that candidate X “doesn’t fit our values” or was “too extreme,” while candidate X’s literature returned the favor with the same characterizations about Y. Neither candidate generally articulated what those values were, assuming by using “our” those values did not need to be identified. While we regularly see campaigns abuse appeals to common values in ways that prob-ably further tarnish the view of govern-ment, a genuine approach to the com-mon values of true community seeking the betterment of all has the promise of meaningful community engagement.

At the beginning of his speech, Mr. Frohnmayer referenced the pessimism about government, but admonished us to get over it and to get on to the business. City officials, elected and appointed, have signed on to be leaders. They own the problem and the solu-tion. Using the common values in a manner that starts conversations at the 30,000-foot level will be more effective in making progress on developing the means to accomplish the resolution of problems facing a city and the delivery of the services that achieve the out-comes consistent with the community’s values. In saluting the public service of city officials, he remarked that no one asked you to take on this task. Some-thing in you felt that this service was worth doing. Mr. Frohnmayer has given us some tools and insights to aid in that service.

Editors Note – Mr. Frohnmayer’s keynote address at the LOC Conference can be viewed online at www.orcities.org/ conference.

FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Mike McCauley, Executive Director


At the League

Register Now for New “Elected Essentials” Workshops“Elected Essentials,” a training for newly-elected and expe-rienced elected officials, will debut January 14 in Sherwood. This new LOC training is open to elected city officials only, and is free as part of membership in the League. “Elected Essen-tials” will focus on the following:

• How to use your League

• Role of elected officials and staff

• Land use decision making

• City finances and budget

• Legal framework and ethics

• Risk management

Coming to a Location Near YouThe following Elected Essentials workshops have been sched-uled for 2015:

Sherwood January 14 9:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.*

Manzanita January 15 9:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.*

Independence January 28 9:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.*

Coquille January 29 9:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.*

Medford February 3 9:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.*

Redmond February 5 9:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.*

Island City March 18 9:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.*

Ontario March 19 9:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.*

* Regional and Small Cities meetings to follow from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

Register Now – go to the training page on the LOC website: www.orcities.org.

Contact: Jenni Shepherd, LOC Member Services – [email protected]

LOC-TV Debuts LOC-TV, the League’s online video training series, is now up and running on the LOC web-site. The first two features—“Conflicts of Interest” and “Election Law” —are short video presentations by LOC General Counsel Sean O’Day.

LOC-TV provides topical, 15-20 minute training videos and is available free, 24/7. The videos are designed for viewing on a mobile device, in a city council meeting or at an employee’s desk. The League released one new video each week in October, and future topics will include: executive sessions, the legislative session, and public vs. private meetings.

For more information, contact Jenni Shepherd, LOC Member Services: [email protected].

2014 CIS Safety AwardsIn recognition of outstanding safety efforts, the city of Corvallis and 54 other cities were awarded CIS Safety Awards at the LOC Annual Conference on Friday, September 26, 2014 in Eugene. Corvallis received a gold award, achieving the highest score in their population peer group for creating and maintaining a safe work environment. Of the 242 incorporated cities in the state, 58 participated in the competition and 55 received awards.

The Annual CIS Safety Awards program recognizes cities with the lowest rate of on-the-job injuries in the prior calendar year, an indicator of a successful safety and loss prevention program. Cities are awarded a gold, silver or bronze award based on their ratio of annual time loss injuries to hours worked. Open to all Oregon cities, the awards have been given annually since the program was initiated by the League of Oregon Cities Board of Directors in 1973.

For a complete list of winners, please visit www.cisoregon.org/awards. If your city is not listed and you would like to learn more about earning an award for 2015, please contact John Zakariassen ([email protected]) or Joleen Fink ([email protected]).


AT THE LEAGUE

Hotel Policy Changing for 2015 LOC ConferenceBeginning in 2015, the League is revising the process for annual conference hotel reservations. The change is in response to problems cities have experienced in making reservations under the current system. Cit-ies have made reservations as much as one year ahead of time for more rooms than they ultimately use, leaving other cities unable to make reservations at conference hotels. The rooms are then cancelled at the last minute, resulting in unused rooms.

For 2015, reservations will not be accepted until Wednesday, July 1. Cities can reserve up to five rooms under the city name, and names must be assigned to those rooms within 21 days of the reservation. Reserva-tions for more than five rooms will need to go through the League. Next year, the 90th LOC Conference is scheduled for Septem-ber 24-26 at the Riverhouse Hotel and Convention Center in Bend.

For more information, contact Ginger Har-ville, LOC Training and Conference Plan-ner: (503) 540-6583 or [email protected].

LOC Changes Mailing Address The League will be discontinuing the use of its post office box at the end of the year. Cities are requested to remove LOC’s P.O. Box address from your systems and use only the street address in mail correspondence with the League:

League of Oregon Cities 1201 Court St. NE, Suite 200 Salem, OR 97301

This address change also applies to each of the League’s af-filiate groups for which the League provides staffing assistance:

• Oregon Mayors Association (OMA)

• Oregon City/County Manage-ment Association (OCCMA)

• Oregon City Attorneys Association (OCAA)

• Oregon City Planning Directors Association (OCPDA)

• Association of Oregon Redevelopment Agencies (AORA)

LOC Board Meets in EugeneThe LOC Board of Directors held a regular meeting on Septem-ber 24 in conjunction with the League’s 89th Annual Confer-ence in Eugene. The board conducted the following business during its meeting:

• Approved a resolution endorsing the candidacy of Beaver-ton Mayor Denny Doyle for the National League of Cities Board of Directors;

• Approved appointments to the LOC Foundation Board of Directors effective January 1, 2015;

• Approved the purchase of a replacement database system for the League;

• Received a report on the Resilience Task Force Report to the State Legislature;

• Met in executive session to discuss pending litigation; and

• Received an update by LOC General Counsel Sean O’Day on several active court cases.

The next LOC Board meeting, which serves as the board’s annual retreat, will be held in Salem on December 5.


AT THE LEAGUEAT THE LEAGUE

City Deadline Calendar Dates Cities Need to Know

NOVEMBERNovember 4 Election Day

November 11 Veterans: Veterans Get Veterans Day Off

City employees who are veterans are entitled to take Veterans Day off if they served on active duty in the Armed Forces for at least six months and received a discharge under honorable conditions. Whether the time off is paid or unpaid is at the discretion of the employer.

(SB 1 (2013) was signed on April 4, 2013 and took effect upon passage.)

DECEMBERDecember 31 Audit: Annual Audit Review

City’s accountant must audit and review the city’s accounts and fiscal affairs at least once each calendar or fiscal year, with some exception for cities with less than $500,000 in expenditures. The city must file a copy of its audit with the Oregon Secretary of State.

Note: The accountant must furnish the audit to the city within six months after the close of the calendar or fiscal year under audit. In this example, the fiscal year ended on June 30, 2014. Thus, the mu-nicipality should have the report no later than December 31, 2014.

(ORS 297.425; ORS 297.435; ORS 297.465(2), (3))

December 31 Water Rights: Cities Holding Rights Must File Water-Use Report

Cities with water rights must submit a report to the Water Resources Department by December 31 each year detailing monthly water use under the rights for each point of diversion; the amount of water used; the period of use; and the categories of beneficial use to which the water is applied. Reporting shall be for the previous water year (October 1 to September 30).(ORS 537.099; OAR 690-085-0010)

December 31 Ethics: Lobbyist Registration Expires

A lobbyist’s registration expires on December 31 of odd-num-bered years. (ORS 171.740)

General RemindersSystem Development Charges (SDC): Provide Annual Accounting for SDCs.

Cities must provide an annual accounting of SDCs, to be completed by January 1 of each year, showing the total amount of SDC revenue collected for each system, and the projects that were funded in the previous fiscal year, in-cluding a list of the amount spent on each project funded, in whole or in part, with SDC revenues. However, state law does not provide for a specific agency where cities may file such reports. (ORS 223.311.)

PERS Reports

Cities must remit a regular report to the PERS Board no later than three business days after the end of the city’s pay cycle. (ORS 238.705; OAR 459-070-100)

Upcoming EVENTS

National League of Cities (NLC) Congress of Cities Conference November 19–22 – Austin, TX

LOC Board Meeting December 5 – Salem

Legislative Days for Interim House/Senate Committees December 8–10 – Salem

For more upcoming events, visit the Calendar page at www.orcities.org.


Coaching Great Performance: Developing a Winning TeamSalem November 13

Financial Analysis & PlanningNewport November 17

Council/Manager/Staff RelationsNewport November 18

Community Visioning & Strategic PlanningSherwood December 3 & 10 (new date)

On the Web: Visit www.orcities.org/training to register and view complete course descriptions.

League TRAINING Schedule

North Coast (Region 1) Nehalem – November 7

Portland Metro (Region 2) Dayton – December 18

Willamette Valley (Region 3) Creswell – November 14

Small Cities Meetings Schedule

South Coast (Region 4) Coquille – November 19

Southern Valley (Region 5) Winston – December 11

Central Oregon (Region 6) Rufus – December 18

The Small Cities Network is a League program for cities with a population of 5,000 or less, with quarterly meetings to network and discuss common issues and solutions. All meetings start at 11:00 a.m. RSVP to Kristie Marececk at [email protected].

On the Web: www.orcities.org/smallcities

Remaining Fourth Quarter Meetings

DurableLow-Maintenance

playfuleasy one-stop-shop

For Everythingfrom Benchesto shelters to surfacingto sprayparks to

Playgrounds


Much has been written and reported about the deterioration of the nation’s trans-portation infrastructure—of the failure of government to adequately invest in the maintenance and preservation of existing facilities and to allocate resources to new capital projects to enhance transportation systems. This month’s issue of

Local Focus endeavors to enlighten the reader as to the challenges and opportunities facing cities in Oregon.

This feature offers a primer on sources and uses of transportation funds; makes a case for a multi-modal, system-wide commitment; discusses the impact of transportation infrastructure as it pertains to quality of life (safety, environment and healthy living); describes the tools that cities currently have to address transportation issues themselves; and outlines elements of both the League’s transportation priority as well as what a possible 2015 legislative package might look like. In addition, three city testimonials will serve to underscore the need for and importance of adequate transportation funding.

Transportation Funding: A City Priority

Phot

o co

urte

sy M

etro


The Local Need – Comprehensive FundingBy Craig Honeyman, LOC Legislative Director

City transportation infrastructure is getting older and more expensive to preserve and maintain. In most cases, local expansion of the system is not a possibility

given funding shortages and the overwhelming need to protect what’s already in place. In addition to maintaining existing in-frastructure, city transportation systems will be further stressed by a projected population increase of 25 percent by 2030.

To quantify the financial challenges facing Oregon’s cities in terms of their responsibility to manage a street and road system, the League surveyed its membership in 2013. Sixty-four percent of the cities in Oregon responded (154 total), representing 90 percent of the state’s city population, and the picture was not a pretty one. In the aggregate, the street management funding gap challenging city officials statewide is more that $300 million per year. Cities of all sizes are strug-gling to fund street maintenance, but predictably larger cities have a greater unmet need.

While some cities have sought to address their shortfall through local initiatives (see accompanying article), most have not—leaving it principally to the state and, to some extent federal funding, to support street management.

The LOC Legislative Priority ProcessEvery two years, the League convenes eight policy committees to make recommendations on potential legislative priorities for the upcoming biennium. This member-driven process helps the League focus its agenda and messaging, and serves to engage local officials throughout Oregon in legislative advocacy.

The LOC Transportation Policy Committee developed an ap-proach to a comprehensive transportation policy and funding package that the League will take into the 2015 Legislature as part of its commitment to work with other stakeholders on this critical infrastructure need. This recommendation stood out as one of the LOC membership’s top priorities, and inclu-sion on the League’s “short list” of pre-session priority issues was ratified by its board of directors.

As many of the articles in the following pages suggest, trans-portation solutions need to: be multi-modal; take into account the need for connectivity; offer choices to the transportation consumer; improve safety; enhance economic development; protect the environment; and promote healthy living through active transportation. The League, given its commitment to advocating on behalf of cities statewide regardless of location, demographics or other defining characteristics, subscribes to the notion that an effective transportation strategy needs to address all of these.

For purposes of the 2015 legislative session, however, the League has determined that its focus should be on the need to adequately and sustainably fund the maintenance and preser-vation of investments and facilities already in place.

The League’s Transportation PriorityThe League of Oregon Cities will work with other stakehold-ers leading up to and during the 2015 session of the Oregon Legislative Assembly to gain passage of a comprehensive transportation package containing at least the following elements:

• An increase in the state gas tax of up to 5 cents per gallon;

• Indexing the state gas tax to the consumer price index or another relevant economic index;

• Expansion of the calculation method used for the state’s transportation user fee to include vehicle miles traveled (VMT);

• An increase in license plate fees and inclusion of light-weight trailers;

• Continuing the dedication of the state’s Highway Trust Fund dollars to highway, road and street projects;

• Continuing the allocation of the Highway Trust Fund dollars between the state, counties and cities at 50%-30%-20% respectively;

• An increase in the statutory “Small City Allotment” fund from $1 million to $5 million annually, split evenly between the Oregon Department of Transportation and the cities’ share of the trust fund;

• No pre-emption of local government ability to generate their own transportation revenues; and

• Funding for the voluntary jurisdictional transfer and main-tenance of “orphan highways” (state highways or county roads that function as city streets).

The Prospects for PassageOf course, it is premature to try to forecast a legislative out-come for a transportation package. There are many stake-holders with a variety of agendas. Fortunately, most of them have joined together in a collective effort under the auspices of the Oregon Transportation Forum (OTF). The sheer magnitude of the need and the diversity of interests seeking attention in a comprehensive piece of legislation creates its own challenges. While certain key legislators have already been involved in the process of package development, the po-litical calculus in Salem remains unknown for the time being. The other unknown, of course, is the appetite of the citizens of Oregon for the funding and policy measures that might be proposed.

Phot

o co

urte

sy M

etro


Who Pays for It? A Primer on Funding for Oregon’s Highways, Roads and Streets By Victor Dodier

Oregon pays for the construction, maintenance and operation of highway, road and street infrastructure, including bicycle and pedestrian improvements that

are within rights of way, through a variety of methods. The State Highway Fund is the most important single source. It is a shared resource for the state highway program, county roads and city streets.

Revenue Sources User charges (fuel taxes, weight-mile taxes on trucks, vehicle registration and title fees, and driver license fees) and federal funds pay for the construction, maintenance and operation of Oregon’s road system. The taxes and fees collected by the state are shared with Oregon cities and counties and are con-stitutionally dedicated for use on highways. The state does not use general funds to finance highway improvements.

State tax rates (fuel taxes, registration and title fees, and weight-mile taxes) are set by statute. The Oregon Constitu-tion (Section 3(a), Article IX) requires adjustment of tax rates to ensure fairness and proportionality between classes of vehi-cles. State economists perform a biennial highway cost alloca-tion study to determine how the burden of highway expendi-tures should be shared between cars and trucks, and between different types and weights of trucks. The study determines proper balance of tax rates between classes of highway users but does not attempt to determine appropriate levels of total revenue. Study results are presented to the House and Senate Committees on Revenue, which then determine what, if any, legislative action is appropriate.

The graph on the right shows anticipated revenue for the 2013-2015 biennium after subtracting collection costs and transfers, but before distribution to cities and counties and set-asides for debt service.

City and County Share The next graph shows forecast distribution to cities, counties and the state highway program after set-asides for debt service for the 2013-2015 biennium. The distribution is made using statutory formulas.

Funds are distributed to individual cities in proportion to population. Funds are distributed to counties in proportion to the number of vehicles registered in each county.

Local Funding VariationRoughly one-half of all local highway revenue used by cities and counties comes from the distribution of the state Highway Fund as shown above. However, the mix of state, local and federal money used by individual cities and counties varies significantly. The remainder of local road revenue is locally generated or of federal origin.

Local sources of road revenue include property taxes; system development charges; traffic impact fees; maintenance fees; parking fees and fines; lodging taxes; franchise fees; accrued interest; city fuel taxes (Astoria, Canby, Coburg, Coquille, Cottage Grove, Dundee, Eugene, Hood River, Milwaukie, Newport, Oakridge, Pendleton, Sandy, Sisters, Springfield, Stanfield, The Dalles, Tigard, Tillamook, Veneta, Warrenton and Woodburn); and county fuel taxes (Multnomah and Washington counties).

Fuel Tax$969.1

Vehicle & Driver License Fees

$399.0

Weight-Mile & Truck Fees

$969.1

2013 - 2015 State Highway Fund Revenue ($ millions)

Note: Revenue is equal to gross revenue by source minus collection costs, central services assessments and source transfers

Source: December 2013 Transportation Economic and Revenue Forecast

TRANSPORTATION FUNDING – A CITY PRIORITY


State$753.6

Cities$313.0

Counties$475.9

2013-15 Biennium Revenue by Allocation ($ millions)

Note: Amounts allocated are equal to gross revenue minus collection costs, central services assessments, total transfers, set asides and debt service

Source: December 2013 Transportation Economic and Revenue Forecast

Federal Funds Most states, including Oregon, depend on federal funds for a significant portion of their highway revenue. Oregon’s legis-latively adopted budget for the state highway system for the 2013-2015 biennium is 77 percent state revenue and bond proceeds and 23 percent federal revenue. Federal highway funds are derived mainly from an 18.4-cent federal gas tax, a 24.4-cent diesel tax, and other fees on heavy trucks.

Federal transportation programs are typically multi-year autho-rization bills. The most recent authorizing bill, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), was enacted in 2012 and will expire May 31, 2015 unless Congress extends it. Federal funding comes primarily from a formula program. In the past, some funding came to Oregon in the form of congres-sional earmarks. However, Congress currently is not making earmarks. The U.S. Department of Transportation is making federal discretionary funds available from time to time (e.g., TIGER grants).

The federal Highway Trust Fund is taking in substantially less than it is paying out for highway and transit projects. As a result, the Highway Trust Fund will exhaust its balances sometime on or before May 2015. In addition to extending MAP-21, Congress is considering how to address the imbalance between revenues and payouts by finding additional resources for transportation or by cutting the federal highway and transit programs by about one-third.

Unmet Needs – A Continuing IssueThe Oregon Transportation Plan was approved by the Oregon Transportation Commission in September 2006. The plan’s needs analysis identified an approximately $1.3 billion (in 2004 dollars) annual gap in the funding needed to adequately maintain and expand the publicly-funded transportation modes over the 2005 to 2030 timeframe. The road component of the gap was estimated to be between $770 million and $970 million (2004 dollars).

Recent work shows that the Oregon Transportation Plan gap analysis significantly underestimates unmet needs at all levels. The League’s 2014 City Street Needs Survey estimates that cities face a $300 million annual gap, while a recent survey by the Association of Oregon Counties shows a $500-plus million annual gap. These estimates far exceed the local government share of the 2004 gap estimate of between $280 million and $480 million.

Unmet needs at the state highway level are also significant. ODOT’s recent economic analysis indicates that an additional $400 million per year would be needed to maintain state high-way pavements and bridges in their current good condition.

Mr. Dodier is a legislative policy analyst for the Oregon Department of Transportation.



Oregon Needs to Invest in a Multi-Modal SystemBy Andy Cotugno

Oregon is rich with diversity: in geography, in demo-graphics, in lifestyles and in its economic base. And, when it comes to how people and goods get around in

these communities and economic sectors, we know there is no “one size fits all” solution. That’s why it’s essential we create a truly multi-modal transportation system across Oregon, investing in all modes at the level most appropriate to each community.

A Multitude of BenefitsMulti-modal transportation investments do more than move people and goods around. They also build strong, stable com-munities. They give businesses access to labor, materials and customers, locally and globally. They get kids safely to school. They give young adults access to jobs and livelihoods. They provide a bus so that seniors can reach the doctor and run er-rands. They give households the choice to own one fewer car because there are other options to get around.

Our investments are a choice about the kind of community we want to create. “Main Street” through downtown can be pleasant and inviting to customers, or a noisy, polluted thor-oughfare. Residential neighborhoods can make bicycling or walking to stores and schools easy, or force residents to drive to reach anything. High capacity transit in metropolitan areas takes pressure off highways. Passenger rail service supports business and recreation trips for those who cannot or choose not to drive. Highway improvements move high volumes of cars and trucks more efficiently, while streets through commu-nities should be good neighbors with homes and businesses.

Multi-modal investments are essential to the movement of goods and services throughout Oregon's economy. Items residents purchase in the grocery or hardware store may arrive in Oregon by ship or railroad car, but they reach the store by truck. Oregon’s lumber and agriculture products may leave the farm or forest by truck but get transferred to trains cross-ing the continent and ships crossing the ocean. High-value electronic devices may leave Oregon’s factories by van but jet off to global destinations from PDX.

Finally, multi-modal investments save lives and help Oregon meet its goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A trans-portation system that facilitates, rather than thwarts, biking and walking allows people to have a more active lifestyle and enjoy better health. Reducing auto-related air pollution pro-

vides relief to those prone to asthma, especially the young and the elderly. And because multi-modal investments make our roads and streets safer for everyone, they save lives and avoid in-juries—no matter how we get around.

Making the InvestmentInvesting in highways and freeways at the expense of transit, bicycling and walking is folly. On the other hand, deferring highway projects to focus on non-highway projects is like robbing Peter to pay Paul. Similarly short-sighted is solely investing in maintaining the existing transportation system while ignoring Oregon’s changing needs. Oregon's residents, communities and economy need investment in a multi-modal transportation system that takes care of what we have while improving the right modes in the right place for the future.

If you care about communities throughout Oregon, then you should care about a comprehensive approach to multi-modal transportation funding. Sadly, today's options are not suf-ficient.

Let’s examine the methods available for funding multi-modal transportation systems:

• State Highway Trust Fund – Deposits are made to the State Highway Trust Fund from gas and diesel taxes, vehi-cle titles and registration fees, truck weight-mile taxes and other vehicle-related fees and taxes. The Highway Trust Fund provides the funding foundation for the state’s road system. The Oregon Department of Transportation uses it for the state and interstate highway system, and cities and counties use it for roads, streets, sidewalks and bike lanes. However, as the cost of labor and materials increases and auto fuel economy improves, the Highway Trust Fund is in decline. It can’t meet ongoing operations and mainte-nance needs, much less fund improvements to the system. In addition, the Highway Trust Fund is not comprehen-sively multi-modal, because Oregon’s constitution limits its use to the road right of way. As such, a different source is needed to fund transit and trails.



• Local Funds – Many local governments supplement the Highway Trust Fund with their own funding ap-proaches. In Oregon, these include local gas and diesel taxes, local vehicle registration fees, local street utility fees, local property taxes and urban renewal funding. These vary widely, and not every local jurisdiction is able to raise new fees and taxes.

• Transit Funding – Transit, especially operations, is predominantly funded through local sources, usu-ally a payroll tax on employers and/or a property tax. This foundation is supplemented modestly with state sources.

• Federal Funds – The federal government funds transportation through the Highway Trust Fund and its general fund. The federal trust fund does not have the same restriction limiting its use to improvements within the road right of way and is distributed to states and localities for multi-modal improvements. Federal high-way funds are predominantly targeted toward multi-modal investments associated with Oregon’s biggest highways. A portion of the fund can be “flexed” for multi-modal improvements outside this system, includ-ing city streets, county roads, sidewalks, bike facilities,

Phot

o b

y St

even

Van

cePh

oto

cour

tesy

Met

ro

(continued on page 16)


Oregon's residents, communities and economy need investment in a multi-modal transportation system that takes care of what we have while improving the right modes in the right place for the future.

“”

trails, and bus and rail transit. Federal general funds are provided on a competitive basis for expansion of bus and rail high capacity transit facilities.

Finding New SolutionsOregon needs to build on this base so we can maintain and operate our existing system but also expand and improve our multi-modal investments. But how? The options are limited to three basic methods, and we need all of them:

• Raise traditional road fees and taxes on cars and trucks to adequately fund roads and streets, including features within the right of way to safely accommodate pedestrians, bikes and transit;

• With an adequate state-based funding foundation for the road system, maximize the “flexing” of funding received from the Federal Highway Trust Fund for non-highway multi-modal purposes; and

• Commit state general funds (including lottery funds) to multi-modal improvements that can’t be funded by the first two.

Even with these actions, the state and federal governments are never going to be able to fully fund the kind of multi-modal transportation system we need. Regions and local governments need to raise their own revenue if they expect to more fully meet their goals for livability, health and prosperity.

Funding is always a tough conversation. No solution is easy. But we have seen time and time again—in the quality of our communities, the health of Oregonians and the strength of our economy—that multi-modal investments will pay off many times over. These are the kinds of returns on investment our

residents expect. They’re the kinds of returns that should give us courage to find new funding and make the multi-modal investments Oregon demands.

Mr. Cotugno is a senior policy advisor for Metro.


Phot

o by

Dam

on Ta

ylor

Ad space


Regions and local governments need to raise their own revenue if they expect to more fully meet their goals for livability, health and prosperity.

“

”

Local Tools Available to Cities By Craig Honeyman, LOC Legislative Director

Oregon cities have authority to tap local revenue sources to help address the growing backlog of road and street maintenance and preservation projects. While most

cities rely on the declining (both in terms of gross dollars and purchasing power) state gas tax as their main (or only) source of street funding, other tools are available.

Local Gas TaxChief among the available local tools is the local gas tax, which is currently levied by 22 cities in Oregon (Astoria, Canby, Coburg, Coquille, Cottage Grove, Dundee, Eugene, Hood River, Mil-waukie, Newport, Oakridge, Pendleton, Sandy, Sisters, Spring-field, Stanfield, The Dalles, Tigard, Tillamook, Veneta, Warren-ton and Woodburn).

While proposing any new or increased tax is always a dicey politi-cal proposition, current statute (pursuant to the Jobs and Trans-portation Act of 2009) requires a vote of the citizens of a city to approve a local gas tax. While it is often difficult to estimate the amount of revenue a city will collect under a local gas tax, it has proven to be a significant source of revenue for those cities that have enacted them.

Typically locally levied gas taxes are in the 3 cents per gallon range, with the low being 1 cent and the high being 5 cents. It is important to note that Article IX, Section 3a. of the Oregon Constitution requires that all revenues derived from a gas tax (state or local) must be used “exclusively for the construction, reconstruction, improvement, repair, maintenance, operation and use of public highways, roads, streets and roadside rest areas …”

For more information on implementing local gas taxes, go to the A to Z section of the LOC website (www.orcities.org), and click on Gas Taxes, Local.

Transportation Utility FeeGiven the stagnation of state and local gas taxes due to improvements in technology and fewer road miles being traveled, cities may want to consider other options, including a

transportation utility fee (TUF). Also referred to as street user fees, road maintenance fees, etc., these typically appear as assess-ments on utility bills of water/sewer customers with the revenue being dedicated for city transportation infrastructure projects. Currently 30 cities in Oregon have implemented TUFs (Ashland, Bay City, Brookings, Canby, Central Point, Corvallis, Eagle Point, Florence, Grants Pass, Hillsboro, Hubbard, La Grande, Lake Os-wego, Medford, Milwaukie, Myrtle Creek, North Plains, Oregon City, Philomath, Phoenix, Sherwood, Silverton, Stayton, Talent, Tigard, Toledo, Tualatin, West Linn, Wilsonville and Wood Vil-lage).

Unlike local gas taxes, TUFs can be enacted by ordinance and the purposes for which the revenues may be used are not restricted. The basis for the assessment of the fee varies among cities. Some use a flat fee, and others use a more complicated trip generation methodology. Like local gas taxes, the levying of TUFs can generate controversy and political tension.

For more information on implementing transportation utility fees go to the A to Z section of the League’s website (www.orcities.org), and click on Transportation Utility Fees.

Other ToolsAlthough local gas taxes and transportation utility fees are the principle measures by which cities supplement state and federal funding, there are other tools as well. These include property taxes (to the extent that they are not already obligated), systems development charges, traffic impact fees, maintenance fees, park-ing fees and fines, lodging taxes, and franchise fees.

Given growing uncertainty over the appetite of state legislators and members of Congress to keep pace with ever-increasing transportation infrastructure funding needs in the face of de-clining revenues, cities may want to consider the usefulness of becoming more self-reliant in their management of street assets. While not always a popular notion and demanding of political courage, sometimes the best solutions are local solutions.


Phot

o by

Dam

on Ta

ylor


Our Values & Beliefs: Creating Alignment in Transportation DecisionsBy Chris Hagerbaumer

A recent survey of Oregonians’ values and beliefs1 con-firms that no matter where you live in Oregon, you most likely value clean air and water, our state’s natural

beauty and outdoor recreation opportunities, and conserva-tion of farm and forestland.

Cities have a lot to do with how we preserve this legacy. Deci-sions about transportation play a significant role in protecting air and water quality, combatting climate change, increasing resiliency to natural disasters, and supporting the compact urban development necessary for some of the state’s key eco-nomic engines—agriculture, forestry and tourism.

In the survey, Oregonians also indicated they believe taking personal responsibility for a good lifestyle is important for one’s health. Interestingly, health experts—from the Centers for Disease Control to the Oregon Health Authority and county health departments—are now confirming that the way communities are designed and laid out (either helping or hindering residents’ ability to walk or bike) greatly impacts the number of people with such chronic diseases as diabetes, cancer and heart disease. Safe streets, sidewalks and bikeways make it easier for people make healthy lifestyle choices.

To support healthy living, reduce household transportation costs, protect the environment and create jobs, the following is a prescription for Oregon’s cities.

Provide choices for affordable, convenient, reliable and safe ways to get around.

One in four Oregonians can’t drive due to age or disability. Many others can’t afford a car. And most of us want trans-portation options so that not every trip has to be behind the wheel of an automobile. The values and beliefs survey found that a majority of Oregonians support investment in public transit over investment in more roads for cars.

Develop smart, using land as wisely as possible.

Create neighborhoods where residents can easily access daily destinations like grocery stores, schools and parks within 20 minutes by foot or bicycle. Keep urban growth boundaries tight to reduce infrastructure costs while pro-tecting farm and forestlands.

1 DHM Research and Policy Interactive Research, Oregon Values and Beliefs Project, 2013. www.oregonvaluesproject.org

Design streets and parking lots to keep contaminated roadway runoff out of our rivers and streams.

In most urban areas, there’s more space for cars (roads, parking lots and driveways) than humans (buildings and sidewalks)2. Because auto infrastructure makes up such a sizable portion of the impervious surface in cities, a new revolution in “green streets” uses innovative infrastruc-ture to capture, absorb and clean stormwater runoff. The Oregon Environmental Council is currently working with several cities to develop a Low-Impact Development Guide for Western Oregon.

Support fuel-efficient vehicles and clean fuels.

From Grants Pass to Arlington, Oregon cities are installing electric vehicle charging stations. Local governments are also taking advantage of a myriad of lower-cost, lower-carbon fuels.

Medford’s compressed natural gas street sweeper achieves 3.7 m.p.g. compared to the 1.87 m.p.g. diesel sweeper it re-placed, saving $6,000 in the first six months3. By convert-ing its patrol cars to propane, the Polk County sheriff’s

2 Clean Water Services, Healthy Streams Plan, 2005. www.cleanwaterservices.org

3 Rogue Valley Clean Cities Coalition presentation, 2012. www.roguevalley-cleancities.org



The way communities are designed and laid out greatly impacts the number of people with such chronic diseases as diabetes, cancer and heart disease.

“

”

office saved the job of one full-time sheriff deputy4. Local government public procurement policies can also encourage contractors to use cleaner construction equipment and vehicles.

Make climate-friendly transportation decisions.

Oregonians care about climate change. The values and beliefs survey found that Oregonians believe by more than a 3:1 ratio that we need to change our life-style (like driving less and living more simply) and not wait to deal with cli-mate change later. This response held true across Oregon, with a 2:1 ratio in Eastern Oregon. Because transporta-tion produces nearly 40 percent of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions, state

legislation requires the Portland metro region and encour-ages Oregon’s other major metropolitan areas to reduce these heat-trapping emissions over time. The Oregon Department of Transportation has developed a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Toolkit5 to help all local jurisdictions, big or small, explore the kinds of actions and programs they can undertake to protect our climate. Most of these tools provide a multi-tude of benefits, including better air quality.

Spread the benefits.

Some neighborhoods suffer from historic underinvestment. Another recent study found that the pedestrian death rate in the Portland metro area is 2.3 times greater in higher poverty areas.6 This is due, in large part, to a lack of investment in sidewalks and safe pedestrian crossings in these neighbor-hoods. To reduce these inequities, Portland needs to involve lower-income neighborhoods in identifying the worst safety issues and focus its funds on fixing their problems first.

Put people to work.

Compared to road building, more jobs are created per dollar spent—especially for local residents and businesses—when government invests in public transit operations and in build-ing sidewalks and bikeways7.

No matter how big or small, your community will benefit from policies and practices that help residents live, work, play and prosper in a way that also protects the planet and its people.

Ms. Hagerbaumer is the deputy director for the Oregon Environmen-tal Council.

4 Blue Star Gas Case Study: Polk County Sheriff’s Office, 2013. www.bluestar gas.com/sites/default/files/BSG-AAG_Case_Study_Polk_County.pdf

5 ODOT, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Toolkit. www.oregon.gov/odot/td/tp/pages/ghgtoolkit.aspx

6 Governing, “Pedestrians Dying at Disproportionate Rates in America’s Poorer Neighborhoods,” 2014. www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/gov-pedes-trian-deaths-analysis.html

7 Political Economy Research Institute, Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure: A National Study of Employment Impacts, 2011. http://goo.gl/H6pAm5 and American Public Transportation Association, Economic Impact of Public Transportation Investment, 2009. http://goo.gl/mXB1G8



Portland Prioritizes Maintenance, Safety Needs for TransportationBy Mayor Charlie Hales

For too long, the streets of Oregon’s largest city have withered under the wear and tear caused by population growth and years of deferred maintenance. Now, almost

half of our busiest streets are rated in “poor” or “very poor” condition. We still have many neighborhoods where people don’t feel safe walking to a bus for lack of sidewalks and safe crossings.

We’ve talked about this for decades here in Portland. And while we have talked, 28 other Oregon cities have enacted street fees.

The time has come for Portland to act.

And act we must, because as city government leaders across Oregon know, transportation funding has been short for decades. The last time the federal gas tax was raised, Beanie Babies were the popular toy. That was 1993, when the gas tax was increased to 18.3 cents per gallon. If it had been adjusted for inflation over the years, the U.S. gas tax would be 30 cents today.

Not only has the federal gas tax not kept up with inflation, it hasn’t kept up with the demands of technology and our growing population. An audit by Oregon Secretary of State Kate Brown’s office this summer reported the trend toward fuel-efficient cars is reducing the gas tax revenue traditionally used to pay for transportation. Young people are less interested in driving than prior generations. As our cities grow, people expect public transit and safe bicycle options to get where they need to go.

When Oregonians consume less gas, they pay less into the sys-tem that maintains the streets they rely on. The state constitu-tion prohibits us from spending gas tax dollars on public transit and many of the other needs of modern cities.

The city of Portland supported the Legislature’s approval of gas tax and vehicle registration increases in 2009. While helpful, the city’s share was just enough to cover the debt service on our contribution to replacing the Sellwood Bridge, a regional asset.

Before making the case for transportation funding with the public, City Commissioner Steve Novick and I agreed that we should do everything we can to make the city’s transportation operations as efficient as possible.

We promised to repave 100 lane miles of city streets. With the help of a new technique called fog sealing, we exceeded that

goal. We are replacing street lights with energy-efficient LED bulbs, which will save millions of dollars in the long-term and reduce energy. We’re working with public and private utili-ties to improve coordination, which will reduce the number of times we cut into streets and help prevent further deterioration.

When it comes to transportation funding, efficiency is clearly not enough. We need a new revenue source. That’s where the Our Streets PDX effort comes in.

In January, I worked with Commissioner Novick, who oversees transportation, to engage the public in a conversation about transportation funding. We formed the Transportation Needs and Funding Advisory Committee, a diverse group of com-munity and business leaders who are knowledgeable about the issue and the community’s priorities for transportation.

After five months of town halls and press conferences, we proposed a transportation user fee that was very similar to the fee that so many Oregon cities charge. Portlanders said they were concerned, however, that a low-income discount didn’t do enough to protect those who are least able to pay. They said we should do more to protect small businesses, and see if we can reduce the impact on non-profits and public institutions.

So in July we formed two additional work groups, one focused on business and one for non-profits and low-income residents. They met with our transportation and finance staff all summer and into the fall, poring over city financial information and considering a wide variety of scenarios for how to raise revenue.

Phot

o by

CM

Kel

ner


(continued on next page)


The work groups didn’t reach consensus on everything, but they did come up with a very fair, Portland-like approach. They recommend a residential income tax that minimizes the impact on low-income households. They devised a busi-ness fee with a cap of $120 a month that charges businesses directly—not going through the water customer, which might only reach a landlord. It provides lower rates for small busi-nesses, which are such an important driver of our economy and neighborhood sustainability.

The council continues to refine the proposal, and I expect we will have final approval of new revenue this fall. We have come away with a much better product than we started with;

one that provides revenue for street maintenance and safety improvements without being overly burdensome.

I’ll emphasize that this package would pay only part of the cost of street maintenance. We’re still counting on the state Legislature to adopt a bill in 2015 to help properly fund our roads. We’re still counting on the federal government to pass legislation to raise the gas tax.

We are doing our part, as difficult as that is. With help from state and federal governments, our local efforts will begin to turn the tide of a degrading system, and rebuild it into the world-class network our city—and state—deserve.

Street Needs in John DayBy Mayor Ron Lundbom

Since 2000, cities within Grant County have relied on the Secure Rural Schools (SRS) and the Community Self-Determination Act (county payments) for local street

funding. Prior to that, cities relied on timber receipts.

Grant County shares its SRS funds with cities using a formula that is based on population and road miles. However, there have been years when the county court decided not to share its SRS funds. The only other substantial revenue the city of John Day receives for its street fund is from the state gas tax. In fiscal year 2013-2014, the city’s share of the state gas tax was $91,869. Expenses for personnel services alone totaled $94,985. The state gasoline tax is not enough to even fund our personnel services within the street fund budget, let alone materials and services.

Last fiscal year, the city spent $37,941 from the street fund on materials and services. New construction cannot be consid-ered in the budget process. John Day now relies on grants for all capital street improvement projects. The city received an Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) enhance-ment grant for our downtown improvements project, which is currently under construction. In order to pay the required

10.27 percent grant match, we applied for and received a $50,000 ODOT small cities allotment grant, used SRS funds from the county and provided some in-kind work by our pub-lic works department.

In order to reduce street maintenance costs, the public works department has reduced snow plowing priorities which results in safety issues. We have not replaced two utility worker posi-tions due to current budget constraints. We have cut back on most aspects of street maintenance (i.e. striping, painting of curb lines, sign maintenance etc.).

Of the 12.9 miles of certified public street and road mileage in John Day it is estimated that over two miles are gravel and an-other two miles that are oil mat. Of the remaining 8.9 miles, four are in need of major repairs due to drainage problems, need subsurface infrastructure replacement or generally do not meet city standards. In conclusion, more than 50 percent of our city streets are not in compliance with our adopted trans-portation system plan.

John Day’s downtown improvement project, made possible by a Downtown Transportation Enhancement Grant.

John Day city street in need of repair

Phot

o by

CM

Kel

ner

Phot

o co

urte

sy Jo

hn D

ay

Phot

o co

urte

sy Jo

hn D

ay



A Band Aid on a Broken Arm – Street Maintenance Challenges in Coos BayBy Mayor Crystal Shoji

Streets are a vital component of city infrastructure, af-fecting citizen attitudes and city livability. They are the most visible infrastructure network in a city, and nega-

tive street conditions adversely impact economic development opportunities. Concerned citizens contact city hall about potholes and/or failing streets approximately once a week in Coos Bay. Our streets are in bad shape, and, frankly, if I were not busy with mayoral duties, I might place such a call myself.

Coos Bay has 167 lane miles of streets, of which 130 lane miles are asphalt, 14 lane miles are concrete, and the remain-ing lane miles are gravel. Some of our concrete streets are nearly 100 years old and, at the time of their construction, were a vast improvement to the former wooden streets in our coastal community. (Before wooden streets, Coos Bay’s citi-zens traveled by boat on tidewater highways, but that is a story for our new maritime museum to share.)

Just a little over a decade ago, consultants retained by the city completed a comprehensive pavement evaluation. Their report revealed that 44 percent of the city’s street network was in “good” condition, 21 percent “satisfactory,” 11 percent “fair,” and 24 percent “poor.” Unfortunately, these negative street conditions have only worsened since the study. The desire to improve the streets exists, but the financial resources to do so are lacking.

Currently Coos Bay’s only source of street maintenance funding is the state gasoline tax. Most of us are aware that revenues from the gas tax have not kept pace with inflation. Additionally, people are buying less fuel (more fuel efficient cars) each year. Gas tax revenues have fallen behind the costs of materials, energy and labor that are needed to maintain the streets.

This year, the city of Coos Bay budgeted to receive $880,000 in gas tax revenue. Of that amount nearly 32 percent (more than $281,000) will be spent just to keep the city’s street lamps on at night, and to keep traffic signals in working order. After subtracting the cost associated with routine street sweeping, striping, crosswalk maintenance, sign maintenance, vegetation maintenance, grading gravel roads, and personnel costs etc., Coos Bay is left with less than $50,000 for street repair. We are left chasing pot holes—“a band aid on a broken arm.”

Citizens often ask, “why can’t we use property taxes to fix the streets?” They are surprised to learn that all of the collected property taxes are insufficient to even pay for the police and fire services provided by the city.

Last year, the city formed a Streets Task Force, made up of local business owners and neighborhood representatives. The task force studied the city’s transportation infrastructure issues and made several recommendations. Their first was to update the 2002 streets condition assessment. The council agreed to do so in order to prioritize needs and estimate costs.

The Streets Task Force also recommended generating local revenues to pay for the improvements. Specific recommenda-tions included creation of a transportation utility fee; asking the voters to adopt a local gasoline tax; increasing franchise fees where possible, dedicating those funds to street repairs; and asking voters to consider a general obligation bond for identified projects.

Charging new fees or obtaining approval for a new tax won’t be easy. But saving our investment and improving streets is a necessity for our city’s future.



Oregon Transportation Forum Developing 2015 Transportation PackageBy Craig Campbell

The Oregon Transportation Forum (OTF) is a membership organization comprised of a wide variety of multi-modal transportation stakeholders—governments, businesses,

trade associations, and land use and environmental interests. Over the past year, the OTF has been engaged in a process that is likely to result in the development of a package of transpor-tation policy and funding proposals for consideration by the Legislature in 2015—and perhaps beyond.

While, as of this writing, the final scope and content of the proposal remains a work in progress, it is the goal of the OTF to present a comprehensive package of proposals. This is impor-tant given the commitment of the OTF to deal with the state’s transportation infrastructure needs as an interconnected system as well as the reality that its membership brings a wide variety of transportation agendas to the discussion.

There is no single solution to deal with our transportation challenges, nor do the proposals that the OTF is working on pretend to be a full response. Rather, they are a step forward in what is likely to become a broader and longer-term discussion about transportation infrastructure investment. Indeed, the governor has signaled his interest in convening that discussion, but acknowledges that, notwithstanding near-term steps that could and should be taken, his longer-term, higher level analysis indicates that there will not be a focus on proposals for the 2015 legislative process. Instead, the governor will be relying upon the OTF to make short-term recommendations.

With the caveat that final decisions about the specific content of an OTF legislative package has yet to be finalized, the OTF has developed the following menu of potential elements of a legisla-tive package during its year-long process.

Goals• Put Oregonians to work creating multi-modal transportation

networks which connect people to their jobs, attracts new talent and allows the state’s economy to compete on a global scale.

• Address costly and time-consuming freight bottlenecks and improve connections to ports and freight yards to better serve agriculture, forestry manufacturing and other key Oregon industries.

• Keep goods and people moving safely and reliably and main-tain the transportation system in a state of good repair while increasing its resiliency to natural disasters.

• Improve public health and air quality by making neighbor-hoods walkable and bikeable, and improving access to transit.

• Serve all Oregonians regardless of age, race, disability, income level or location.

• Reduce transportation-related pollution, preserve our natural environment and make the system more resilient to the im-pacts of climate change.

Principles• Fund all modes – to move passengers and freight in support

of economic prosperity, community livability and environ-mental quality.

• Fix it first – prioritize the maintenance, rehabilitation and operation of existing transportation facilities.

• Provide reliable funding – increase the predictability of rev-enues in support of ongoing road operations and maintenance as well as for transit service.

• Share costs fairly – raise revenues from system users based on benefits they derive or the costs they impose on the system.

• Preserve local options – remove existing restrictions on local and regional revenue-raising authority and avoid enacting new limitations or pre-emptions.

ElementsMaintenance

1. Increase funds to safely operate and maintain the existing transportation system with improved reliability and efficiency using the following by:

2015




• Indexing taxes and fees to some standard that prevents the loss of revenue and purchasing power of state high-way funds.

• Increasing the gas tax and registration fees and imple-menting a reformed fee structure (as recommended in the 2013 Oregon Department of Motor Vehicles Cost of Services Study).

2. Provide additional funding for Cascades AMTRAK service to cover the loss of federal and state funds.

3. Provide additional state funding for elderly and disabled transit service.

Modernization

1. Increase funding for distribution to the state in support of projects of statewide significance and for enhancement projects managed by cities, counties and regional orga-nizations such as Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and/or Area Commissions on Transportation (ACTs).

2. Increase ConnectOregon multi-modal funding using lot-tery bonds in the 2015-2017 biennium.

3. Establish a dedicated Multi-Modal Trust Fund analogous to the State Highway Trust Fund, using lottery dollars.

4. Provide additional funding to facilitate the transfer of road miles between the Oregon Department of Transpor-tation (ODOT) and local governments to better align ownership and management responsibilities.

Policy and Planning

1. Develop a 10-year multi-modal needs assessment to establish and quantify the operational maintenance and improvement needs of the transportation system statewide.

2. Recommend that state transportation planning efforts include findings about the interconnectivity of modes in order to maximize the efficient use of resources.

3. Incentivize the co-location of ODOT and local govern-ment road maintenance facilities as appropriate.

Again, it is important to note that, as of this writing, the “elements” as described above are still being negotiated by the OTF membership and may or may not become part of the organization’s legislative proposal.

Mr. Campbell is the president of the Oregon Transportation Forum.


Ad space



Learning and Networking: The 2014 LOC Conference

More than one-half of Oregon’s cities gathered in Eugene at the League’s 89th Annual Conference. The content-rich program was built on the League’s

2015 legislative priorities: property tax reform; marijuana regulation; transportation funding; protecting cities’ right of way authority; and mental health resources. General sessions, tours and concurrent sessions set the stage for an educational opportunity for members to learn about the top city issues in ways that spotlighted large and small city experiences around the state.

In their evaluations of the conference, LOC members had this to say:

The concurrent session topics were varied and applicable to elected officials, appointed managers and department supervisors/program delivery staff…

One of the best conferences, keep innovating and trying new things to keep it fresh…Great conference, we’ll be there next year…

As a new councilor, I found this was a great way to meet other city officials and compare notes…

I have attended about 15 conferences, this was informative, inter-esting and seemed well-managed…

This year’s conference was particularly informative because organizers dedicated a lot of program to marijuana legalization and property tax reform—two of Oregon’s most pressing issues regard-less of where you live.

In case you missed this year’s LOC Conference, the following pages bring you content highlights from the sessions and tours on marijuana, homelessness, home rule and veterans issues.

The League has posted videos of the speeches and general session remarks on our conference web page, www.orcities.org/conference. Mayor Brean, Mayor Truax, Mayor Piercy, Dave Frohnmayer, Senator Wyden and our Executive Director Mike McCauley share their mes-sages to those members who were not able to attend.


What You Need to Know About Medical MarijuanaThe room was filled to capacity and extra chairs had to be

brought in twice for this highly anticipated session, which included four panelists, each with different perspectives and areas of expertise.

The Legal Framework and Local ControlLeague of Oregon Cities (LOC) General Counsel Sean O’Day began the session with an overview of state and federal law with an emphasis on HB 3460, which establishes Oregon’s medical marijuana dispensary system. Passed in 2013, that bill directed the Oregon Health Authority to establish rules for a medical marijuana facility registration system. It included other provisions regarding criminal background checks for owners, security measures, testing for marijuana, and criteria for the location of a dispensary. This bill allowed card holders to transfer excess marijuana to dispensaries for sale to other card holders.

O’Day then discussed whether cities could regulate or ban medical marijuana dispensaries and two important Oregon court cases that bear on that issue.

The first case O’Day discussed is La Grand/Astoria v. Public Employees Retirement System, which interpreted the home rule provision in the Oregon Constitution. O’Day explained that the case provides for a two-pronged test to determine if a city was preempted by the state from enacting local civil ordinanc-es. Specifically, local government enactments are presumed valid unless state law states it is expressly preempted or the state enactment operates to foreclose a local choice. The statute that expressly states local governments cannot adopt tobacco or alcohol taxes is an example of a state law that meets the first prong. Oregon public meetings laws, which require notice and open meetings, is an example of a state law that meets the second prong. In summarizing the difference between home rule and Dillon’s Rule states (states without home rule), O’Day stated, home rule authority allows local governments to say, “Show me where it says I can’t, not where it says I can.”

With that test in mind, O’Day explained why in the League’s view none of the legislation surrounding medical marijuana or medical marijuana dispensaries would preempt local regulation. O’Day noted that not everyone agrees with the League’s view, and that there are those in the state, including the attorney general, who have taken the position that HB 3460 and other legislation prohibits cities from enacting a ban on medical marijuana dispensaries. However, even if state law preempted local governments from regulating marijuana dispensaries, the other case O’Day discussed has the potential of removing the effect of those preemptions.

That case is Emerald Steel Fabricators v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, which involved whether an employer had to pro-vide an accommodation for an employee who held a medical marijuana card. In deciding that issue the court upheld the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act’s (OMMA) provision of im-munity from state prosecution for people in compliance with the act, but the court decided that any right the act gave the employee was preempted by the federal Controlled Substance Act (CSA). Consequently, the employer did not have to give the employee an accommodation under Oregon law.

Applying that case to whether cities may regulate or enact bans, O’Day explained that the Emerald Steel case makes clear that the state may not grant individuals a right to engage in conduct otherwise prohibited by federal law. As such, O’Day said “there is an open legal question whether the state can tell local governments that they are preempted from prohibiting conduct that the state itself cannot authorize under federal law.” In addition, when it comes to the issuance of business licenses, development permits, or other regulatory approvals, O’Day said there is substantial doubt in the municipal legal community that the state could compel local governments to take an action that would violate federal law. “A state law that says local governments can’t base permitting decision on whether the applicant will violate federal law is tantamount to the state telling local governments they must issue those permits,” O’Day said.

O’Day explained that these issues and the ability of local governments to enact bans on dispensaries are at issue in a lawsuit filed by Cave Junction, in which the city is seeking a judicial determination of whether the city has the authority to prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries from operating within their community. As that case makes its way through the court system, O’Day cautioned that any city considering regulating or prohibiting dispensaries should consult their city attorney. (Editor’s Note – On October 16, a Josephine County Circuit Court ruled that state law does not preempt the city of Cave Junction from enacting bans on dispensaries. Although that ruling is binding only in Josephine County, it signals the direction that other courts might go when faced with similar issues.)

Emerging Issues and Potential LegislationScott Winkels, a lobbyist for LOC, shared his observation that the marijuana industry is burgeoning and developing new products faster than legislation and policy can keep up. A variety of “medibles” (edible products that contain THC) have been developed, including certain candies that have caused concern about the risk of marketing products that may prove to be attractive nuisances to children. Winkels noted other issues relating to the local impact of marijuana facilities, including:

89th Annual Conference


• Nuisance issues – odor, grow lights, smoke, and generator noise;

• Location and zoning – near schools, residential areas, places where children congregate;

• The accessibility of grow sites – security/police concerns, attractive nuisances;

• Water quality – fertilizers, chemicals;

• Building issues – fire and building inspectors, mold; and

• Public Safety – fire inspections and criminal background checks.

Winkels said that he anticipated the Legislature would con-sider (but may not adopt) legislation attempting to address those issues. These include: requiring permits for dispensary employees; regulating value-added manufactures; limiting quantity of sales to one person; regulation of marketing; and clarifying land use, zoning and building codes.

Local Time, Place and Manner ConsiderationsNext, Tigard Mayor John L. Cook shared his city’s experienc-es in considering imposing time, place and manner restrictions on dispensaries. In addition to providing attendees with a list of options to consider (such as locations, hours of operation and signage), he recommended that city councils consider-ing regulating marijuana dispensaries engage the community in the discussion. In deference to the cloud of uncertainty surrounding marijuana policy, Mayor Cook advised that in establishing ordinances, it would be wise for cities to tie marijuana regulation to pre-existing corollary regulations and standards in other industries, such as alcohol. Doing so, Mayor Cook noted, could potentially stave off litigation or, at least, improve a city’s position in litigation.

A View Inside the Dispensary IndustryWrapping up the session, Cottage Grove City Councilor Jake Boone, who operates a medical marijuana dispensary, provided unique insights on how the medical marijuana industry oper-ates and related issues, which proved to be interesting and educational. Councilor Boone’s presentation led to an active question and answer session with attendees. From one ques-tion, attendees learned that traditionally marijuana is weighed in ounces, but statute dictates the unit of measure for sales be metric. Another question led Councilor Boone to explain and put into perspective commonly sold amounts and prices of marijuana. He clarified that some marijuana items are sold in 0.5 gram portions and that there are 3.5 grams in one-eighth of an ounce (which is a commonly sold weight), and that an ounce sells for between $220 and $280 (quality dependent).

As evidenced by the number of audience members who stayed after the presentation to seek more information from the panelists, the allotted time frame was not sufficient to fully ex-amine this controversial subject. The following is a summary of the panelists’ overall messages:

• Consult your respective city attorney prior to commencing any policy changes;

• The League is continuing to support home rule and legisla-tive remedies to address local concerns;

• While developing polices, a best practice would be incorpo-rate established pre-existing guidelines when available; and

• The industry supports regulation so that owner/operators know the bounds in which they can operate.


(l to r) Panelists Sean O’Day, Scott Winkels, Tigard Mayor John Cook and Cottage Grove Councilor Jake Boone discuss medical marijuana to a packed room during the LOC Conference.



Home Rule: Drawing the Line Between Cities & Counties

The League of Oregon Cities (LOC) was formed in 1925 with the goal of preserving city home rule authority.

Although the state has, at times, attempted to curb that authority, counties and cities traditionally have not had many conflicts involving their respective home rule powers. Recent issues involving the interplay between city and county home rule authority, however, provided the backdrop for this ses-sion, facilitated by LOC General Counsel Sean O'Day.

Home rule cities have the right to local self-government, including: the power to regulate for the protection of the public health, safety, morals and welfare; the power to license and tax; and the power to incur debt. A 1906 constitutional amendment granted Oregon cities home rule authority, allow-ing cities to exercise extensive lawmaking authority through adoption of a city charter.

In contrast, the constitutional amendment granting home rule authority to Oregon counties was not adopted until 1958, and only nine of Oregon’s 36 counties have home rule charters. The remaining counties also enjoy home rule authority, however, because a 1973 statute granted all other counties—known as general law counties—the equivalent of home rule authority.

Each panelist discussed a current situation in which a city and county are testing the extent of their local authority. Lance Powlison, the right of way and contracts coordinator for Or-egon City, began by discussing his city’s recent experience im-posing right of way usage fees on a county entity. Oregon City adopted an ordinance imposing a right of way usage fee on all entities using the city’s right of way, including a Clackamas County entity. In response, Clackamas County filed a lawsuit alleging that the right of way fee is a property tax that should not apply to county property. That case was still pending at the time of the presentation.

Troutdale Mayor Doug Daoust next discussed an issue that his city recently encountered involving whether home rule county ordinances apply in incorporated areas in the absence of city consent. Multnomah County passed a gun ordinance that purported to “apply countywide,” with some exceptions. In response, Troutdale passed an emergency ordinance assert-ing that the county ordinance did not apply within the city without the city’s consent. Five citizens also challenged the county ordinance, arguing that it did not apply in incorpo-rated cities unless those cities consented. The judge dismissed the case before addressing the extent of the county’s author-ity but indicated that the county ordinance did not apply in Troutdale given the adoption of the emergency ordinance.

Eugene City Attorney Glenn Klein wrapped up the panel by discussing Lane County’s recent adoption of ordinances purporting to preempt the ability of Eugene—and all other cities within the county—to pass any sick leave ordinances that would apply to employees in Lane County. The county adopted those ordinances the same day that Eugene passed a sick leave ordinance that applied to employees working within the city. Eugene’s ordinance has not yet become effective, so the extent of each government’s authority remains unre-solved.

Session attendees learned about emerging issues involving city and county home rule authority and benefitted from hearing about other cities’ experiences.

Ad space



Veterans Issues and How They Impact Our CommunitiesFacilitated by Ontario City Councilor Ron Verini, a retired

veteran, this session examined four pressing veterans issues: mental health, the criminal justice system, housing and employment.

The panelists emphasized that Oregon’s veterans are unique. The state has roughly 350,000 veterans from all eras, and many of Oregon’s newest veterans are from Reserve and National Guard units. In addition, because Oregon does not have a military base, Oregon’s veterans live throughout the state. They also face unique challenges, including an unem-ployment rate above the national average for veterans. Given those challenges, the panelists noted that although many veterans reintegrate well into their communities, some need additional support in making that transition.

Dr. David W. Greaves, Ph.D., chief of psychology at the Vet-erans Administration Medical Center in Portland, opened the workshop by addressing mental health issues. He explained that many returning veterans find their home environment has changed. In addition, newly returning service members who have served multiple tours may be expecting redeploy-ment, making it difficult to fully transition back to civilian life. On top of that, veterans are five times more likely to have mental health conditions, including post-traumatic stress dis-order. Dr. Greaves emphasized, however, that there are many services available to veterans, ranging from those provided at VA hospitals and community clinics to a call center for veterans in crisis.

Élan Lambert, the veteran treatment court coordinator in Marion County, next discussed three programs in Oregon that aim to help veterans who encounter the criminal justice sys-tem: Veterans Protocol, Veterans Docket, and Veterans Court. Although the programs vary in their specifics, the judges and advocates are familiar with veterans’ issues, and each program connects veterans to appropriate services, benefits and treat-ment. The result is that veterans get appropriate services, while addressing the issues that brought them into contact with the criminal justice system.

Veterans can also struggle with housing issues; to date, 7,000 Oregon veterans are homeless. Eugene City Manager Jon Ruiz shared some of the housing programs that his city has used to help homeless veterans obtain permanent housing. Those programs help veterans overcome some of the barriers to housing by, for example, changing the screening criteria,

providing subsidies, and offering ancillary support services. The city has experienced great success, with one program transitioning 100 percent of its participants into permanent housing.

Finally, Jim Booker from the Oregon Employment Department discussed the advantages of hiring veterans. Veterans are part of the local community, and they have universal job skills, including technical, interpersonal and leadership skills. Ad-ditionally, employers hiring veterans know that, to enter the military, the veteran had to meet exacting requirements like those employers often use to screen applicants.

The panelists provided attendees with new perspectives on veterans’ issues and offered innovative ways for local govern-ments to help veterans reintegrate into their communities.


Eugene’s Homeless ServicesMichael Wisth from the city of Eugene led a group of 23

conference attendees on a guided tour highlighting four efforts to combat homelessness. Components of a much larger system, the four sites illuminated the complexity of the issue, the array of people who are in need of services and the myriad of potential programs aimed at helping citizens in need. The sites operate under different financial models, all of which have proven successful.

The first stop was a “rest stop” which provides temporary housing for up to 15 people. In the effort to help homeless people, particularly those who are chronically homeless, some-times the best method proves to be the simplest. The rest stop is this sort of place. It first opened in December 2013 on a small city-owned parcel of land in a residential/commercial district with space for 15 shelters. The simple and versatile shelters consist of a raised wooden platform covered by insu-lated plastic and can be transformed into a “conestoga” hut or used to simply raise a tent off of the wet ground and protect it from rain. As with most of Eugene’s homeless programs, the rest stop is run by a non-profit organization that provides an onsite helper (one of the residents). The structures are not plumbed or wired, so a large fire pit in the center of the site provides not only heat, but a gathering point where residents can socialize and support each other. The residents also volunteer on a bi-weekly basis to help maintain parks through litter patrol and weeding. The rest stops are only available to adults and have proven to be a launching point for residents to transfer into more stable housing.

The second stop was the Eugene Mission, which has been operating since 1956. This non-profit, faith-based organiza-tion provides services including a dry place to hang out and do laundry, a post office and a cafeteria providing meals. In ad-dition, the mission helps those in need tackle long-term per-sonal issues through the Life Change program. The mission operates men’s and women’s shelters, with 275 beds for men and 65 for women. Men and women are housed separately, and there is a shelter for mothers with children. The mission

does not accept any government money and subsists solely on private donations.

The third stop, “Opportunity Village,” operates much like the rest stops, except that a majority of the shelters are “tiny houses.” As with the rest stop, these shelters are not plumbed or wired but do provide a larger living space than a tent. The houses sit on a small “yard,” allowing residents to custom-ize the house and yard. A non-profit organization owns the houses and operates the site. The only requirement from the city was to allow the city-owned land to be utilized for this purpose (it had been a mobile home park). The city modified the existing car camping ordinance to include conestoga huts and tiny houses (both of which are easily moved and taken down, and therefore “mobile”).

The final tour stop was First Place Family Center, which is a program of St. Vincent De Paul. This shelter is open year-


A “conestoga” hut at a Eugene homeless “rest stop.”



round from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and provides a safe and dry place for entire families to congregate, socialize, study, use computers and do laundry. First Place has provided other education programs in the past, but due to funding shortages, its early education programs have disappeared. First Place is continuing to identify the needs of the community and to find ways to fulfill those needs. The program partners with students at the University of Oregon and has previously worked with dedicated professionals who were willing to work for lower wages in order to gain experience and better serve the com-munity.

The efforts Eugene has taken to serve the poor and homeless in the community underscore how critical it is to understand

the diverse sub-populations that comprise this group. Eugene’s ultimate goal is to end homelessness, and the first step in the process of developing anti-poverty and homeless programs is to understand the causes and characteristics of homelessness. If their immediate and future needs are to be met, it is essential that homeless residents have a voice in program development. Other key partners in this process are non-profit organizations and volunteers. For Eugene these groups have been invaluable in working directly with the homeless and reducing costs to the city. The willingness on the city’s part to be creative and engage in programs that may not fit a traditional model has enabled a number of individuals and families to transition into more stable housing and ultimately improve their personal and financial health.

Conference attendees toured the Eugene Mission and the Opportunity Village, a homeless site made up of tiny houses.

Ad space



Infrastructure Finance and PlanningThe three speakers, Todd Chase, DJ Heffernan and Susan

Wright, led city officials through the intricacies of infra-structure financing.

Wright, an engineer with Kittleson & Associates, began with a presentation on transportation system planning and steps cities can take to fund projects as part of a 20-year plan. She reviewed five steps that cities should take to ensure that their transportation projects receive funding, beginning with an updated transportation system plan (TSP). While TSPs have historically been unconstrained financially, Oregon law was amended in 2007 to require the development of financially constrained scenarios in order to look at what projects are re-alistic in a 20-year period. In addition, Wright said cities need to focus on all modes of transportation when updating plans. The second step is to project and estimate likely transporta-tion funding levels. The third is to categorize the projects into one of three categories: financially constrained, preferred plan, and vision plan. Step four includes defining the goals and objectives met or outcomes achieved by each project. The last step is to research and evaluate funding options.

Mr. Chase, a senior project manager for FCS GROUP, explained the importance of involving the community when funding projects included in capital improvement plans (CIPs) and TSPs. Opportunities for public comment have changed with technology, so holding public meetings may not be the best way to reach people anymore. Cities should consider building an interactive website dedicated to the project so citizens can comment and stay informed at their convenience. A good example is the city of Tigard’s website for their River Terrace community plan, which can be found at www.river terracetigard.com. It is imperative that cities receive feedback and get buy-in from the citizens, as limited public feedback can lead to resistance later. After public input is gathered and analyzed, a city needs to identify its potential funding source or sources. Chase recommended presenting the city council with a variety of funding scenarios. The funding sources will likely be different depending on the type of project. Once funding is dedicated, cities need to communicate the goals and progress of the project to residents. Communicating the economic and financial benefits is also key for future success.

Mr. Heffernan, owner of the Daniel Heffernan Company, closed the session with a specific case study regarding the city of Vernonia’s capital facility program. Over an 11-year period, Vernonia has seen the largest saw mill in Oregon close and has survived “500-year floods” in 1996 and 2007. The floods destroyed the community’s schools, 90 residences and disabled

the sewer plant, resulting in huge public improvements that had to be funded. Citizens responded by approving bonds to build new schools with double the capacity, and the city received a loan from the Department of Environmental Qual-ity for the wastewater treatment plant. As the city moved forward, staff discovered several master plans are out of date. According to Heffernan, a master capital plan should have three sections: a statement of purpose (how to use); individu-al chapters for each system and special project; and a financial pro forma, which should forecast revenue and expenses seven years out to determine how much is left for capital projects. In closing, Heffernan stressed that officials should keep the plans simple, manage expectations, and focus on community interests and needs. He also advised shifting the discussion away from positions that lead to arguments, instead focusing on programs that aim for solutions.



Economic Forecasting: Challenges & Opportunities

This session was presented by Tim Duy from the University of Oregon and Mark McMullen

from the state Office of Economic Analysis. The speakers focused on trends at the national, state and regional levels, utilizing key indicators from the housing and employment sectors. Current and historical trends were compared in order to get a sense of how the current economic recovery compared to prior post-recession economic activity. Additional intra-state comparisons were discussed to illustrate how different regions in Oregon were faring, particularly with regard to the impact of migration patterns.

For the short- and long-term, economic trends at all levels (federal, state and local) were generally optimistic. At the lo-cal level there are some stark disparities in the rate of recovery between larger cities (Salem and Portland) and smaller cities, especially those in rural areas.

The federal economic picture definitely impacts local fore-casts. On the positive side, at the national level nonfarm payrolls continue to rise, as do industrial production and home values. The real gross domestic product is improving, although not as dramatically as expected. Unemployment rates are on the decline thanks to relatively consistent job growth, but there are signs of underemployment as evidenced by a decline in labor force participation.

As a whole, Oregon follows national trends. The state’s economy is rebounding and will continue to do so, although not as dramatically as in previous recoveries. Housing prices are stable, and employment has come back to a pre-recession level. Portland has by far seen the fastest job recovery, with Salem, Bend, Eugene-Springfield and Medford also doing well. Economic activity in Portland continues to rise, unemploy-ment rates continue to decline, residential housing permits continue to trend upward and nonfarm payrolls (in terms of number of employees) are near or above pre-recession levels.

In the Rogue Valley, economic activity is improving but is still below 2007 levels. This is partially due to the fact that south-ern Oregon is not getting as many “in-migrants” as it has his-torically. In addition, several counties are facing a population change as death rates are greater than birth rates and workers are migrating to other parts of the state. In Grant, Harney, Union and Baker counties, the population losses (to other states and counties) are exceeding gains. By contrast, several counties are gaining population from other states and coun-ties, including Deschutes, Washington, Clackamas, Wheeler and Gilliam. Columbia County is gaining more migrants from other Oregon counties than they are losing to other states, while a number of counties, such as Curry, are seeing an in-crease in population from other states that is higher than the their losses to other Oregon counties. Because of the inward migration, Oregon will have an advantage over other states.

Finally, in looking at job growth across the state, the speakers said high-wage jobs are seeing growth, particularly in manage-ment, architecture, computer and math, and business and finance. Additionally, lower wages jobs are seeing growth in agriculture and personal care. Growth in middle wage jobs is mixed, with the highest growth in teachers and community service. Overall, this leads to a “tepid” outlook in Oregon’s employment.

In closing, Duy and McMullen advised cities to do what they can to prepare and save for another possible recession in three to five years.

Economist Tim Duy discussed Oregon’s economic future during a session at the LOC Conference.



The Legislature: A 2015 Preview and the Role of Local Officials in Affecting Positive Outcomes

In discussing future legislation, Senator Lee Beyer (D-Spring-field) provided the good news: specifically, revenues are

growing. However, he also noted some bad news: so are state expenses. In 2015, legislators will be looking at increasing revenues for schools, not only to educate and train a statewide work force for employers, but also for safety concerns, espe-cially for schools vulnerable to possible earthquakes and floods. Senator Beyer said this increase in funds is urgent.

Representative Cliff Bentz (R-Ontario) discussed the chal-lenge of introducing newly-elected legislators to the House in January and helping them become knowledgeable lawmakers who bring proposals to the Legislature and winnow new legisla-tion into well written law. Some of his other concerns were the management of the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) and what the Supreme Court will decide mid-session.

Asked to discuss the challenges facing the state, the legislators mentioned distribution of lottery money, services to seniors and low income children and public safety. They also men-tioned the pressures on schools, economic development, and the threat of a “water grab” by the state of California. Rep. Bentz also urged assistance for businesses in accessing cleaner air methods.

Serving as facilitator and panelist, LOC Legislative Director Craig Honeyman asked what the Legislature would be priori-tizing in its assistance to cities. Beyer and Bentz mentioned property tax reform through voter control, reset at sale, and changes in property ratios. They said cities consider their property tax system as sacred and local control allows cities to have conversations about property taxes. Rep. Bentz said too often reforms are “at the mercy of the shrillest voices.” He said his constituents are talking change but polling suggests the public is unwilling to change. More citizen education is needed to understand and accept the problems in financing city and local governments.

Regarding transportation funding, Senator Beyer urged a mod-est increase in the gas tax, noting that inflation is affecting re-pair costs. He suggested more freight should move on railroads instead of highways. The panelists also discussed bike and pedestrian paths as part of transit systems and whether farmers would approve a road tax since rural roads are in bad shape.

As for the “hottest topic,” all three speakers pointed to the legalization of marijuana and the related issues of public safety, local control, exposure to children and land use. Rep. Bentz said his constituents are against legalization, but if it passes, they want proper controls. Sen. Beyer urged the audience to go slowly in implementing policy if the statewide initiative

passes, with children’s exposure to legalized marijuana repre-senting the top concern. The group likened surveillance of marijuana to that of liquor and over-the-counter drug controls.

The discussion then turned to mental health, and Sen. Beyer and Rep. Bentz expressed concern for the high numbers of individuals suffering from mental illness who end up in jails, as well as how to measure the success of mental health programs. All three speakers expressed dismay over the growing costs of mental health programs.

The final topic of discussion was water allocation, which both legislators described as a “big deal,” particularly on the east side of the state. They also noted the threat of drought in the southwest corner of the state.

The session closed with a question from Honeyman about the best way for city officials to have an effective dialogue with their legislators. Beyer and Bentz agreed that the best time is when they are not in session. They regretted that while they hear from mayors often, they rarely hear from city councilors and encouraged a stronger dialogue with city officials.



The Future of Communication – Social Media Serving as facilita-

tor, West Linn City Councilor Thomas Frank kicked off the session with an overview of all things social media. He used an eye-opening video from Erik Qualman on Socialnomics, identify-ing social media as not only a relevant method of communication, but one necessary to reach a complete representation of a target audience.

Frank identified a key concept of social media: technology facilitates communication. The traditional man-ner of communication can be viewed as one-way, controlling, domineering and implying exclusivity. Engaging in social media avoids some of these perceptions by encouraging open communication, engaging the audience to post on Facebook, allowing comments on one’s Facebook page, and responding to comments in a timely fashion. Frank suggested the use of intriguing photos and to ensure the posts offer something posi-tive for the audience.

Following Frank was Eugene Community Outreach Coordi-nator Laura Hammond, who illustrated the need for a city to establish social media guidelines. The city of Eugene has 51 social media accounts, and decentralization allows for communication to be delivered by someone who is most knowledgeable. Hammond recommended the identification of target audiences and connecting them in ways they prefer. She touched on the utilization of social media during inclem-ent weather and said that an organization should have a plan, monitor accounts and respond regularly.

Next, St. Helens Communications Officer Crystal Farnsworth outlined tactics for successful use of social media as a com-munication medium. She illustrated how social media can be maximized through Facebook Insights and Twitter analytics. Farnsworth also demonstrated how a city can track likes on Facebook, the reach of a page, how often that page is visited, the frequency and type of posts, and visitors through their Facebook account. In addition, Twitter analytics enables users to track tweets, impressions, engagements, retweets and followers. Both tools allow users to identify trends and de-termine what types of posts receive the most attention. This

empowers a city to use social media as a tool which improves efficient and effective service delivery and increases the en-gaged population.

The final speaker was Sara Hottman, public information of-ficer for Portland Mayor Charlie Hales, whose social media accounts have 35,000 followers. Hottman advice on respond-ing to social media comments? Answer questions but ignore the inevitable “trolls,” which are defined as “individuals who sow discord on the Internet.” Hottman also said hashtags can be an enigma, and the best intentioned hashtag can go awry. But, she also noted hashtags are a useful tool to use when publicizing events or community service initiatives, when partnering with another agency, and further an administra-tion’s reach when attendees tag the administration. A vital point from Hottman’s presentation was to focus on visual, distinct posts and to be active. But not too active…

Together, the panel managed to pinpoint the best aspects of social media and arguing points as to why a city should use it. The trick is to train staff and elected officials and maintain the proper amount and type of content to bring even the smallest administration into the digital community.

West Linn City Councilor Thomas Frank shares social media best practices.

Join us next year in Bend!90th Annual ConferenceSeptember 24-26, 2015

Riverhouse Conference Center


Award for Excellence – Small CityCity of Wheeler Annual Clean Up Day

Helen & Alan Berg Good Governance AwardCity of St. Helens What’s Your Waterfront?


City Award Winners Exceptional Service Award Winners

Award for Excellence – Large CityCity of Beaverton Beaverton Sobriety Opportunity for Beginning Recovery (B-SOBR)

Civic Education AwardLisia Farley

West Linn-Wilsonville School District

Herman Kehrli AwardMatt Winkel

City Manager, Bandon

James C. Richards Memorial Award

John McArdle Mayor, Independence


89th Annual Conference Thank You Conference Sponsors

Signature

University

Gold

Silver

Bronze

Contributing

AMECAmerescoBeery, Elsner & HammondCH2M HILL

FCS GROUPJohnson ControlsMiller Nash LLP

Northwest Playground Equipment

Piper JaffrayPIVOT Architecture

RH2 Engineering Inc.Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc.Rowell Brokaw ArchitectsWaste Management of

Oregon

AssetWorks, Inc.Avista UtilitiesBullard Law

Edward McGlone Law Offices

Garvey Schubert BarerHawkins Delafield & Wood

Jensen Strategies, LLCMerserau Shannon LLPRegence Blue Cross Blue

Shield

Rural Community Assistance Corporation

USDA Rural Development


“Claimology”A Science that Can Save Your City Money

By Scott Moss, MPA, CPCU, ARM-E, ALCM

Thirty years ago this month I started my career as a public entity risk manager at the University of Utah. I still re-call my first claim. The backflow valve in the engineer-

ing building boiler failed, sending boiling hot water through the cold water pipes. I still giggle when I think of the engi-neering student who flushed the urinal only to have it explode into thousands of pieces in front of him when the boiling hot water hit the cold porcelain. (Happily, he was not injured.)

For 30 years now, I have studied the causes of public entity claims—a science I call “Claimology.”

Claimology proposes that all accidents are caused by one of the following factors:

1) Behavior;

2) Faulty design or faulty equipment; or

3) Bad luck/acts of God.

Behavior is by far the largest contributor to claims. Indeed, nearly all claims are rooted in behavior. But it is not only an individual’s behavior that causes claims; team behavior, organizational behavior, and societal behavior can also play significant roles.

In the study of public entity Claimology, high risk factors and preventive factors are identified and analyzed. The following table shows the high risk factors for behavior-based claims.

Behavioral High Risk Factors

• Hiring/employment practices

• Individual behavior

• Team behavior

• Organizational behavior

• Societal factors

Hiring/Employment Practices Risk FactorsMembers of the University of Oregon football team chant, “Win the Day.” To the players, that means that no matter what is ahead, the focus needs to be on winning the game they’re playing. In our hiring practices we need to “Win the Day” with the right candidate. In the study of claims, we fail to do this when we are in a rush and fail to follow correct hir-ing processes. When we don’t understand the law and drift

away from sound hiring and employment policies and practic-es, the result is often a claim. Below are factors that can limit risk in hiring employees:

Hiring Preventive Factors

• Clear job expectations.

• Take time and be willing to wait for the best candidate.

• Assessment and background checks to determine the core values and skills of candidate.

• Evaluate the candidate’s knowledge and common sense.

• Never drift away from policies and sound hiring processes.

• Evaluate based solely on a candidate’s ability to perform the job tasks.

Individual FactorsIn my study of public entity claims, I found individual risk factors play a significant role in the frequency and severity of claims.

These factors include the following:

Unclear expectations – the individual does not understand the task he/she is performing, the equipment used, or most frequently, the individual feels like he/she needs to rush to get the job done.

Psychological risk factors – the individual fails to understand or doesn’t want to understand his/her job tasks. He/she might have a higher tolerance for risks and are willing to place him/herself in dangerous situations. Many employees simply will not comply with authority and “do their own thing.” Others lack the mental ability to perform a task safely. I also have found that aggressiveness and depression represent increased risk factors.

Physical risk factors – the individual’s health may also play a role in claims. Increased risks factors include age, strength, agility, overall health, mental health, and substance abuse.



Individual Behavior Preventive Factors

• Ensure that the individual understands the expectations of the tasks, equipment and time frame to complete any task.

• Reconcile the individual’s risk tolerance with the team’s risk tolerance.

• Hold the individual accountable for the expectations of the job and the task.

• Ensure each individual has the proper knowledge (not just the training) to do the task.

• Make each individual a valued member of the team; uplift and encourage.

• Promote core values: honesty, truthfulness, trust, courage.

• Assign tasks within each individual’s physical ability and agility.

Team Risk FactorsI have found that team behavior plays a critical role in claims. In my study of high-risk teams I have found several common fac-tors. If the team has internal conflicts and disputes, an over- or under-controlling leader, a tendency to alienate or neglect team members, or frequent changes, then more claims occur. A team with any of these tendencies may have a higher tolerance for risks than the individual members or the organization as a whole.

Successful teams have fewer accidents and claims. A team su-pervisor can significantly improve the team’s preventive factors. More accidents can be avoided by improving the team’s preven-tive factors than by improving individual behavior.

Team Behavior Preventive Factors

• Team members are committed to each other’s success.

• The team leader provides clear responsibilities.

• Each team member is mutually accountable to one another.

• The team members are committed to a common purpose.

• Team members watch out for each other, have each other’s backs.

• The team has the ability to obtain needed resources, including training.

• There is a low tolerance for unsafe behavior and equipment.

Organizational Risk FactorsIn the study of thousands of claims, I found the root cause was often the public entity’s organizational culture. I found that public entities have a higher tolerance for risks than our pri-vate counterparts. Public entities are often in the position of having fewer controls, less training, lower resources, quicker deadlines, and less employee accountability than the private sec-tor. Claimology concludes that the only thing worse than slow government is fast government. Governments often drift away from sound policies and procedures and make the deviation from them a normal way of doing business. Drifting from policies and best practices leads to increased claims.

Organizational Behavior Preventive Factors

• The organization has and promotes a culture of core values: honesty, openness, truth, courage.

• The organization recognizes and evaluates risk tolerances

• The organization’s approach is to act thoughtfully and deliber-ately—not in a rush to get tasks done.

• The organization provides clear responsibilities and holds employees/elected officials accountable.

• The organization’s approach is to provide appropriate resources.

• The organization maintains infrastructure and equipment.

• There is a low tolerance for unsafe behavior and equipment.

• The organization does not drift away from sound policies and procedures.

Societal Risk FactorsOne is unable to study public entity claims and not see the giant impact of societal risk factors. Public entities operate in a society that expects public entities to have a high tolerance for risks but then holds the entities accountable using a standard that repre-sents a low tolerance of risk: the “do more for less” attitude. For example, taxpayers do not want to pay for the maintenance of government infrastructure, but juries award high payments when the infrastructure fails. In 30 years of studying claims, I have seen a dramatic increase in claimants who see the opportunity for wealth in making claims against public entities. I have also

Claimology (noun)The study of public entity claims causes.


seen juries wanting to punish public entities for any perceived wrongs. We now have to defend police departments in court, not just individual officers. These juries seem not to connect significant financial awards with the fact that they, as local taxpayers, will ultimately pay for them.

Societal Preventive Factors

• Local governments hold and apply core values: honesty, openness, truth, courage.

• The government provides clear responsibilities and holds employees/elected officials accountable.

• Government leaders are a part of the community and seek community input.

• Leaders participate with associations such as LOC and AOC to improve laws impacting local government.

Preventive Resources Provided by CIS to Member CitiesBecause Claimology impacts every CIS-member city, CIS of-fers resources to help avoid the expensive impact of claims.

• Hire-to-Retire program: Dedicated human resource consultants to help cities with hiring and employment practices issues at no cost.

• Pre-loss Legal: Experienced attorneys to assist with em-ployment decisions, also at no cost.

• Risk Management Consultants: Talented and knowl-edgeable risk management consultants to help members understand and mitigate risks.

• Risk Management Bonus: CIS provides financial incen-tives for an Executive Risk Management Team to under-stand your city’s organizational and team culture. Other bonus credits are provided for having a Continuity of Operations plan, a volunteer program, a training program, and having elected officials watch a new CIS video made especially for them.

• Risk Management Incentive Funds: Grant money to reduce liability claims.

• Early Return to Work: Resources to help members’ injured employees return to work.

• Supervisory Training: Annual training to help supervisors keep current with the latest laws and trends.

• CIS Learning Center: Hundreds of online, real-time training videos on a huge variety of subjects.

• CIS Annual Conference: A dynamic conference with a focus on risk management, legal, human resources, ben-efits, agents and public safety.

I encourage you to avoid claims in your city by having your ex-ecutive risk management team consider Claimology principles and take individual, team, organizational and societal preven-tive measures. CIS stands ready to serve you.

Mr. Moss is the property/casualty trust director at CIS (Citycounty Insurance Services).

CIS – CLAIMOLOGY

City News


INDEPENDENCE Recognized for GrowthThe October 9 edition of the Daily Journal of Commerce led with an article recognizing the recent surge of development in Independence (“Growth spurt for Independence”). The city is seeing a mix of activity, including:

• Current construction of a 204-unit apart-ment complex;

• Approval for a 100-unit subdivision;

• A 30,000-square-foot industrial expansion by Universal Seed Co.;

• A 20,000-square-foot industrial expansion by Marquis Spas to add a swim spa produc-tion facility;

• A 14,000-square-foot industrial flex building being built entirely on spec; and

• Renovation to the 119-year-old, two-story downtown Cooper Building, with retail and restaurant space on the ground floor, and apartments/offices on the second.

The lead news in the story, however, was the city’s purchase of a 20-acre parcel in the downtown area abutting the Willamette River. The city is in negotiations with an

investor who’s interested in committing $5-10 million to develop a large hotel on the site. City officials also are hoping that the site gains retail, dining and housing ele-ments. There has been strong interest in the property and it’s not unreasonable to expect development to begin during summer 2015.

Submitted by – City of Independence

CITY NEWS


LA PINE Dream to Skate ParkAccording to La Pine City Council President Stu Mar-tinez, the feeling in the air was “like before a Central Oregon thunder storm….electrifying.”

On September 13, local youth ranging in age from eight to 19 joined Martinez, Mayor Ken Mulenex and Sharon Walling of the La Pine Park and Recreation Board in officially opening the city’s first skate park, also known as the “Dream to Skate” park.

Park construction began in August, when 7 Peaks Pav-ing of Bend put down the foundation: a two-inch thick asphalt pad measuring 20 feet wide by 100 feet long. The majority of the work on the park was donated by area businesses.

Over the past year, Martinez and Walling have worked on fundraising and permitting with a group of local youth skaters knows as “Dream to Skate.” Fundrais-ing efforts allowed La Pine Park and Recreation to purchase ramps from a skate park in Sisters. The city donated property for the project as part of a land transfer from the federal government that required congressional approval.

Sources/photos – City of La Pine; Bend Bulletin

Taylor Bush, president of "The Board" Dream To Skate, welcomes the crowd to the ribbon cutting. In the back ground is the local radio station KITC FM 106.5, who provided a live feed of the ceremony.

CITY NEWS


ST. HELENS Award of DistinctionSt. Helens City Recorder Kathy Payne is the 2014 recipient of the President’s Award of Distinction from the Oregon Association of Municipal Recorders (OAMR). At the associa-tion’s recent annual confer-ence in Bend, OAMR Pres-ident Norma Alley selected Payne for excellence in service to OAMR and her city. She was nominated by her peers and St. Helens Mayor Randy Peterson.

Payne has worked for the city of St. Helens for 13 years. She started as plan-ning secretary in 2001 before becoming executive secretary in 2002. In 2008, she was appointed to serve as the city recorder. On November 9, 2011, she received her Certified Municipal Clerk certification from the International Institute of Munici-pal Recorders. Of the 213 OAMR members, 73 hold the Certi-fied Municipal Clerk title.

In announcing the award, OAMR posted the following on its website:

Kathy Payne has impressed with every committee she has served on over the years. She is diligent, an extremely hard worker, and really dedicated. She’s a quiet force; staying behind the scenes for the most part, but also is an integral piece to what makes OAMR so great. She’s dependable and always has a terrific attitude.

Payne has served on several OAMR committees and currently serves on the OAMR Board as Region I Director.

Sources/photo – City of St. Helens

Have City News to Share? Email us your copy (500 words max.) detailing your city’s notable achievement (i.e., a project, initiative, award or individual honor), preferably with an image.

Contact: Kevin Toon, [email protected]

CITY NEWS


WILSONVILLE Taking Action on TIF ZonesOn Sept. 4, the Wilsonville City Council held a second reading and approved by unanimous vote Ordinance Nos. 745 and 746, terminating three of six “TIF Zones,” the city’s voter-approved, single-property urban renewal districts. Two ordinances were used since the properties were in two counties, Clackamas and Washington, which facilitates the termination process.

The TIF Zones were designed as an economic-development tool to encourage private investment to upgrade older, under-utilized warehouses to modern manufacturing facilities with family-wage jobs and greater accessed value. The three subject properties have either recently been sold as warehouses or other uses or are now occupied as distribution centers—uses that do not qualify for the TIF Zone program.

“The city is demonstrating responsible use of urban renewal to close in a timely manner districts that have served their purpose and are no longer needed,” said Mayor Tim Knapp.

The TIF Zone program was developed during the height of the Great Recession when the economy lost many jobs and tim-ing of an economic recovery was uncertain. In creating the TIF Zones, the Wilsonville City Council acted on the advice of a citizen task force—the Economic Development Strategy Advisory Committee—and the city’s voters, who favored by a 79 percent margin in a special March 2013 advisory election to advance the TIF Zone program as a targeted business-recruit-ment tool.

“In essence, the TIF Zone program provides a partial property-tax rebate for the increase in accessed value that is created due a major renovation of an older building by a manufacturer pay-ing above-average wages,” Knapp said. “In this manner, private investors have an incentive to redevelop older properties and the community gains through increased property values and new high-wage jobs.”

According to Knapp, the TIF Zone program has attracted a number of “big fish” or major employers to look at Wilsonville who may not have previously considered the community as a potential manufacturing location. The program continues to draw the attention of business recruiters as an economic-development incentive and, therefore, provides a “hook” for starting a conversation about Wilsonville’s positive attributes as a location to do business.

Submitted by – City of Wilsonville

CITY NEWS


BAKER CITY #1 Safest City

The SafeWise Report released its “30 Safest Cities in Or-egon” report last month, and Baker City came in at number one. West Linn ranked number two, followed by Jacksonville, Philomath and Sherwood.

SafeWise, a website that provides home security comparisons and personal safety advice, used 2012 crime data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to rank the 30 cities, which all have a minimum population of 2,500 people. In compiling the report, SafeWise looked at crimes from part one of the FBI’s Unified Crime Report (UCR) reported crime data, which focuses on violent crimes (aggravated assault, forcible rape, murder, and robbery) as well as property crimes (arson, burglary, larceny-theft and motor vehicle theft). From there, they calculated the chances of these crimes happening out of a thousand in order to level the playing field for cities of vary-ing populations. From all the cities in Oregon, they narrowed the list down to 30 and assigned rankings according to data provided by the FBI’s UCR report.

“These Oregon cities really exemplify what it means to be a close-knit community,” SafeWise security analyst Rebecca Edwards said. “Half of the cities on our list had less than 10 violent crimes reported in 2012. Being a community of trust-worthy law enforcement and friendly neighbors who look out for each other really makes a difference.”

To see the full list, go to www.safewise.com/blog/30-safest-cities-Oregon.

Source – www.safewise.com

Legal Briefs

The ADA and City Services: Your City’s Duty to Provide Accessible On-Street Parking By Chad Jacobs

Earlier this fall, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal circuit to which Oregon belongs, ruled that cities have an obligation under the Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA) to provide on-street parking that is accessible to persons with disabilities. The court reached this conclusion even though technical specifications for on-street accessible parking spaces do not currently exist in regulations interpreting the ADA. The ruling in the case, Fortyune v. City of Lomita, explained that based on the text of the ADA, the relevant implementing regulations, and the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) interpretation of its own regulations, public entities must ensure that all normal governmental facilities are reasonably accessible to persons with disabilities, irrespec-tive of whether the DOJ has adopted technical specifications for the particular types of facilities involved.

BackgroundCongress enacted the ADA in 1990. The law is intended to eliminate discrimination against persons with disabilities, addressing both “outright intentional exclusion” as well as “failure[s] to make modifications to existing facilities and practices” which may preclude persons with disabilities from achieving equal access to programs and facilities.

Title II of the ADA is the provision of the law that applies to local governments. Specifically, Title II provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity” (42 U.S.C. § 12132). As explained by the courts, whether a particular public function is covered by the ADA turns simply on whether it is “‘a normal function of a government entity.” If it is, then the function is covered by the ADA and local governments must ensure that persons with disabilities have access to such services and programs in order to be in compli-ance with the ADA.

The CaseAn individual with disabilities sued the city of Lomita, Calif., claiming that he was unable to park on city streets due to the

lack of accessible on-street parking spaces. The plaintiff con-tended that, as a paraplegic confined to a wheelchair, he suf-fered great “difficulty, discomfort and even fear for his safety” when parking in the city because there was no accessible, on-street parking. (The plaintiff’s suit was limited to diagonal parking spaces even though the city provides both parallel and diagonal spaces.)

The city argued that the federal standards for design of ADA-compliant facilities do not contain any requirements related to on-street parking, and therefore the ADA did not obligate the city to provide accessible on-street parking spaces. The court rejected this argument.

Relying on previous decisions in which it held that the ADA requires local governments to maintain accessible public sidewalks, even where there were no implementing regula-tions specifically addressing sidewalks, the court concluded that local governments must maintain accessible on-street parking spaces. Specifically, the court explained that “public entities must ensure that all normal governmental functions are reasonably accessible to disabled persons, irrespective of whether the DOJ has adopted technical specifications for the particular types of facilities involved.”

Impact for CitiesAll cities within the Ninth Circuit, which includes every city in Oregon, must now provide accessible on-street parking for new and altered rights of way despite the absence of technical standards. This decision, however, leaves open many ques-tions including the number of necessary accessible, on-street parking spaces that are required by the ADA as well as whether and to what extent these requirements apply to paral-lel parking spaces. The DOJ is expected to eventually adopt accessibility standards for rights of way, which should answer these and other questions related to accessible on-street parking. Until then, cities are encouraged to work with their attorneys to determine what steps, if any, should be taken to remain in compliance with the ADA.

Mr. Jacobs is a partner with Beery Elsner & Hammond LLC.



November11 Albany – Veterans Day Parade (www.albanyvisitors.com)

11-13 Albany – Willamette Valley Ag Expo (www.wvaexpo.com)

15 West Linn – Holiday Bazaar (www.westlinnoregon.gov/parksrec)

23 Oakland – Celebrate the Season Wine and Antique Walk (541-459-4531)

28 Lincoln City – Community Tree Lighting Celebration (www.oregoncoast.org)

28 Rockaway Beach – Christmas Tree Lighting (503-355-2291)

28 The Dalles – Starlight Parade (www.visitthedalles.com)

28-29 Rockaway Beach – Holiday Gift Fair (503-355-2291)

28-30 Seaside – Yuletide in Seaside (www.seasidechamber.com)

29 La Grande – Christmas Parade and Tree Lighting (www.lagrandemainstreet.org)

29-30 Medford – 37th Annual Rogue Valley Railroad Show(www.rvmrc.net)

30 - Klamath Falls – Snowflake Festival (541-883-5351)12/15

December2-30 Oregon City – Christmas Fantasy Trail (www.fantasytrail.com)

4-8 Grants Pass – Rogue Winterfest (www.roguewinterfest.com)

5 Central Point – Community Christmas Lights Parade (www.centralpointoregon.gov)

5 Troutdale – Treelighting Holiday Fest (503-669-7473)

5-6 La Pine – Holiday Lights Parade & Christmas Bazaar (www.lapine.org)

5-20 Sweet Home – Home Sweet Home for Christmas

6

6

6

6

(www.sweethomechamber.com)

Springfield – Holiday Parade (www.springfieldchristmasparade.org)

Forest Grove – Holiday in the Grove

Oakland – Tree Lighting, Caroling & Open House (541-459-4531)

Ontario – Winter Wonderland Parade (www.ontariochamber.com)

6-21 Jacksonville – Victorian Christmas (www.jacksonvilleoregon.org)

12-13 Enterprise – Winterfest Celebration (541-426-3229)

13 Waldport – Christmas in Waldport & Candlelite Bridge Walk (www.waldport-chamber.com)

13 West Linn – Holiday Parade (www.westlinnoregon.gov/parksrec)

City Events JobsAdvertising RatesLOC Members (all categories): $20. Cost includes website posting.

Non-Members: $100. Additional $80 for website posting.

Ads in Local Focus are limited to 100 words. The full text of ads may be posted on the website. To include your ad in Local Focus, submit the ad by the 10th of the month preceding publication. Local Focus is mailed the first week of the month.

Submit ad copy to Jennifer Marks by email, [email protected] (preferred), or fax, (503) 399-4863. The editor reserves the right to edit and/or abbreviate ads. Questions? Contact Jennifer at the email above or by phone at (503) 588-6550.

GRANTS PASS – Parks & Community Development Director

Pop. 34,855. The parks and community development direc-tor is a business professional that possesses a complement of skills including leadership, planning expertise, management, communication skills, and customer focus. The position reports directly to the city manager and leads a team of divi-sion staff responsible for parks, planning and development, building and safety and engineering divisions.

Submit a resume and cover letter to: Human Resources Director Karin Lange at [email protected] by November 14, 2014. EEO/AA

League of Oregon Cities1201 Court St. NE Suite 200Salem, Oregon 97301

PRSRT STDU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDSIPRINT

Helping Cities suCCeed

LEAGUEOregonof

C I T I E S

For mailing list changes, please email [email protected].

RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED

The League would like to acknowledge the following organizations for their continued support of cities through their participation in the annual Business Partners program. Over the years, the generous contributions of our Business Partners have helped the League achieve its goal to provide high-quality service programs to its member cities.On behalf of the 242 incorporated cities in Oregon, the League thanks the following Business Partners for their participation:

Thank You!

Aha Consulting Inc.AmerescoAmerican Leak DetectionAnderson Perry & Associates, Inc.AssetWorks, Inc.Avista UtilitiesBuell RecreationCable Huston Benedict Haagenson

& Lloyd LLPCH2M HILLCitycounty Insurance Services ComcastDataBar, Inc.Edward McGlone Law OfficesEnergy Trust of OregonFair Housing Council of Oregon

FCS GROUPHDR Engineering IncJohnson ControlsJordan Ramis PCKaiser PermanenteMCPcMerserau Shannon LLPMinet FiberNational Purchasing PartnersNorthwest Playground EquipmentOregon Public Health InstituteOregon SolutionsOrrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe LLPPACE EngineersPacific Power

Patterson Buchanan Fobes & Leitch, Inc.

Piper JaffrayPortland State Univ. – Center for

Public ServiceProject Delivery Group, LLCRH2 Engineering Inc.Southern Oregon Credit ServiceSpring City ElectricalTalbot, Korvola & Warwick, LLPThe Building Department, LLCUnion PacificVPCIWaste Management of OregonWedBush Securities Inc.

Beery, Elsner and Hammond, LLPBullard LawCardnoCarothers, Bornefeld & AssociatesCaselle City SoftwareCompViewDAS Procurement ServicesDavis Wright Tremaine LLPDocuSource Print Management

Drive OregonEmerick Construction CompanyGHD Inc.Hawkins Delafield & Wood LLPICMA Retirement Corp.Jensen Strategies, LLCLGPIMurray, Smith & Associates, Inc.

Oregon Association of Water Utilities

Oregon Coast TechnologyOregon Public Purchasing

AssociationP & C ConstructionPortland General Electric (PGE)Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc.Rural Community Assistance Corp.

Gold Level

Silver Level

local - bend, oregon

Documents