The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 07/14/2020TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE AND TIME: July 14, 2020 - 6:30 p.m. Study Session; 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION: Remote participation only. Please see explanation under PUBLIC NOTICE below. PUBLIC NOTICE: In accordance with the City of Tigard's Emergency Declaration related to COVID-19 and Oregon House Bill 4212, this will be a virtual meeting where Council and staff will participate remotely. There will be no in-person public testimony during this meeting. How to comment: Written public comment may be submitted electronically at www.tigard-or.gov/Comments . All comments must be submitted before 4:30 p.m. the day of the meeting. If you prefer to call in, please call 503-966-4101 between 7:30 p.m. and 7:45 p.m. to be placed in the queue. We ask that you plan on limiting your testimony to three minutes. VIEW LIVE VIDEO STREAMING ONLINE: http://www.tigard-or.gov/city_hall/council_meeting.php CABLE VIEWERS: The regular City Council meeting is shown live on Channel 28 at 7:30 p.m. The meeting will be rebroadcast at the following times on Channel 28: Thursday 6:00 p.m. Friday 10:00 p.m. Sunday 11:00 a.m. Monday 6:00 a.m. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE AND TIME:July 14, 2020 - 6:30 p.m. Study Session; 7:30 p.m. Business Meeting MEETING LOCATION:Remote participation only. 6:30 PM 1.STUDY SESSION A.DISCUSSION OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY 6:30 p.m. estimated time B.COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 7:00 p.m. estimated time 7:30 PM 2.BUSINESS MEETING A.Call to Order B.Roll Call C.Pledge of Allegiance D.Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 3.PUBLIC COMMENT (Two Minutes or Less, Please) A.Follow-up to Previous Public Comment B.Update from Police Chief McAlpine C.Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce D.Public Comment – Sign Up Sheet 4.QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING: BULL MOUNTAIN SUMMIT ANNEXATION (ZCA-2020-00001) 7:50 p.m. estimated time 5.UPDATE ON SENIOR HOUSING ALONGSIDE THE TIGARD SENIOR CENTER PROJECT 8:10 p.m. estimated time 6.LEAGUE OF OREGON CITIES LEGISLATIVE AGENDA 8:45 p.m. estimated time 7.RACIAL JUSTICE AND CITY ACTION 9:00 p.m. estimated time 8.NON AGENDA ITEMS 9.ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 10.EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If an Executive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable statute. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(4), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 11.ADJOURNMENT 9:45 p.m. estimated time Tigard Police DepartmentStrategic Dashboard for June 2020Online Crime ReportsSelected Group A OffensesAssaultPerson CrimeRobberyJun-19 Jun-20 % Chg 2019 YTD 2020 YTD % Chg27 46 70.37% 197 210 6.60%25 41 64.00% 162 177 9.26%1 2 100.00% 16 9 -43.75%03535(Beginning July 2020)SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR JULY 14, 2020 AGENDA ITEM 3B Tigard Police DepartmentStrategic Dashboard for June 2020 City Council Update July 2020 Chamber Update Leadership Tigard The Leadership Tigard class met today (7/14/20) for the last class over Zoom. Today was non-profit day. We have 16 students that will be graduating on July 29. We invite you to watch the graduation ceremony at 5:15 PM on the Leadership Tigard Facebook page or the Tigard Chamber YouTube channel. This year’s class project was putting in a playground for Family Promise of Tualatin Valley. Education, Advocacy, & Building a Strong Local Economy •7/16/2020 - Gov’t Affairs & Public Policy Committee Meeting The Washington County Business Recovery Centers (BRC) has opened in Tualatin at the Tualatin Chamber of Commerce. They exist to connect business owners in Washington County, Oregon, to the resources needed to recover. The Business Recovery Centers are funded by the C.A.R.E.S. Act to provide community businesses with access to complimentary, individualized business consulting services. Chambers are lobbying for temporary and targeted liability relief related to COVID-19. We had our Annual Meeting at the end of June. Tim McBratney with Pacific Residential Mortgage has served 10 years on our board and rolled off. Paul Ridlon with Burgerville, Maria Halstead with Washington Square and Dr. Sue Rieke-Smith with the Tigard Tualatin School District are our new board members that were voted in. Promoting Community •The Tigard Chamber of Commerce scholarship winners have been selected and contacted. We will be announcing winners soon. •We will be hosting a virtual Tigard Shining Stars Community Awards in early Fall. More details will be released soon. Networking/Visibility Good Morning Tigard (GMT), Thursday A.M. Networking 8 a.m. – Weekly 7/16 – Bridgetown Marketing, 7/23 – The Care Code, 7/30 – SQ Merchant Services Professional Services Affinity Group – 7/21 at 7:30 a.m. Health Care Affinity Group – 8/4 at 7:15 AM Home, Garden & Design – 8/11 at 8 AM Details at http://business.tigardchamber.org/events/calendar/ Tigard Farmers Market Update The market has a full market! Starting this coming Sunday, masks will be required to shop at the market. TDA Downtown Updates The TDA will be launching an art scavenger hunt by the end of July. The goal is to encourage Tigard community members to check out the beautiful art that has been recently added to Downtown Tigard. Find us on Facebook at exploredowntowntigard and at www.exploredowntowntigard.com. Follow us on Twitter @Tigarddowntown and on Instagram at downtowntigard SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR JULY 14, 2020 AGENDA ITEM 3C Meeting of the Tigard City Council July 14, 2020 Public Comment Received 1.Bryan Wolf received on 7/8/2020 – Ascension Drive Parking 2.Russell Glynn received on 7/13/2020 – City Action on Racial Injustice SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR JULY 14, 2020 AGENDA ITEM 3D 1 From:Bryan Wolf <bryanwolf1776@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, July 8, 2020 3:58 PM To:Carol Krager; #Councilmail; Bryan Wolf Subject:Public Comment to City of Tigard - for July 14, 2020 - re: placement of no-parking zone on Ascension Drive Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization. To: Tigard City Council Date: July 8, 2020 Re: Placement of no‐parking zone on SW Ascension Drive I am once again writing to Tigard City Council regarding the City of Tigard’s decision to implement a no‐parking zone on the S‐curve section of SW Ascension Drive. My previous submissions are below. Despite commitments made by the City Council and City staff in the Council meeting of June 9th to 1) seek more input from residents prior to making a decision, 2) implement an engagement website by June 15th, 3) address our outstanding questions with facts and data, 4) take deliberate time in making a decision, and 5) review that decision with City Council prior to implementation, residents were abruptly and without any engagement since the Council meeting informed by email on June 30th by City Engineer Lori Faha that the City was proceeding with implementation of no‐parking on one side of the street. On June 15 th I emailed the City to understand the status of the promised engagement website, and was informed by Carol Krager that indeed the website was delayed, but citizens would be receiving an update shortly by City staff. Instead of an update, or any opportunity to engage, or any answers to our many outstanding questions, we received the notice from Lori on June 30th that the website was up, and posted on it was a decision already made by City staff to proceed with a no‐parking zone on Ascension. Again, this shows high disregard for the citizens on this street who have tried to engage through the appropriate channels, and demonstrates a cavalier attitude by City staff to ignore the direction out of the June 9th meeting and proceed with a project that is not supported by any data or facts. Citizens continue to be perplexed how and why a random inquiry from a city resident who does not live on Ascension, can lead to the City scrambling to take the extreme step of imposing a no‐parking zone on Ascension without any supporting data, and in the face of universal opposition from the residents it is impacting. When pushed again by a question on the website why the City is implementing the no‐parking zone, the City engineer once again responded with this fact‐less answer drawing from two incidents (one of which occurred over a decade ago) that have not been proven to have been caused by sight restrictions on the curves: “In 2010, a driver swerved to avoid a head on-collision with another vehicle in the curves and knocked over a street light pole. In 2018, the City also received reports of a car driving through a private yard, which may have been the result of overcorrecting to avoid colliding with oncoming traffic.” 2 If these incidents are now being judged as so egregious, why was nothing done when they happened back in 2010…or 2018? Regardless, if this is all of the data the City has to justify implementation of a no‐parking zone, then the City has failed in its attempt. And if this is a top priority for the City based on such limited information, then I question the City’s priorities and how they are made. After continually being denied any reasonable data or information on which this fast‐tracked decision is being justified, I can only surmise that the individual who doesn’t live on Ascension, but who has been acknowledged by the City for starting this process, must have ties to the City or influence with the City in some way. Should the City proceed with implementation of a no‐parking zone on Ascension, barring any transparency from the City in addressing our concerns or request for data to substantiate this decision, I will proceed with a Public Information request to understand the full basis for this so‐far unwarranted action, and take further actions as necessary. Again, I respectfully request Tigard City Council to act on behalf of citizens living on Ascension Drive, discontinue the effort to implement a no‐parking zone, and redirect our critical resources to focus on higher priority projects such as mitigating speed on Ascension Drive. Respectfully submitted, Bryan Wolf 13075 SW Ascension Drive Tigard, OR 97223 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Bryan Wolf <bryanwolf1776@gmail.com> Date: Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 1:27 PM Subject: Public Comment to City of Tigard ‐ June 9, 2020 ‐ re: placement of no‐parking zone on Ascension Drive To: carolk@tigard‐or.gov <carolk@tigard‐or.gov> Cc: #Councilmail <councilmail@tigard‐or.gov>, Bryan Wolf <bryanwolf1776@gmail.com>, Maureen Wolf <mowolfcrew@comcast.net> To: Tigard City Council Date: June 9, 2020 Re: Placement of no‐parking zone on SW Ascension Drive 3 I am writing in follow‐up to my public comments on May 26th opposing the City of Tigard’s decision to implement a no‐parking zone on both sides of the S‐curve section of SW Ascension Drive. My submission of May 26th is included below as reference. After having the opportunity to meet with City staff on June 3rd to discuss the basis for the City’s decision, I am again requesting Tigard City Council act on behalf of citizens living in the impacted area and discontinue the effort to implement the no‐parking zone. City personnel and resources should instead be redirected to work with citizens on implementing speed mitigation projects that will actually address the real problem in the neighborhood. My original request to cease implementation of the no‐parking zone was only reinforced by what we learned in a virtual meeting with City staff on June 3rd: 1.Of the three (3) inquiries to the City complaining of parking on the S‐curve, all have come from beyond the impacted community – two from the upper section of Ascension Drive, and one from two subdivisions over on Hillshire Drive (?!). While this is an easy request for these households – none resides in the impacted area, so they benefit from a no‐parking zone by being able to speed through our neighborhood without bearing any of the burden – no additional information was provided as to why their inquiries have all of the sudden taken priority over the speeding concerns long‐voiced by residents living on the S‐curve. 2.No additional data was provided indicating why no‐parking is being prioritized over speed mitigation measures in the name of enhanced safety. Parking on the S‐curve may be an inconvenience for some who want to navigate the curves unencumbered, but the real safety problem is their attempt to speed through the curves. Implementing a no‐parking zone only exacerbates this problem. 3.No feedback in support of the no‐parking zone has been provided by residents in the impacted area. Instead, they (we) all have voiced support for focusing on the real problem in the curves which is excess speed of through‐traffic. In the meeting with City staff on June 3 rd, two other discussion points were eye‐opening as a concerned resident. First, staff indicated that in making the final decision on this matter they would prioritize feedback from impacted residents over feedback beyond the affected community. If that is the case, why are we talking about a no‐parking zone on the S‐curve? Parking had never previously been identified as a problem on the S‐curve in the 22 years we have lived here; impacted residents were never consulted when the initial decision was made; once the decision to impose it came to light, impacted residents have been universally opposed to it; and no meaningful data has been brought to bear by the City in support of it. 4 And second, when asked why the City isn’t focused on the real problem in this neighborhood – speed – and why speed mitigation efforts such as speed bumps are not even being considered, staff replied that speed bumps are problematic, contentious, expensive, and require a lot of work from the City. We were also advised if this is something we want to pursue, we would need to get involved with a City process that is developing traffic priorities, after which we still may not have our concerns met. While I embrace the opportunity to engage with the City on this front, I am struck by the dichotomy of City response afforded those of us who live in the impacted neighborhood, vs. that afforded those who live outside of our community. It appears the City is placing a much heavier burden on impacted residents to implement a known safet y measure (speed bumps) that addresses the real problem in the neighborhood (speed). Conversely, for some yet articulated reason, the City has placed a much lesser burden on, and attempted to fast‐track over the objection of impacted residents, a request from those living outside of the impacted area to implement an unproven safety measure (no‐parking zone) that only serves to address their inconvenience of having to go the speed limit when going through the S‐curves. Let’s redirect City attention and resources to help citizens focus on the real safety problem in the S‐curve (speed), not the inconvenience of the few. Respectfully submitted, Bryan Wolf 13075 SW Ascension Drive Tigard, Oregon 97223 ============================================================ To: Tigard City Council Date: May 26, 2020 Re: Placement of no‐parking zone on SW Ascension Drive 5 I am writing to oppose the City of Tigard’s decision to implement a no‐parking zone on both sides of the S‐curve section of SW Ascension Drive, cited in a letter dated May 19, 2020 and signed by Tegan Enloe, City of Tigard Senior Project Engineer. My concerns include the following: 1) the process by which the decision was made; 2) the data on which the decision was based; 3) how the proposed no‐parking zone exacerbates the real problem (speed), which is not being addressed; and 4) the lack of reasonable mitigation afforded the impacted residents if this no‐parking zone is allowed to go into effect. With regard to the decision process, there was no process that included any engagement or input from the impacted members of the community. The first notice residents received was a letter from the City in April to Ascension Drive residents indicating that a no‐parking zone was being implemented. No data was provided regarding the basis for the decision, nor was there any prior engagement with the impacted community members. Only after pushback from residents who live on the S‐curve did Jason Snider commit in an email dated April 14th to have staff reach out to the community for a dialogue. We are still waiting for that dialogue. Meanwhile a crew was sent on May 21st to begin installing no parking signs, and later that day residents received a letter from the City informing us that it was proceeding with the no‐parking zone, even though the promised dialogue between the City and residents never occurred. Once again, only after pushback from impacted residents did the City agree to delay implementation and seek a conversation with community members in an email from City Manager Marty Wine. The problem is that Marty already admits in that email that the decision is made and any discussion with citizens is purely perfunctory. As I relayed in my email to Marty on May 21st, this is highly disappointing and dismissive of the citizens who live in the impacted area. We expect a more thoughtful and engaged dialogue with our City representatives, not a pre‐ordained dictate. As for the data cited by the City, at best it can be categorized as anecdotal and incomplete, and not something on which to base a major policy decision negatively impacting multiple community members. First, in all of the 6 communications we have received so far, the City indicates it was prompted to go down this path when “contacted by a Tigard community member expressing concern over the drivable width of SW Ascension Drive”. So, the voice of a single community member who may or may not live in the impacted area has driven this decision over numerous households who are directly impacted, but whose voices were not, and still have not been, solicited to weigh in by the City. When pressed further, the City also cites two “crashes” that have occurred in the S‐curves as basis for its decision ‐ a 2010 incident where a driver reportedly swerved to avoid a head on‐collision with another vehicle in the curves and knocked over a street light pole, and a 2018 “report” of a car driving through a private property yard, “which may have been the result of over correcting to avoid colliding with oncoming traffic.” First, both of these incidents, if true, are the direct result of driver liability having failed to abide by Oregon’s basic rule (driver must drive at a speed that is reasonable and cautious for existing conditions) as well as the Duty of Care (operate the vehicle at a reasonable rate of speed, keep the vehicle under proper control, and look out for all situations that could cause an accident). If either driver had been maintaining proper speed, lookout and control, no accidents of the sort described above would have happened. This is not the fault of the curves, but of the drivers. Beyond this, I have a problem with the City citing as a defense of its position a “report” of an accident that “may have been the result of over correcting”. When directly impacting the lives of citizens with a policy, let’s deal in facts, not conjecture. And finally, the fact that the City can only cite two potential incidents as a basis for its decision is insufficient. I am an original home owner who has lived on this street since 1998, and having two incidents over the course of that time places our street equal to or better than any other street or intersection in the area over that same period where no‐parking zones are not being considered. Which brings me to the no‐parking zone itself. The problem on the S‐curve is not parking, the problem on the S‐curve is excessive speeding by drivers. By implementing a no‐parking zone on either side of the S‐curve, the City is only exacerbating that problem by providing an even cle arer shot through the curves. The simple analogy is what has happened on the local roadways during the recent stay‐at‐home order. According to the Oregonian police issued almost 50% more speeding citations during a week in March over the same week a year ago, as drivers were taking advantage of less traffic obstruction on the roads. To tackle the speeding issue on Ascension the City should instead look to install speed bumps at appropriate locations, which local citizens have asked for. The City previously indicated that the steepness of Ascension does not allow for speed bumps, but that rationale is not consistent with speed bumps that have been placed on both Hillshire Drive and 135th. There are relatively flat areas in the Ascension S‐curve that can accommodate speed bumps. Finally, I want to touch on the proposed mitigation offered residents of the S‐curve if the no‐parking zone were to be put in place. In the FAQ accompanying the letter of May 19th, in response to a concern about how residents on the curve could accommodate service vehicles, the FAQ indica tes they can either park in the areas that allow on‐street parking and walk to our property, or alternatively have them park in our driveways. For many service providers parking a block or more away from the house being serviced is not possible because of the weight / volume of equipment required (e.g., a roofer), or it is logistically not possible (e.g., landscaper blowing bark dust). And parking in the residential driveways is not possible or recommended either. Most service vehicles exceed the weight‐bearing specifications of driveways, so they will crack the pavement if driven on. Look no further than the sidewalk entrance to the side street on the Ascension curve that has been destroyed multiple 7 times by service vehicles driving over it. It has happened so frequently that the City has stopped repaving that section of the sidewalk / driveway. Respectfully submitted, Bryan Wolf 13075 SW Ascension Drive Tigard, Oregon 97223 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Russell Glynn <russellsmailbox@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2020 7:01 PM To: Jason Snider <Jason@tigard‐or.gov> Subject: Thank you very much for your recent message. Caution! This message was sent from outside your organization. sophospsmartbannerend I generally oppose spending additional city resources on partisan issue ginned up by the Democratic Party. Everyone in Tigard condemns what happened to George Floyd in Minneapolis. However, there is not one shred of evidence that the police actions were motivated by racism. In any case, it did not happen in Tigard or Portland for that matter. The voters in Tigard just approved additional resources for the police, because the like and support their police department. I don’t think they want the city spending a lot of time and money or any time and money on something that happened in another state. Making race an issue everywhere will never lead to social harmony. It is inherently devisive. I also do not support your making our community goal equity. It should be equality of opportunity. I also don’t think its appropriate for our city government encouraging and supporting partisan organizing in our k‐12 schools. I very much doubt that you heard anything that reflected bona fide personal experiences from organizers of the Student March for Black Lives you referenced on Tigard’s web page. Similarly, I don’t think you have really heard from the broader Tigard community at all. You most likely are listening and planning based on the same radical fringe element which is destroying our larger cities including Portland. Before you spend resources and time on a Tigard Public Safety Transformation Commission, why don’t you commission a scientific survey of Tigard. I don’t have any confidence that the 12 proposed members of this commission fairly represent a plurality of Tigard’s population. The Seattle Times recently reported on groups spearheading protests in Portland. Here is what they found: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle‐news/meet‐the‐youth‐liberation‐front‐the‐militant‐group‐promoting‐a‐ marathon‐of‐angry‐portland‐protests/ “In social media posts, Youth Liberation Front leaders portray acts of vandalism as part of the broader struggle to make big changes in America. They reject any effort — by police or other groups — to divide the protest movement into those who are peaceful and those who turn to violence. “The Pigs are in a PR battle so they say there’s a difference from ‘peaceful’ and nonviolent protesters. When in fact what we are fighting is the ultimate form of violence, making any and all resistance self and community defense,” the Youth Liberation Front tweeted. In interviews during protests, some youthful participants embraced those views. 1 2 “With real change comes a lot of collateral damage,” said one young man who attended a late‐night protest and declined to give his name.” I have provided the link. Portland is probably the worst run city in America. When I moved to Oregon eight years ago, I bought my house in Tigard because of Portland and its politics. It seems like you want Tigard to head in the same direction. Please reconsider and validate your assumptions. Most of us want a city government focused on improving our quality of life – not racism and equity. Thank you. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 AIS-4331 1. A. Business Meeting Meeting Date:07/14/2020 Length (in minutes):30 Minutes Agenda Title:Discussion of Qualified Immunity Submitted By:Caroline Patton, Central Services Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council Business Mtg - Study Sess. Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Receive legal briefing on qualified immunity. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST This is informational only. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY Qualified immunity protects a government official from civil lawsuits alleging that the official violated a plaintiff's rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a "clearly established" statutory or constitutional right. In light of the current headlines and legislative proposals surrounding qualified immunity, Council has asked for a briefing to help better understand this concept. Steve Kraemer is an attorney with CIS, the City's insurance carrier, and has litigated numerous cases involving qualified immunity. He will give an overview of concept and be available to answer Council's questions. OTHER ALTERNATIVES N/A COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION None Attachments No file(s) attached. AIS-4263 4. Business Meeting Meeting Date:07/14/2020 Length (in minutes):20 Minutes Agenda Title:Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing: Bull Mountain Summit Annexation (ZCA2020-00001) Prepared For: Lina Smith, Community Development Submitted By:Lina Smith, Community Development Item Type: Motion Requested Ordinance Public Hearing - Quasi-Judicial Meeting Type: Council Business Meeting - Main Public Hearing: Yes Publication Date: Information ISSUE Consider adoption of an ordinance to annex two properties located at 15345 and 15395 SW Bull Mountain Road (WCTM 2S108AB, Tax Lots 1400 and 1300) into the City of Tigard. No new development is proposed on the subject properties at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST The Planning Commission recommends City Council approve the proposed Bull Mountain Summit Annexation (ZCA2020-00001) by adoption of the attached ordinance. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The subject properties (15345 and 15395 SW Bull Mountain Road; WCTM 2S108AB, Tax Lots 1400 and 1300) are located on the north side of SW Bull Mountain Road, west of SW 153rd Avenue, and east of SW 155th Avenue. Both properties are currently developed with single detached houses. As defined by Washington County Land Use Districts, the subject properties are zoned R-6 (Residential 6 units per acre), and upon approval of this proposed annexation, the properties will be zoned R-7 (Medium-Density Residential), under City of Tigard designations. The applicant is not proposing any new development at this time, but intends to apply for a future subdivision application after the proposed annexation becomes effective. On June 15, 2020, Planning Commission held a virtual public hearing to consider this application for annexation (Case No. ZCA2020-00001). No public testimony was received at the hearing. After a brief deliberation, Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this annexation to City Council. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Adopt findings to deny the application. Adopt findings to deny the application. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS N/A DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION N/A Attachments Ordinance Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C PowerPoint ORDINANCE No. 20- Page 1 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TIGARD CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 20- AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING TWO (2) PARCELS OF LAND TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 1.8 ACRES AND ONE-HALF OF THE ADJOINING SW BULL MOUNTAIN ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, APPROVING THE BULL MOUNTAIN SUMMIT ANNEXATION (ZCA2020-00001), AND WITHDRAWING PROPERTIES FROM THE TIGARD WATER DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY ENHANCED SHERIFF'S PATROL DISTRICT, AND WASHINGTON COUNTY URBAN ROAD MAINTENANCE DISTRICT WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(4)(b), ORS 222.125, and ORS 222.170(1) to annex contiguous territory upon receiving written consent from owners of land in the territory proposed to be annexed; and WHEREAS, the City of Tigard is authorized by ORS 222.120(5) and 222.520 to withdraw properties which currently lie within the boundaries of the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District, and Washington County Urban Road Maintenance District upon completion of the annexation; and WHEREAS, the Tigard Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 15, 2020, and Tigard City Council held a public hearing on July 14, 2020, to consider the annexation of two (2) parcels of land consisting of Washington County Tax Map (WCTM) 2S108AB, Tax Lots 1300 and 1400 and adjoining right-of-way, and withdrawal of said parcels and adjoining right-of-way from the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District, and Washington County Urban Road Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Metro 3.09, ORS 222.120, and 222.524, notice was given and the City held two (2) public hearings on the issue of annexation into the City on June 15, 2020 and July 14, 2020; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ORS 222.524, the City must declare the withdrawal of the annexed properties from the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District, and Washington County Urban Road Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, the Tigard Community Development Code states that upon annexation, the zone is automatically changed to the City zoning which most closely implements the City's comprehensive plan map designation, or to the City designations which are the most similar; and WHEREAS, the annexation has been processed in accordance with the requirements of Metro 3.09, and has been reviewed for compliance with the Tigard Community Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and the annexation substantially addresses the standards in Metro 3.09 regulating annexations; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council has carefully considered the testimony at the public hearing and determined that withdrawal of the annexed properties from the applicable service districts is in the best interest of the City of Tigard. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council hereby annexes the subject parcels and adjoining right-of-way as described and shown in the attached Exhibits “A” and “B”, and withdraws said parcels ORDINANCE No. 20- Page 2 from the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District, and Washington County Urban Road Maintenance District. SECTION 2: The Tigard City Council adopts the “Planning Commission Recommendation to the City Council” (ZCA2020-00001) as findings in support of this decision; a copy of the recommendation is attached hereto as Exhibit “C”, and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 3: City staff is directed to take all necessary measures to implement the annexation, including filing a certified copy of this ordinance with Metro for administrative processing, filing with state and county agencies as required by law, and providing notice to utilities. SECTION 4: If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity does not affect the other provisions or applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable. This City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof and intends that the invalid portions should be severed and the balance of the ordinance be enforced. SECTION 5: Pursuant to ORS 222.120(5), the effective date of the withdrawal of the properties from the Tigard Water District, Washington County Enhanced Sheriff's Patrol District, and Washington County Urban Road Maintenance District will be the effective date of this annexation. SECTION 6: This ordinance will be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, signature by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. In accordance with ORS 222.180, the annexation will be effective upon the effective date of this ordinance and filing with the Secretary of State. PASSED: By vote of all council members present after being read by number and title only, this day of , 2020. APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this Caroline Patton, Deputy City Recorder day of , 2020. Jason B. Snider, Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Date BULL MOUNTAIN SUMMIT ANNEXATION PAGE 1 OF 12 ZCA2020-00001 EXHIBIT C Hearing Date: July 14, 2020 Time: 7:30 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 120 DAYS = N/A SECTION I. APPLICATION SUMMARY FILE NAME: BULL MOUNTAIN SUMMIT ANNEXATION_________________________ CASE NO: Zone Change Annexation (ZCA) ZCA2020-00001 APPLICANT: Isenhart Consulting, LLC Attn: Danelle Isenhart P.O. Box 2364 Beaverton, OR 97075 OWNERS: Vito P. and Felicity J. Cortese 11856 SW 175th Avenue Beaverton, OR 97007 Teresa B. Hilliard 15345 SW Bull Mountain Road Portland, OR 97224 PROPOSAL: This proposal is to annex two properties located at 15345 and 15395 SW Bull Mountain Road (WCTM 2S108AB, Tax Lots 1400 and 1300) into the City of Tigard. No new development is proposed on the subject properties at this time. LOCATION: 15345 and 15395 SW Bull Mountain Road WCTM 2S108AB, Tax Lots 1400 and 1300 COUNTY ZONE: R-6: Residential 6 units per acre CITY ZONE: R-7: Medium-Density Residential APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA: The approval standards for annexations are described in Community Development Code Chapters 18.710 and 18.720; Comprehensive Plan Goals 1, 11, 12, and 14; Metro Code Chapter 3.09; and Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 222. BULL MOUNTAIN SUMMIT ANNEXATION PAGE 2 OF 12 ZCA2020-00001 SECTION II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission finds that the proposed annexation (ZCA2020-00001) meets all the approval criteria as identified in ORS Chapter 222, Metro Code Chapter 3.09, Community Development Code Chapters 18.710 and 18.720, and the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies: Goal 1.1; Goal 11.1, Policy 4; Goal 11.3, Policy 6; Goal 12; and Goal 14.2, Policies 1-4. Therefore, Planning Commission recommends APPROVAL of ZCA2020-00001 to City Council. SECTION III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The subject properties (15345 and 15395 SW Bull Mountain Road; WCTM 2S108AB, Tax Lots 1400 and 1300) are located on the north side of SW Bull Mountain Road, west of SW 153 rd Avenue, and east of SW 155th Avenue. The properties are bordered to the north, east, and west by the City of Tigard, and are bordered to the south by SW Bull Mountain Road. The properties south of SW Bull Mountain Road are part of unincorporated Washington County. Both of the subject properties are currently developed with single detached houses. As defined by Washington County Land Use Districts, the subject properties are zoned R- 6 (Residential 6 units per acre), and upon approval of this proposed annexation, the properties will be zoned R-7 (Medium-Density Residential), under City of Tigard designations. The applicant is not proposing any new development on the subject properties at this time, but intends to apply for a future subdivision application after the proposed annexation becomes effective. On June 15, 2020, Planning Commission held a virtual public hearing to consider this application for annexation (Case No. ZCA2020-00001). No public testimony was received at the hearing. After a brief deliberation, Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this annexation to City Council. SECTION IV. APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS City: Community Development Code Chapters 18.710 and 18.720; Comprehensive Plan Goal 1.1; Goal 11.1 (Policy 4), and Goal 11.3 (Policy 6), Goal 12, Goal 14.2 (Policies 1-4). Regional Metro Code Chapter 3.09 State: Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 222 CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (TITLE 18) Chapter 18.710 Land Use Review Procedures 18.710.080 Type III-Modified Procedure A quasi-judicial annexation is processed through a Type III-Modified Procedure, as governed by Chapter 18.710 of the Community Development Code of the City of Tigard (CDC), using the approval criteria contained in CDC 18.720.030. City Council will make a decision on this application, with a recommendation from Planning Commission. Additionally, CDC 18.710 requires two public hearings: one before Planning Commission (scheduled for June 15, 2020), and one before City Council (scheduled for July 14, 2020). City staff followed public noticing requirements, in accordance with CDC Sections 18.710.070 and 18.710.080, Metro Code Chapter 3.09, and ORS Chapter 222. City staff posted public hearing notices in four public places on May 22, 2020 (Tigard City Hall, Tigard Permit Center, Tigard Public Works, and at the subject site); city staff mailed public hearing notices to all interested parties, and neighboring property owners within 500 feet of the subject site on May 21, 2020; and the City published a public hearing notice in The Tigard Times for two successive weeks (with publish dates on May 28, 2020 and June 4, 2020) prior to the June 15, 2020 BULL MOUNTAIN SUMMIT ANNEXATION PAGE 3 OF 12 ZCA2020-00001 public hearing before the Planning Commission. City staff also posted the public hearing information on the City of Tigard website, and the staff report was also posted on this website more than 15 days prior to the public hearing before Planning Commission. Chapter 18.720 Annexations 18.720.020 Approval Process A. Quasi-judicial annexation applications are processed through a Type III-Modified procedure, as provided in Section 18.710.080. Quasi-judicial annexations are decided by the City Council with a recommendation by Planning Commission. This application is for a quasi-judicial annexation, and is being processed through a Type III-Modified Procedure, as governed by CDC 18.710, using the approval criteria contained in CDC 18.720.030. City Council will make a decision on this application, with a recommendation from Planning Commission. 18.720.030 Approval Criteria A. Approval criteria. The approval authority will approve or approve with modification an annexation application when all of the following are met: 1. The annexation complies with Metro Code 3.09; and As demonstrated through the findings in this staff report, this proposed quasi-judicial annexation is in compliance with Metro Code Chapter 3.09. The specific sections of Metro Code Chapter 3.09 that apply to this application are addressed individually below. METRO CODE CHAPTER 3.09 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY CHANGES 3.09.030 Notice Requirements A. The notice requirements in this section apply to all boundary change decisions by a reviewing entity except expedited decisions made pursuant to section 3.09.045. These requirements apply in addition to, and do not supersede, applicable requirements of ORS Chapters 197,198, 221 and 222 and any city or county charter provision on boundary changes. B. Within 45 days after a reviewing entity determines that a petition is complete, the entity shall set a time for deliberations on a boundary change. The reviewing entity shall give notice of its proposed deliberations by mailing notice to all necessary parties, by weatherproof posting of the notice in the general vicinity of the affected territory, and by publishing notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the affected territory. Notice shall be mailed and posted at least 20 days prior to the date of deliberations. Notice shall be published as required by state law. C. The notice required by subsection (B) shall: 1. Describe the affected territory in a manner that allows certainty; 2. State the date, time and place where the reviewing entity will consider the boundary change; and 3. State the means by which any person may obtain a copy of the reviewing entity's report on the proposal. This proposed annexation is considered a boundary change decision by a reviewing entity, and will not be processed as an expedited decision; therefore, these notice requirements apply. City staff determined this application was complete on April 7, 2020, and notified the applicant on April 7, 2020 that deliberations on this proposed boundary change were scheduled before Planning Commission (scheduled for June 15, 2020) and before City Council (scheduled for July 14, 2020). City staff posted public hearing notices in four public BULL MOUNTAIN SUMMIT ANNEXATION PAGE 4 OF 12 ZCA2020-00001 places on May 22, 2020 (Tigard City Hall, Tigard Permit Center, Tigard Public Works, and at the subject site); city staff mailed public hearing notices to all necessary parties, and neighboring property owners within 500 feet of the subject site on May 21, 2020; and the City published a public hearing notice in The Tigard Times for two successive weeks (with publish dates on May 28, 2020 and June 4, 2020) prior to the June 15, 2020 public hearing before the Planning Commission. City staff also posted the public hearing information on the City of Tigard website, and the staff report was also posted on this website more than 15 days prior to the public hearing before Planning Commission. 3.09.045 Expedited Decisions This proposed annexation is not being processed as an expedited decision, but Metro Code 3.09.050.D requires that the standards in Sections 3.09.045.D and 3.09.045.E be addressed. D. To approve a boundary change through an expedited process, the city shall: 1. Find that the change is consistent with expressly applicable provisions in: a. Any applicable urban service agreement adopted pursuant to ORS 195.065; The Tigard Urban Service Agreement is between the City of Tigard, Washington Count y, Metro, and the service districts for water, sewer, public safety, parks, and transportation. The agreement outlines the role, provision, area, and planning/coordination responsibilities for service providers operating in the Tigard Urban Services Area. As addressed under Comprehensive Plan, Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services of this report, staff finds that all urban services are available to the proposed annexation area, and have sufficient capacity to provide service. The Urban Planning Area Agreement between the City of Tigard and Washington County provides coordination of comprehensive planning and development, defines the area of interest, and includes policies with respect to the active planning area and annexation. The applicable annexation p olicies include the assignment of comprehensive plan and zoning designations addressed later in this report, and acknowledgements that the City is the ultimate service provider of urban services within the Tigard Urban Service Area. b. Any applicable annexation plan adopted pursuant to ORS 195.205; There is no adopted annexation plan associated with this proposal. Therefore, this provision does not apply. c. Any applicable cooperative planning agreement adopted pursuant to ORS 195.020(2) between the affected entity and a necessary party; ORS 195.020(2) speaks to cooperative agreements between counties or Metro with each special district that provides an urban service within the boundaries of the county or the metropolitan district. Examples of special districts include those for utilities, police, fire, and schools. Upon approval of this proposed annexation, the City of Tigard will provide sewer and stormwater services to the site, instead of Clean Water Services. SW Bull Mountain Road will be annexed into the City of Tigard to the centerline of the right-of- way. The City of Tigard Police Department will provide public safety services, instead of the Washington County Sheriff’s Office. City of Tigard will continue to provide water services to the site, Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue (TVF&R) will continue to provide fire protection and emergency medical services to the site, and Tigard-Tualatin School District (TTSD) will continue to be the assigned school district for the site. d. Any applicable public facility plan adopted pursuant to a statewide planning goal BULL MOUNTAIN SUMMIT ANNEXATION PAGE 5 OF 12 ZCA2020-00001 on public facilities and services; The City of Tigard Public Facility Plan was originally adopted in 1991, and updated in 2019, in compliance with Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines, and Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660, Division 11. As addressed under Comprehensive Plan, Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services of this report , staff finds the proposed annexation is consistent with the applicable provisions of the City of Tigard Public Facility Plan. e. Any applicable comprehensive plan; This proposed quasi-judicial annexation is in compliance with the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan. The specific sections of the Comprehensive Plan that apply to this application will be addressed later in this report. f. Any applicable concept plan; and There is no applicable concept plan associated with this proposal. Therefore, this provision does not apply. 2. Consider whether the boundary change would: a. Promote the timely, orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services; b. Affect the quality and quantity of urban services; and c. Eliminate or avoid unnecessary duplication of facilities or services. The applicant proposes to annex the subject site in order to connect to City of Tigard sewer for a future subdivision application. As addressed under Comprehensive Plan, Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services of this report, staff finds that all public facilities and services are available to the proposed annexation site, and have sufficient capacity to provide service. Upon approval of this proposed annexation, the City of Tigard will provide sewer and stormwater services to the site, instead of Clean Water Services. SW Bull Mountain Road will be annexed into the City of Tigard to the centerline of the right-of-way. The City of Tigard Police Department will provide public safety services, instead of the Washington County Sheriff’s Office. City of Tigard will continue to provide water services to the site, TVF&R will continue to provide fire protection and emergency medical services to the site, and TTSD will continue to be the assigned school district for the site. E. A city may not annex territory that lies outside the UGB, except it may annex a lot or parcel that lies partially within and outside the UGB. The subject site is not located outside the UGB. Therefore, this provision does not apply. 3.09.050 Hearing and Decision Requirements for Decisions Other Than Expedited Decisions A. The following requirements for hearings on petitions operate in addition to requirements for boundary changes in ORS Chapters 198, 221 and 222 and the reviewing entity's charter, ordinances or resolutions. B. Not later than 15 days prior to the date set for a hearing the reviewing entity shall make available to the public a report that addresses the criteria identified in subsection (D) and includes the following information: This staff report was made available to the public on May 28, 2020, more than 15 days prior to the public BULL MOUNTAIN SUMMIT ANNEXATION PAGE 6 OF 12 ZCA2020-00001 hearing before Planning Commission. 1. The extent to which urban services are available to serve the affected territory, including any extra territorial extensions of service; As addressed under Comprehensive Plan, Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services of this report , staff finds that all public facilities and services are available to the proposed annexation site, and have sufficient capacity to provide service. 2. Whether the proposed boundary change will result in the withdrawal of the affected territory from the legal boundary of any necessary party; and The proposed annexation area will remain within Washington County, but will be withdrawn from Washington County’s Enhanced Sheriff’s Patrol District and Urban Road Maintenance District upon completion of this annexation request. The subject site will also be withdrawn from the Tigard Water District upon completion of this annexation request. 3. The proposed effective date of the boundary change. A public hearing regarding this annexation request will take place before Tigard City Council on July 14, 2020. Council will make a decision on this application, with a recommendation from Planning Commission. If Council adopts findings to approve Case No. ZCA2020-00001, the effective date of this annexation will be upon the effective date of the approving ordinance, and filing with the Oregon Secretary of State, as outlined in ORS 222.180. C. The person or entity proposing the boundary change has the burden to demonstrate that the proposed boundary change meets the applicable criteria. The proposed boundary change meets the applicable criteria, as demonstrated through the findings in this staff report. D. To approve a boundary change, the reviewing entity shall apply the criteria and consider the factors set forth in subsections (D) and (E) of section 3.09.045. The factors set forth in Metro Code Sections 3.09.045.D and 3.09.045.E have been previously addressed in this report. (CDC 18.720.030 Continued) A.2. The annexation is in the city’s best interest. As addressed under Metro Code Section 3.09.045.D.2 of this staff report, this proposed annexation will help promote the timely, orderly and economic provision of City of Tigard public facilities and services, and eliminate or avoid unnecessary duplication of facilities or services. Accordingly, staff finds this proposed annexation is in the City’s best interest. B. Assignment of comprehensive plan and zoning designations. The comprehensive plan designation and the zoning designation placed on the property is the city’s base zone that most closely implements the city’s or county’s comprehensive plan map designation. The assignment of these designations occurs automatically and concurrently with the annexation. In the case of BULL MOUNTAIN SUMMIT ANNEXATION PAGE 7 OF 12 ZCA2020-00001 land that carries county designations, the city will convert the county’s comprehensive plan map and zoning designations to the city designations that are the most similar. A zone change is required if the applicant requests a comprehensive plan map or zoning map designation other than the existing designations. A request for a zone change may be processed concurrently with an annexation application or after the annexation has been approved. Within the Washington Square Regional Center, the assignment of city comprehensive plan and zoning designations will be as provided in the Washington Square Regional Center Phase II Implementation Plan, dated June 29, 2001, Figure 4 Adopted Zoning Designations. C. Conversion table. Table 18.720.1 summarizes the conversion of the county’s plan and zoning designations to city designations that are most similar. CDC TABLE 18.720.1 CONVERSION TABLE FOR COUNTY AND CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS Washington County Land Use Districts/Plan Designation City of Tigard Zoning City of Tigard Plan Designation R-6 Res. 6 units per acre R-7 Medium-density residential CDC Table 18.720.1 summarizes conversions for City of Tigard comprehensive plan and zoning designations that are most similar and most closely implement Washington County’s comprehensive plan and zoning designations. As outlined in the table above, the assignment of city designations for the subject property will be based on these conversions, and will occur automatically and concurrently with the proposed annexation. Under Washington County designations, the subject site is R-6 (Residential, 6 units per acre). Upon approval of this proposed annexation, the subject site will be R-7 (Medium-Density Residential), under City of Tigard designations. CITY OF TIGARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Goal 1.1: Provide citizens, affected agencies, and other jurisdictions the opportunity to participate in all phases of the planning process. The City of Tigard maintains an ongoing citizen involvement program. To ensure citizens were provided an opportunity to be involved in all phases of the planning process, city staff issued public notices for this proposed quasi-judicial annexation. City staff posted public hearing notices in four public places on May 22, 2020 (Tigard City Hall, Tigard Permit Center, Tigard Public Works, and at the subject site); city staff mailed public hearing notices to all necessary parties, and neighboring property owners within 500 feet of the subject site on May 21, 2020; and the City published a public hearing notice in The Tigard Times for two successive weeks (with publish dates on May 28, 2020 and June 4, 2020) prior to the June 15, 2020 public hearing before the Planning Commission. City staff also posted the public hearing information on the City of Tigard website, and the staff report was also posted on this website more than 15 days prior to the public hearing before Planning Commission. Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services As detailed in the City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan, Public Facilities and Services refer to Stormwater Management, Water Supply and Distribution, Wastewater Management, Community Facilities, and Private Utilities. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan’s Glossary includes public safety, parks, and transportation BULL MOUNTAIN SUMMIT ANNEXATION PAGE 8 OF 12 ZCA2020-00001 under Public Facilities and Services. As detailed in the findings below, staff finds that all public facilities and services are available to the proposed annexation area, and have adequate capacity to serve the subject site. Stormwater – City of Tigard Public Works Department. The applicant is not requesting City of Tigard stormwater service at this time. However, city stormwater infrastructure either currently exists adjacent to the proposed annexation area, or can be made available to the subject site. City stormwater facilities have adequate capacity to serve the subject site. Water – City of Tigard Public Works Department. The two subject properties are located within the Tigard Water Service area, and both properties are currently served by an existing 12-inch water main in SW Bull Mountain Road. Accordingly, city water facilities have adequate capacity to continue serving the subject properties. Sewer – City of Tigard Public Works Department. The applicant proposes to annex the subject site in order to connect to City of Tigard sewer for a future subdivision application. This is consistent with City of Tigard Comprehensive Plan Goal 11.3, Policy 6: “The City shall require a property to be located within the City limits prior to receiving City wastewater services.” City sewer infrastructure either currently exists adjacent to the proposed annexation area, or can be extended to serve the proposed annexation area. City sewer facilities have adequate capacity to serve the subject site. Police – City of Tigard Police Department. The Washington County Sheriff’s Office currently provides police services to the subject properties. If this annexation request is approved, the site will be withdrawn from the Enhanced Sheriff’s Patrol District, and the City of Tigard Police Department will provide public safety services to the site. Fire – Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue. The subject properties are located within the service area for TVF&R. Accordingly, TVF&R currently provides fire protection and emergency medical services to the site, which will not change with this annexation request. Parks – City of Tigard Public Works Department. The applicant proposes to annex two properties, totaling 1.8 acres in size, into the City of Tigard. Staff has reviewed the applicant’s proposal and determined that this request will not adversely impact the City’s ability or capacity to provide for parks and recreational needs. Streets – City of Tigard Engineering Division. The subject properties front on SW Bull Mountain Road, which will be annexed to into the City of Tigard to the centerline of the right-of-way. Accordingly, the subject properties will be withdrawn from the Washington County Urban Road Maintenance District. Each of the subject properties is currently developed with an existing single detached house, and it is not anticipated that this annexation will generate additional traffic, or negatively impact the City’s existing transportation system. Goal 11.1, Policy 4: The City shall require a property to be located within the City limits prior to receiving stormwater services. The applicant is not requesting City of Tigard stormwater service at this time. However, city stormwater infrastructure either currently exists adjacent to the proposed annexation area, or can be made available to the subject site. City stormwater facilities have adequate capacity to serve the subject site. Goal 11.3, Policy 6: The City shall require a property to be located within the City limits prior to BULL MOUNTAIN SUMMIT ANNEXATION PAGE 9 OF 12 ZCA2020-00001 receiving wastewater services. The applicant proposes to annex the subject site in order to connect to City of Tigard sewer for a future subdivision application. This is consistent with the policy outlined above. City sewer infrastructure either currently exists adjacent to the proposed annexation area, or can be extended to serve the proposed annexation area. City sewer facilities have adequate capacity to serve the subject site. Goal 12: To provide and encourage a safe, convenient, and economic transportation system. The subject properties front on SW Bull Mountain Road, which will be annexed into the City of Tigard to the centerline of the right-of-way. Accordingly, the subject properties will be withdrawn from the Washington County Urban Road Maintenance District. Each of the subject properties is currently developed with an existing single detached house, and it is not anticipated that this annexation will generate additional traffic, or negatively impact the City’s existing transportation system. Goal 14.2, Policy 1: The City shall assign a Tigard zoning district designation to annexed property that most closely conforms to the existing Washington County zoning designation for that property. The applicable Tigard zoning district designation for the subject properties is addressed under CDC Sections 18.720.030.B and 18.720.030.C of this report. Goal 14.2, Policy 2: The City shall ensure capacity exists, or can be developed, to provide needed urban level services to an area when approving annexation. As addressed under Comprehensive Plan, Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services of this report , staff finds that all urban level services are available to the proposed annexation area, and have sufficient capacity to provide service. Goal 14.2, Policy 3: The City shall approve proposed annexations based on findings that the request: A. Can be accommodated by the City’s public facilities and services; and As addressed under Comprehensive Plan, Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services of this report , staff finds that all City of Tigard public facilities and services are available to the proposed annexation area, and have sufficient capacity to provide service. B. Is consistent with applicable state statute. As addressed later in this report, staff finds the applicable provisions of ORS 222 have been met, consistent with this policy. Goal 14.2, Policy 4: The City shall evaluate and may require that parcels adjacent to proposed annexations be included to: A. Avoid creating unincorporated islands within the City; B. Enable public services to be efficiently and effectively extended to the entire area; or C. Implement a concept plan or sub-area master plan that has been approved by the Planning Commission or City Council. The subject properties (15345 and 15395 SW Bull Mountain Road; WCTM 2S108AB, Tax Lots 1400 and 1300) are bordered to the north, east, and west by the City of Tigard, and are bordered to the south by SW Bull Mountain Road. The properties south of SW Bull Mountain Road are pa rt of unincorporated BULL MOUNTAIN SUMMIT ANNEXATION PAGE 10 OF 12 ZCA2020-00001 Washington County. Because the subject site is surrounded on three sides by the City of Tigard, this annexation will not create an “island” of unincorporated land, and it is not necessary to include the adjacent properties in this annexation request. This annexation will enable public services to be efficiently and effectively extended to the subject properties. There is no concept plan or sub-area master plan that has been approved by the Planning Commission or City Council that is applicable to these properties. OREGON REVISED STATUTES ORS Chapter 222 — City Boundary Changes; Mergers; Consolidations; Withdrawals 222.111 Authority and procedure for annexation. (2) A proposal for annexation of territory to a city may be initiated by the legislative body of the city, on its own motion, or by a petition to the legislative body of the city by owners of real property in the territory to be annexed. (5) The legislative body of the city shall submit, except when not required under ORS 222.120, 222.170 and 222.840 to 222.915 to do so, the proposal for annexation to the electors of the territory proposed for annexation and, except when permitted under ORS 222.120 or 222.840 to 222.915 to dispense with submitting the proposal for annexation to the electors of the city, the legislative body of the city shall submit such proposal to the electors of the city. The proposal for annexation may be voted upon at a general election or at a special election to be held for that purpose. 222.120 Procedure for annexation without election; hearing; ordinance subject to referendum. (1) Except when expressly required to do so by the city charter, the legislative body of a city is not required to submit a proposal for annexation of territory to the electors of the city for their approval or rejection. (2) When the legislative body of the city elects to dispense with submitting the question of the proposed annexation to the electors of the city, the legislative body of the city shall fix a day for a public hearing before the legislative body at which time the electors of the city may appear and be heard on the question of annexation. (3) The city legislative body shall cause notice of the hearing to be published once each week for two successive weeks prior to the day of hearing, in a newspaper of general circulation in the city, and shall cause notices of the hearing to be posted in four public places in the city for a like period. The owners of the subject properties (15345 and 15395 SW Bull Mountain Road; WCTM 2S108AB, Tax Lots 1400 and 1300) submitted an annexation petition to the City on March 19, 2020. Additionally, the City of Tigard Charter does not expressly require the City to submit a proposal for annexation of territory to the electors of the City for their approval or rejection. Therefore, an election is not required for this annexation application. However, the City is required to follow the public hearing and public noticing requirements outlined in ORS 222.120. Public hearings for deliberations on this proposed annexation were scheduled before Planning Commission (scheduled for June 15, 2020) and before City Council (scheduled for July 14, 2020). City staff posted public hearing notices in four public places on May 22, 2020 (Tigard City Hall, Tigard Permit Center, Tigard Public Works, and at the subject site); city staff mailed public hearing notices to all interested parties, and neighboring property owners within 500 feet of the subject site on May 21, 2020; and the City published a public hearing notice in The Tigard Times for two successive weeks (with publish dates on May 28, 2020 and June 4, 2020) prior to the June 15, 2020 public hearing before the Planning Commission. City staff also posted the public hearing information on the City of Tigard website, and the staff report was also posted on BULL MOUNTAIN SUMMIT ANNEXATION PAGE 11 OF 12 ZCA2020-00001 this website more than 15 days prior to the public hearing before Planning Commission. SECTION V. OTHER STAFF AND AGENCY COMMENTS The City of Tigard Engineering Division was sent a copy of the applicant’s proposal, and had no objections to the proposed annexation. When the applicant applies for a future subdivision application, the Engineering Division will include a condition of approval for the development to extend public utilities to and through the site. The City of Tigard Police Department was sent a copy of the applicant’s proposal, and had no objections to the proposed annexation. When the applicant applies for a future subdivision application, city staff will send a copy of the applicant’s proposal to the department for further comments. The City of Tigard Public Works Department was sent a copy of the applicant’s proposal, and had no objections to the proposed annexation. When the applicant applies for a future subdivision application, city staff will send a copy of the applicant’s proposal to the department for further comments. Pride Disposal was sent a copy of the applicant’s proposal, and had no objections to the proposed annexation. When the applicant applies for a future subdivision application, city staff will send a copy of the applicant’s proposal to the agency for further comments. Tigard-Tualatin School District was sent a copy of the applicant’s proposal, and had no objections to the proposed annexation. When the applicant applies for a future subdivision application, city staff will send a copy of the applicant’s proposal to the agency for further comments. Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue was sent a copy of the applicant’s proposal, and had no objections to the proposed annexation. When the applicant applies for a future subdivision application, city staff will include a condition of approval for the applicant to comply with all TVF&R requirements. SECTION VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS City staff mailed public hearing notices to all interested parties, and neighboring property owners within 500 feet of the subject site on May 21, 2020. As of June 25, 2020, one (1) e-mail was received from Sonna Durdel, property owner of 14262 SW 155th Terrace. Ms. Durdel expressed concerns about screening between the subject site and her property, and referenced the residential development standards in CDC Chapters 18.200 and 18.270, and the screening standards in CDC Chapter 18.420. RESPONSE: The applicant is only proposing to annex the subject site, and no physical development is proposed at this time. Therefore, the residential development standards and screening standards do not apply to this proposal. The applicable CDC standards for this annexation are outlined in Chapters 18.710 and 18.720. Attachments: Attachment 1: Zoning Map Attachment 2: City of Tigard Planning Commission, Draft Minutes dated June 15, 2020 BULL MOUNTAIN SUMMIT ANNEXATION PAGE 12 OF 12 ZCA2020-00001 SECTION VII. CONCLUSION The proposed annexation meets all applicable approval criteria, outlined in CDC Chapters 18.710 and 18.720; Comprehensive Plan Goal 1.1, Goal 11.1, Policy 4, Goal 11.3, Policy 6, Goal 12, and Goal 14.2, Policies 1 to 4; Metro Code Chapter 3.09; and ORS Chapter 222. Therefore, Planning Commission recommends approval of this annexation to City Council. June 25, 2020 PREPARED BY: Lina Smith Assistant Planner June 25, 2020 APPROVED BY: Tom McGuire Assistant Community Development Director Scale: 0.07 Miles COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 www.tigard-or.gov City of Tigard, Oregon Zoning Map Generalized Zoning Categories 05/19/2020 Data is derived from multiple sources. The City of Tigard makes no warranty, representation, or guarantee as to the content, accuracy, timeliness or completeness of any of the data provided herein. The City of Tigard shall assume no liability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the information provided regardless of how caused. Map Created: Subject Site Zoning Classifications R-1 Residential Low-Density R-2 Residential Low-Density R-3.5 Residential Low-Density R-4.5 Residential Low-Density R-7 Residential Medium-Density R-12 Residential Medium-Density R-25 Residential Medium-High-Density R-40 Residential High-Density MUR-1 Mixed Use Residential 1 MUR-2 Mixed Use Residential 2 MU-CBD Mixed Use Central Bus Dist C-C Community Commercial C-G General Commercial C-N Neighborhood Commercial C-P Professional Commercial MUC Mixed Use Commercial MUC-1 Mixed Use Commercial 1 TMU Triangle Mixed Use MUE Mixed Use Employment MUE-1 Mixed Use Employment 1 MUE-2 Mixed Use Employment 2 I-L Light Industrial I-P Industrial Park I-H Heavy Industrial PR Parks and Recreation WA-Cnty Washington County June 15, 2020 Page 1 of 5 CITY OF TIGARD PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes, June 15, 2020 Location: Members Remote in via Microsoft Teams Link to virtual hearing online: https://www.tigard-or.gov/city_hall/public_hearings.php Call-in number for public testimony: 503-966-4101 Public testimony call-in time between 7:15 and 7:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER President Feeney called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: President Feeney Vice President Hu Commissioner Brook Commissioner Jackson Commissioner Quinones Commissioner Roberts Alternate Commissioner Schuck Commissioner (K7) Tiruvallur Commissioner Watson Commissioner Whitehurst joined a bit late due to technical difficulties. Absent: Alt. Commissioner Sarman Staff Present:Tom McGuire, Assistant Community Development Director; Doreen Laughlin, Executive Assistant; Lina Smith, Assistant Planner; Susan Shanks, Senior Planner COMMUNICATIONS – President Feeney noted that there was an error on the call-in number for public testimony. It was correct on the Agenda; however, it had been posted on the City Website one digit off. He gave the correct number by way of correction. CONSIDER MINUTES President Feeney asked if there were any additions, deletions, or corrections to the February 3 minutes; there being none, President Feeney declared the minutes approved as submitted. PUBLIC HEARING BULL MOUNTAIN SUMMIT ANNEXATION QUASI-JUDICIAL ANNEXATION, ZCA2020-00001 June 15, 2020 Page 2 of 5 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant requests to annex two (2) properties into the City of Tigard. No new development is proposed at this time. LOCATION: 15345 and 15395 SW Bull Mountain Road (WCTM 2S108AB, Tax Lots 1300 and 1400). QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING STATEMENTS President Feeney read the required statements and procedural items from the quasi-judicial hearing guide. There were no abstentions; there were no challenges of the commissioners for bias or conflict of interest. Ex-parte contacts: None. Site visitations: Commissioner Jackson and President Feeney had visited the site. No one in the audience wished to challenge the jurisdiction of the commission. STAFF REPORT Assistant Planner Lina Smith introduced herself and went over a PowerPoint (Exhibit A). She noted that this proposal is to annex two properties located on the north side of Bull Mountain Road into the City of Tigard. The applicant is not proposing any new development on the subject properties at this time, but the applicant intends to apply for a future subdivis ion application after the proposed annexation becomes effective. Because this future subdivision will connect to City sewer, this annexation is first required. City staff, including the Engineering and Public Works departments reviewed the applicant’s proposal and determined there are adequate facilities and services available to the subject site. Additionally, as detailed in the staff report submitted to the Planning Commission, the proposed annexation meets all applicable approval criteria in the Tigard Community Development Code, the Tigard Comprehensive Plan, Metro Code and State statutes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission find that the proposed annexation (ZCA2020- 00001) meets all the approval criteria as identified in ORS Chapter 222, Metro Code Chapter 3.09, Community Development Code Chapters 18.710 and 18.720, and the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies: Goal 1.1; Goal 11.1, Policy 4; Goal 11.3, Policy 6; Goal 12; and Goal 14.2, Policies 1-4. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend APPROVAL of ZCA2020-00001 to City Council. APPLICANT’S PRESENTATION Danelle Isenhart, of Isenhart Consulting, introduced herself as the applicant representing the developer of the site. She noted that she didn’t have a full presentation as they agree with staff on the annexation. She told the commissioners that this annexation is the first step before the proposed subdivision, which is proposed to be about 11 lots. She said she had no other comments other than that she agrees with the staff report at this point. QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT– None. QUESTIONS OF STAFF June 15, 2020 Page 3 of 5 Commissioner K7 asked a clarifying question. He noted there was a large subdivision located very near the subject annexation and that he was concerned that those nearby residents had been notified of the annexation. Assistant Planner Lina said that a notice of annexation had been sent by USPS mail to all the neighbors that live within 500 feet of the site and that there was a notice posted on the site as well. She explained that the notice the City sent out only referred to the annexation (not the possible subdivision). She said the applicant could speak to them about the neighborhood meeting that they had held. Applicant Danelle Isenhart told the commissioners that they’d held a neighborhood meeting and had covered both the annexation and the subdivision at the same time to let the neighbors know that this was possibly being proposed. She noted that a number of people from the nearby development Commissioner K7 was concerned about were in attendance at that meeting. Lina added that they will mail a separate notice regarding the subdivision to the nearby neighbors if/when the application comes in. Commissioner Jackson noted, “Obviously the intention is to eventually turn these lots into a subdivision. I’m curious if for this specific annexation decision… if calling out that it was going to be subdivided in any way ties our hands in the future.” Lina answered, “If you’re asking if that links the applications together - for instance if we make this decision to annex, and then in the future they use the fact that the annexation report included the language of subdivision… would that set a precedent or some sort of indication that that was going to proceed – I would say no. Because there’s different criteria for the subdivision application. Theoretically, they could annex and never develop – and that would be okay. But because they gave us a heads up and said they were going to apply for a subdivision application, I did just want to call that out on the public notices, but again, it would be a separate application for the actual subdivision and separate approval criteria.” PUBLIC TESTIMONY President Feeney asked if there was anyone on the line waiting to testify. He was informed that there currently was no one calling in with testimony. The commission waited five minutes to give the public time to call in. No one called in. TESTIMONY IN FAVOR – None. TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION – None. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED QUESTIONS President Feeney asked if there were any questions from the commission for the applicant or staff. There were none. June 15, 2020 Page 4 of 5 DELIBERATION President Feeney asked if there were any questions or clarifications internally that the commissioners would like to ask. There were none and there was no further deliberation. MOTION Vice President Hu made the following motion: “I move the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to City Council of application number ZCA2020-00001 and adoption of the findings contained in the staff report.” The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roberts. VOTE All in favor, none opposed: 9-0 RESULT Motion for approval CARRIES. President Feeney noted that this is scheduled to go to the City Council on July 14, 2020. BRIEFING Senior Planner Susan Shanks stated that she was there to give the commissioners a briefing on the Washington Square Regional Center Update project. The last time she had been before the commission was in October of last year. She shared her screen and went over the Washington Square Alternative Community Engagement Strategy and Maps (Exhibit B). The main points of the briefing: •Since the last project briefing in October, the city issued an RFP, selected and got a consultant team under contract, and entered into an IGA with Metro for the grant award. •The consultant team is led by ECO Northwest and includes 3J Consulting, SERA Architects, Toole Design, and Verde. •The project kickoff meeting with the consultant team occurred the week that most employees began working remotely because of COVID-19. •The project team immediately began work on an Alternative Community Engagement Strategy to address the challenges and social distancing requirements associated with COVID-19. •The project team may adjust the project schedule depending upon what we hear from the community, especially with regard to the community’s ability and interest to participate in a long-range planning project. The project is currently still on schedule. June 15, 2020 Page 5 of 5 Susan noted that there is more information on the City of Tigard website located at https://www.tigard-or.gov/thesquare/. She noted that there’s a place on that website for the public to sign up to be on the “interested party” list should they desire to do that, and also that there was staff contact information listed there as well. She noted that she would be back with another Planning Commission briefing on this topic - likely in August or September. President Feeney thanked Susan for the presentation. He also thanked Commissioner Jamie Watson for volunteering to be on the Stakeholder Workgroup for this project. OTHER BUSINESS – Assistant Community Development Director Tom McGuire reminded the commission that there is a meeting scheduled for next month; it will be regarding the Macerich project and will be held on July 6th. He noted that the notice went out last week and that due to the anticipated high public interest, they will likely limit the staff report so that there’s more time for the public to speak. ADJOURNMENT President Feeney adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m. _______________________________________ Doreen Laughlin, Planning Commission Secretary _________________________________ ATTEST: President Brian Feeney C I T Y O F T I G A R D R e s p e c t a n d C a r e | D o t h e R i g h t T h i n g | G e t i t D o n e Bull Mountain Summit Annexation ZCA2020-00001 June 15, 2020Presented to Tigard Planning Commission C I T Y O F T I G A R D C I T Y O F T I G A R D R e s p e c t a n d C a r e | D o t h e R i g h t T h i n g | G e t i t D o n e Bull Mountain Summit Annexation ZCA2020-00001 July 14, 2020Presented to Tigard City Council C I T Y O F T I G A R D AIS-4285 5. Business Meeting Meeting Date:07/14/2020 Length (in minutes):35 Minutes Agenda Title:Update on Senior Housing Alongside the Tigard Senior Center Project Submitted By:Sean Farrelly, Community Development Item Type: Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council Business Meeting - Main Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Receive an update on Senior Housing alongside the Tigard Senior Center Project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Council is asked to participate in the discussion. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY The Tigard City Council’s current goals include a strategy (3.2) to promote the development of affordable housing in Tigard. The Board of the TCDA authorized the signing of an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement with non-profit affordable housing developers Northwest Housing Alternatives (NHA) on October 8, 2019. NHA and the City are progressing with the Senior Housing Alongside the Tigard Senior Center plans. This project would construct 50 to 60 affordable units for seniors 62 and older adjacent to the Tigard Senior Center. The project furthers the City’s commitment to equitable outcomes and helps redress past inequitable housing policies. Under past zoning practices, most of the residential land in the City was unavailable for housing that would be affordable to lower income residents, which are often seniors. The City perpetuated some common suburban inequities through its housing policies and this project would seek to correct that past inequity. Among the reasons this location is attractive for affordable senior housing: It is close to the Tigard Public Library, the walkable downtown core and adjacent to Fanno Creek Park and Trail. There is an opportunity for collaboration and support for existing Senior Center and Meals on Wheels services. The City is contributing its property for a 99-year lease, allowing the new apartments to rent for less, helping to address the affordable housing crisis. It provides seniors an opportunity to age in place and continue to live in their own community. Council was last briefed on the project on February 4, 2020. Here is an update on activities since then: Public Engagement: City and NHA staff had been planning several forums in Spring 2020 to share project information and obtain feedback. The COVID-19 crisis changed those plans to focus on online engagement. On June 25th, an online panel event was held in collaboration with AARP and NHA. The panel discussed the benefits of age-friendly housing and communities, Tigard’s affordable housing activities, and the Senior Housing Alongside the Tigard Senior Center plans followed by a Q&A segment with attendees. A newsletter on the project was mailed to 2300 addresses within approximately a half-mile of the site. The newsletter advertised the panel event and included a postage paid postcard to submit comments. The Tigard Senior Housing Advisory Committee (made up of stakeholders from the Tigard Senior Center, Town Center Advisory Committee, neighborhood and Councilor Tom Anderson) met five times from October 2019 through January 2020. Further meetings will be scheduled when NHA secures financing and the project design is refined. Questions and comments that have been received thus far center on the number of parking spaces and the loss of trees on the site. Responses to questions received are compiled and posted to the project webpage. Disposition and Development Agreement/Lease: Attorneys and staff from the City and NHA are currently working out the details of a development agreement and a lease for the portion of the site to be redeveloped. These documents will be reviewed by Council (likely in four weeks) with a request to authorize the City Manager to sign. Design: SERA Architects and Northwest Housing Alternatives have worked through several site concept plans and building configuration options. The current site concept plan calls for a 4-story building with 57 affordable senior units (final count to be determined). The project will add a significant number of spaces for residents in addition to the 48 existing spaces at the Senior Center. A parking management plan for residents will address the potential spillover into Senior Center parking. NHA will limit the parking of housing tenants during the day when the Senior Center is in operation, utilize strategies to limit the number of tenants who own vehicles, and provide opportunities for shared transportation options. Strategies include providing TriMet passes to residents and frequent van trips to shopping and recreation destinations. The project is less than a fifth of a mile from a frequent service bus stop and within a half-mile of the planned SW Corridor light rail station. Financing: NHA has applied for funds from the Metro Affordable Housing Bond and will hear back later this summer. Project Schedule: If financing is obtained, detailed building and site plans would be completed fall/winter 2020-2021. Land use permits would be applied for in summer 2021 and construction completed in summer 2022, with the lease coming soon after. OTHER ALTERNATIVES There are no alternatives for consideration at this time. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS Tigard City Council Goals 2019-21 Goal 2: Invest and connect key areas of the city to promote economic growth and community vitality Strategy 2.2 Continue to make Downtown Tigard a place people want to be by making substantial progress on projects that attract new residential and business investment. Cultivate more relationships with future developers that share our multigenerational transit-oriented development vision. Goal 3: Ensure Tigard grows and develops in a smart and inclusive manner. Strategy 3.2: Complete an Affordable Housing Plan and adopt recommended strategies to promote the development and retention of affordable housing in Tigard. Increase advocacy at the regional level for housing that is affordable, funding strategies, and consider an excise tax. Tigard Comprehensive Plan Housing Goal 10.1: Provide opportunities for a variety of housing types to meet the diverse housing needs of current and future City residents. Special Planning Areas- Downtown Goal 15.2: Facilitate the development of an urban village. Policy 6: New housing in the downtown shall provide for a range of housing types, including ownership, workforce, and affordable housing in a high-quality living environment. Tigard Strategic Plan Goal 2: Ensure development advances the vision DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION February 4, 2020 - Council received an update on the Senior Center Affordable Housing Project June 4, 2019 - Council received a briefing on the Senior Center Affordable Senior Housing Project August 13, 2019 - Council received an update on Senior Center Affordable Housing Project October 8, 2019 - Council considered an agreement with Northwest Housing Alternatives Attachments No file(s) attached. Sean Farrelly, City of TigardDestin Ferdun, Northwest Housing AlternativesCreekside Woods ApartmentsSUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR JULY 14, 2020 AGENDA ITEM 5 Tigard Senior Center Senior Housing Alongside the Senior Center Why this site?•Close to the Tigard Public Library, walkabledowntown core and adjacent to Fanno Creek Parkand trail.•Alongside the Senior Center offering theopportunity for collaboration and support forexisting Senior Center and Meals on Wheels services•City is contributing its property at no cost, allowingthe new apartments to rent for less, helping toaddress the affordable housing crisis•Offers seniors an opportunity to age in place andcontinue to live in their own community•Furthers the City’s commitment to equitableoutcomes and helps redress past inequitablehousing policies TIGARD SENIOR HOUSING & SERVICES Senior Housing Alongside the Tigard Senior Center Senior Housing Alongside the Tigard Senior CenterAdjacent to Tigard Senior CenterProposed: 57 1-bedroom apartmentsFor seniors aged 62 and older earning low incomesGoal of 40% of apartments with project-based subsidy5 apartments will be set aside for senior VeteransAll apartments will be fully accessible to accommodate thesenior population Senior Housing Alongside the Tigard Senior CenterBuilding AmenitiesCommunity outdoor spaceCommunity Room with teaching kitchenComputer center with high speed internet accessLaundry facilities on siteActivity space on the top floor with views of Fanno CreekOn site Property Manager and Resident Services Senior Housing Alongside the Tigard Senior CenterResident ServicesLink residents to community resources and servicesEmployee of Northwest Housing AlternativesGoals: Help residents age in place, maintain health andwellness, and maintain housing stabilityOffered to all residents at the propertyVoluntary service Senior Housing Alongside the Tigard Senior CenterSpecific ServicesTransportation resources and servicesAccess to needed health careSocialization & recreation: community eventsCurrently offering services to over 850 older adults statewideResidents involved in program design Senior Housing Alongside the Tigard Senior CenterSite Concept Design October 2019 → April 2020 Secure Funding through Metro Housing Bond April → September 2020 Detail Design and Site Plan Work October 2020 → February 2021 Apply for Land Use Permits June → August 2021 Construction October 2021 → August 2022 Lease to Seniors October 2022 → March 2023 Senior Housing Alongside the Tigard Senior Centerwww.engage.tigard‐or.gov/seniorhousing AIS-4318 6. Business Meeting Meeting Date:07/14/2020 Length (in minutes):15 Minutes Agenda Title:League of Oregon Cities Legislative Agenda Prepared For: Nicole Hendrix, City Management Submitted By:Nicole Hendrix, City Management Item Type: Motion Requested Update, Discussion, Direct Staff Meeting Type: Council Business Meeting - Main Public Hearing: No Publication Date: Information ISSUE Discuss proposed legislative priorities for the League of Oregon Cities (LOC). STAFF RECOMMENDATION / ACTION REQUEST Review the LOC Ballot Topics attachment, discuss and develop a consensus on the top four issues that should be included on LOC's 2021 legislative agenda and move to approve the four items for submittal through the LOC ballot. KEY FACTS AND INFORMATION SUMMARY In preparation for the 2021 legislative session, LOC is asking cities to review the 26 recommendations provided by its policy committees and provide input to the LOC Board of Directors with the top 4 issues that should be on the legislative agenda. The ballot is due to LOC by August 7, 2020. OTHER ALTERNATIVES Submit less than 4 topics to LOC. COUNCIL GOALS, POLICIES, APPROVED MASTER PLANS In the 2020 state legislative agenda, Council identified the 99W study, property tax reform, and houselessness as primary focus areas. Tigard's federal agenda included infrastructure invesment, FAST Act reauthorization, COPS hiring grant, SW Corridor light rail, SALT, and BUILD support. Both agendas are attached for reference. This conversation will help frame future conversations in updating Tigard's legislative agenda. DATES OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION 7/24/2018 - Council discussion on Proposed State Legislative Priorities from the League of Oregon Cities Attachments LOC Ballot Topics 2020 Tigard State Legislative Agenda 2020 Tigard Federal Legislative Agenda June 5, 2020 Dear Chief Administrative Official: For the past three months, seven policy committees have been working to identify and propose specific actions as part of the LOC’s effort to develop a pro-active legislative agenda for the 2021 session. They have identified legislative objectives as set forth in the enclosed ballot and legislative recommendation materials. These objectives span a variety of issues and differ in the potential resources required to seek their achievement. Therefore, it is desirable to prioritize them in order to ensure that efforts are focused where they are most needed. While the attached ballot reflects the top policies developed in each of the policy committees, each undertook a broad look at a range of issues impacting cities. Many issues reflect the LOC’s ongoing mission to support cities’ work and their home rule authority to develop and use a variety of tools to meet the needs of residents. Each city is being asked to review the recommendations of the policy committees and provide input to the LOC Board of Directors as it prepares to adopt the LOC’s 2021 legislative agenda. After your city council has had the opportunity to review the proposals and discuss them with your staff, please return the enclosed ballot indicating the top four issues that your city council would like to see the LOC focus on during the 2021 session. The deadline for response is August 7, 2020. The board of directors will then review the results of this survey of member cities, along with the recommendations of the policy committees, and determine the LOC’s 2021 legislative agenda. Your city’s participation and input will assist the board in creating a focused set of specific legislative targets that reflect the issues of greatest importance to cities. If you have individual questions about the ballot topics do not hesitate to reach out to committee members who serve on the seven policy committees. Thank you for your involvement, and thanks to those among you who gave many hours of time and expertise in developing these proposals. Do not hesitate to contact me or Jim McCauley, Legislative Director, with additional questions. Sincerely, Mike Cully Jim McCauley Executive Director Legislative Director INSTRUCTIONS Each city should submit one form that reflects the consensus opinion of its city council on the top four legislative priorities for 2021. Here are the ways to submit your ballot. Ballots in any form must be submitted by August 7, 2020. 1. Fill out the online survey that has been sent to your city’s chief administrative official; or 2. Fill out the attached hard copy form and return it to the LOC at the address or fax number provided below. Simply place an X or check mark in the space to the right of the city’s top four legislative proposals. The top four do not need to be prioritized. Return hard copy ballots to: Jenna Jones League of Oregon Cities 1201 Court St. NE, Suite 200 Salem, OR 97301 Fax – (503) 399-4863 jjones@orcities.org Thank you for your participation. City of: _________________________________ Legislation A. Beer and Cider Tax Increase B. Broadband Infrastructure and Technical Assistance Funding C. Building (Reach) Code – Energy Efficiency Local Option D. COVID-19 Economic Recovery Investments E. Digital Equity and Inclusion F. Expedited Siting for Shelter and Affordable Housing G. Green Energy/Renewables – Expanded Local Option H. Housing and Services Investment I. Increased Budgetary Flexibility During Budgetary Emergency J. Infrastructure Financing and Resilience K. Local Climate Action Planning Resources L. Local Energy Generation Project Support M. Local Speed Setting Authority N. Long Term Transportation Infrastructure Funding O. Low-Income Energy Efficiency and Affordability Programs P. Marijuana Tax Local Rate Limitation Increase Q. Mental Health Service Delivery R. Municipal Broadband and Municipal Pole Protection S. New Mobility Services T. Photo Enforcement Safety Cameras U. Property Tax Reform V. Reducing Wastewater Impacts from Wipes and Other “Non-Flushables” W. Right-of-way/Franchise Fees Authority Preservation X. State Highway Funds Formula Y. Tort Liability Reform Z. Water Utility Rate and Fund Assistance In addition to your ranking of the priorities shown above, please use this space to provide us with any comments (supportive or critical) you may have on these issues, or thoughts on issues or potential legislative initiatives that have been overlooked during the committee process.): Please mark 4 boxes with an X or check mark that reflects the top 4 issues that your city recommends be added to the priorities for the LOC’s 2021 legislative agenda. A.Beer and Cider Tax Increase Legislation: The League proposes increasing the state taxes on beer and cider to assist with rising public safety costs, improve public health, reduce alcohol consumption by minors, and provide alcohol tax equity with wine and liquor. Background: Oregon’s tax has not been increased since 1978 and is currently $2.60 per barrel which equates to about 8 cents on a gallon of beer. The tax is by volume and not on the sales price, meaning the tax is less than 5 cents on a six-pack. Oregon has the lowest beer tax in the country, and to get to the middle of the states Oregon would need to raise the tax to $30.00 per barrel or 54 cents per six pack (a more than 10-fold increase). Given recent challenges to the craft brewing industry tied to bar and restaurant closures it may be appropriate to delay or phase-in the increase. Cities are preempted from imposing alcohol taxes. In exchange, cities receive approximately 34% of the state alcohol revenues, but the state takes 50% of beer and wine taxes off the top prior to this distribution. Cities have significant public safety costs related to alcohol consumption, and the beer tax does not come close to covering its fair share of these costs. Presented by the Finance and Taxation Committee B.Broadband Infrastructure and Technical Assistance Funding Legislation: Seek additional state support and funding for increased broadband infrastructure deployment and technical assistance. Background: The deployment of broadband and telecommunications networks and services (public and/or private) throughout Oregon is critical to economic development, education, health and safety and the ability of residents to be linked to their governments. Research shows areas of the state either not served or underserved by competitive broadband technology. A significant barrier to the deployment of broadband infrastructure is funding. Cities need additional funding and support from various sources, including the state and federal government, allocated for increased or new, reliable, low latency broadband infrastructure that reaches speeds of at least 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload or any updated speed standards as adopted by the FCC. Many federal grant programs require localities to have a broadband strategic plan in place before they are eligible for funds. Therefore, there is a need for funding sources to help cities with technical assistance as well as infrastructure. Presented by the Telecom, Broadband & Cable Committee C.Building (Reach) Code – Energy Efficiency Local Option Legislation: The LOC will pursue/support legislation to allow communities to adopt the Reach Code as the mandatory residential or commercial building code within the city’s jurisdictional boundaries. The Reach Code would represent a building energy code that would be at least 10 percent more efficient than the statewide building code. Under this proposal, cities would be able to adopt the more efficient Reach Code or would continue to use the standard statewide building code as the base code. You are reviewing the hard copy of the ballot. There are hyperlinks in the digital copy that may provide more background information. You can find the digital version with hyperlinks by going to this web address: https://www.orcities.org/download_file/1038/0. It is best opened in Google Chrome. Background: Under current state law, cities are preempted from adopting local building codes. Instead, development is subject to statewide codes, including for new residential and commercial development. In 2009, legislation was passed to implement a new, optional code (Reach Code) that would allow developers to exceed statewide codes and streamline the construction of higher-performance buildings through efficiencies gained in the building exterior envelope as well as heating, ventilation, air conditioning, piping insulation and lighting. The Reach Code is optional for builders to use, but a local government can’t mandate a builder to use it. This legislative recommendation would allow a city to adopt the Reach Code within their jurisdiction in order to promote additional energy efficiency for new residential and commercial structures. If a city does not wish to adopt the Reach Code, the statewide code would remain in place. The LOC Energy & Environment Committee discussed whether this recommendation would impact housing costs and believes that long-term cost savings may be gained through increased energy efficiency in newly built units. Ultimately, the decision on whether to utilize the standard code or the enhanced (Reach) code would be at the discretion of the city. Presented by the Energy and Environment Committee D. COVID-10 Economic Recovery Investments Legislation: The League will advocate for continued economic recovery strategies and investments for small business and workforce assistance in response to the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a devastating impact on Oregon’s small businesses and workforce. While the federal government and the state have made recent investments to support small business, these resources have yet to meet current needs and more resources will be needed to support long term economic recovery for Oregon’s communities. The League will work in coordination with economic development partners to advocate for continued investments to support long-term recovery and economic development. Presented by the Community Development Committee E. Digital Equity and Inclusion Legislation: Support legislation and policies that are inclusive and equitable to all, individuals and communities, so that they have the information technology capacity needed for full participation in our society, democracy and economy. Background: Connectivity is crucial to modern life. It is being relied on more for how people do business, learn, and receive important services like healthcare. As technology has evolved, the digital divide has become more complex and nuanced. It is no longer about the existence of technology in certain places. Now, the discussion of the digital divide is framed in terms of whether a population has access to hardware, to the Internet, to viable connection speeds and to the skills and training they need to effectively use it. The LOC will partner with schools, healthcare, and other stakeholders to ensure technologies are relevant, available, affordable, and accessible to the diverse populous and communities of Oregon. Additionally, the LOC will advocate for digital literacy programs to help learn these new technologies. Presented by the Telecom, Broadband & Cable Committee F. Expedited Siting for Shelter and Affordable Housing Legislation: The League will pursue legislation to expedite the siting of emergency shelter and other affordable housing that follows the intent of the 2020 shelter siting bill (HB 4001) but retains more local decision making in the process. The League will pursue this priority in coordination with affordable housing partners and other land use stakeholders. Background: The League worked closely with city and county partners during the 2020 session to gain improvements to HB 4001, which sought to preempt all local siting and zoning regulations and the land use appeals process, for approving the siting of emergency shelters for a one-year period. HB 4001 received strong legislative support in 2020. Draft omnibus legislation for a potential future special session has included the text of HB 4001 and the League expects to see HB 4001 reintroduced in the 2021 session. This priority will empower cities and counties to proactively introduce alternative legislation, similar to existing statute in California, which requires jurisdictions to identify places where shelters can locate instead of mandating that jurisdictions allow shelters to be sited anywhere. The California model requires cities and counties to accommodate their need for emergency shelters on sites where the use is allowed without a conditional use permit and requires cities and counties to treat transitional and supportive housing projects as a residential use of property. Presented by the Community Development Committee G. Green Energy/Renewables – Expanded Local Option Legislation: The LOC will pursue/support policies that increase local control opportunities for cities that want to establish a community-scale green energy program. This program would be optional for cities that choose to pursue it. Cities who choose to, would be allowed to adopt resolutions that would opt-in residential, commercial, and industrial customers to a voluntary renewable energy option if it is provided by an investor owned utility that serves the city and its electric customers. Under this proposed program, a city would be able to pursue a more aggressive green energy portfolio and would better position cities to meet local climate action goals. Background: Under current law, customers of investor-owned utilities can opt-in to voluntary renewable energy options for their customers. These options allow customers to invest in additional green energy generation. In 2019, the state of Utah passed legislation (SB 411) that allows cities and counties to opt-in to programs on a community-scale basis, while still allowing individual customers to opt-out. Under this proposal, any city within the territory of an investor-owned utility, would be able to pursue this option for community-scale renewable energy (net-100% renewable). Presented by the Energy and Environment Committee H. Housing and Services Investment Legislation: The League will support increased investments for affordable housing, homeless assistance, and related services including funding for: shelter, homeless services, case management, rent assistance, the development and preservation of affordable housing, and permanent supportive housing. Background: Cities large and small were facing escalating homelessness rates before the COVID-19 pandemic and the current economic downturn will only increase the number of Oregonians facing eviction or experiencing homelessness. State general fund programs like the Emergency Housing Assistance (EHA) and State Homeless Assistance Program (SHAP) have seen record investments in previous legislative sessions. The legislative emergency board also voted recently to dedicate $12M in general funds to support rent assistance and safe shelter in response to COVID-19. Oregon’s lack of available housing, high rents and high home prices are causing housing instability and homelessness to increase. The Legislature has made record investments in recent years to fund the LIFT affordable housing program and preserve Oregon’s existing affordable housing infrastructure. These programs are funded through general obligation bonds and lottery backed bonds. Permanent Supportive Housing is a key strategy for ending chronic homelessness that reduces downstream costs to public systems like public safety, emergency health care and corrections. The 2019 Legislature invested over $50M to stand up a three-pronged permanent supportive housing program that includes 1) development costs to build, 2) rent assistance to keep units deeply affordable, and 3) wrap around services that are key to ensuring residents’ long-term stability. The state should continue investing in this model to bring more Permanent Supportive Housing across the state and ensure that the housing developed with the original $50M continues receive the necessary ongoing funding for rent assistance and supportive services. Presented by the Community Development Committee I. Increased Budgetary Flexibility During Budgetary Emergency Legislation: The League proposes relaxing budgetary constraints in state law so that cities may better be able to withstand revenue losses related to natural disasters and public health emergencies. These losses will inevitably force many cities to cut services and lay off staff, the legislature can reduce the effect of losses by increasing flexibility for use of funds during and after a declared emergency. Background: Cities anticipate a tremendous loss in revenue due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Reduced revenues already include losses to lodging taxes, gas taxes, park fees, development fees, parking fees, utility charges, and so on. Further out, there is widespread concern that there will be impacts to the real estate market going into 2021, and by extension a reduction in 2021-22 property tax revenues. Cities want maximum flexibility in using funds that are subject to statutory limitations but will negotiate terms on individual funding sources including payback requirements if necessary. This flexibility should apply during and after declared emergencies, including both the current pandemic and future natural disasters. Presented by the Finance and Taxation Committee J. Infrastructure Financing and Resilience Legislation: The League will advocate for an increase in the state’s investment in key infrastructure funding sources, including, but not limited to, the Special Public Works Fund (SPWF), Brownfield Redevelopment Fund, and Regionally Significant Industrial Site loan program. The advocacy will include seeking an investment and set aside through the SPWF for seismic resilience planning and related infrastructure improvements to make Oregon water and wastewater systems more resilient. Background: Cities continue to face the challenge of how to fund infrastructure improvements (both to maintain current and to build new). Increasing state resources in programs that provide access to lower rate loans and grants will assist cities in investing in vital infrastructure. Infrastructure development impacts economic development, housing, and livability. The level of funding for these programs has been inadequate compared to the needs over the last few biennia and the funds are depleting and unsustainable without significant program modifications and reinvestments. This priority will focus on maximizing both the amount of funding and the flexibility of the funds to meet the needs of more cities across the state to ensure long-term infrastructure investment. Presented by the Community Development Committee K.Local Climate Action Planning Resources Legislation: The LOC will seek grant funding and technical assistance resources for cities to pursue, adopt or expand local climate action plans. In addition, the LOC will pursue opportunities to work with the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute (through Oregon State University) to provide cities and counties with local/regional data that can better inform the adoption and implementation of climate adaptation and mitigation at the local level. Background: According to the Oregon Department of Energy’s 2018 Biennial Energy Report (BER), since the early 1990s, major international and U.S. scientific assessments have concluded that both climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts are necessary in response to climate change. The BER goes on to explain that adaptation is often thought of as actions “to prepare for and adjust to new conditions, thereby reducing harm or taking advantage of new opportunities or simply to reduce society’s vulnerability to climate change impacts.” Local climate action plans, adopted by cities or counties, can help communities better understand how climate change will impact their communities, and can provide localized solutions to help mitigate against the impacts of climate change. The LOC is aware of fourteen cities that have adopted local climate action plans. There are other cities that are interested in doing the same but that do not have the financial and/or staffing resources that are necessary. Presented by the Energy and Environment Committee L.Local Energy Generation Project Support Legislation: The LOC will support/pursue funding, technical assistance and other tools that make local energy generation more feasible for cities to pursue. Background: Local energy generation projects can better position cities to pursue and achieve local climate action goals, address capacity constraints of existing electric transmission lines, and can help cities respond to individual businesses that may be seeking green energy options. The types of local energy generation projects discussed by the committee include, but are not limited to, small-scale hydropower, in-conduit hydropower, methane capture, biomass and solar. Such projects are not intended to conflict with existing low-carbon power purchase agreements but can position cities to pursue local climate action goals and supplement energy needs through renewable generation. Under this recommendation, the LOC will work to identify barriers and potential solutions to local energy generation and will pursue funding assistance for feasibility studies and project implementation. Presented by the Energy and Environment Committee M.Local Speed Setting Authority Legislation: Support legislation that provides legislative authority for ODOT to delegate local speed setting authority to Oregon cities that meet state criteria. I Improve safety and speed limit consistency in Oregon cities by establishing a clear delegation process that is consistent with recently adopted statewide speed zone rules. (OAR 734-020-0014, 734-020-0015, and 734-020-0016). This will be permissive legislation allowing cities to opt-in and thus will not be a mandate. Background: The state of Oregon and cities across the state are all committed to improving safety on our streets. National and international research has shown that setting appropriate speed limits on city streets is a critical tool for improving safety and saving lives. During the 2020 legislative session, HB 4103 gained widespread support for setting up a collaborative process with ODOT and cities that opt into a process for gaining local speed setting authority. Despite strong support, HB 4103 did not pass due to the legislative clock running out. Going forward, LOC will work with safety advocates and cities and use HB 4103 from the 2020 session as a template for legislation in 2021. Delegated authority should be made available to all cities that meet ODOT’s criteria; participation by cities is permissive (not required). Cities should be able to determine speeds that are adequate and safe for their communities, working within the OAR speed zone framework. This will improve safety and make speed setting more consistent across local government jurisdictions. Presented by the Transportation Committee N.Long Term Transportation Infrastructure Funding Legislation: Support expansion and consideration of revenue-generating options to fund multimodal transportation infrastructure, which includes state and local facilities. Support state and local projects that are part of the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. Background: Oregon has made two significant state-wide transportation investments in the last 15 years. In 2009 the Jobs and Transportation Act (JTA). This was a successful effort from local governments and the business community to invest in maintenance and capacity building projects state-wide. In 2017, HB 2017 established Oregon’s first ever comprehensive, multimodal, transportation investment with what is known as “Keep Oregon Moving,” which was a $5.3 billion package. Although HB 2017 will not have its full funding until 2024 LOC and other transportation advocates will need to constantly explore other sources of revenue including a possible future replacement of Oregon’s gas tax with a road user charge system. Oregon has been pioneering a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tax within the MyOReGo pilot program. The program is voluntary and can provide several benefits to users. Ultimately the long-term structure for transportation investment may well take on a similar structure. Presented by the Transportation Committee, endorsed by the Community Development Committee O.Low-Income Energy Efficiency and Affordability Programs Legislation: The LOC will provide support for programs that seek to expand upon low-income energy and heating assistance programs, including programs targeted to make energy more affordable for rental properties. In addition, the LOC will work to support programs that provide for energy bill payment assistance and expand opportunities for low-income Oregonians to access resources for home weatherization. Background: According to Oregon Housing & Community Services, approximately 396,182, or about 25 percent of all households, are considered energy-burdened because of their energy-related expenditures (as of 2018). A household is considered energy burdened if six percent or more of its gross income is consumed by energy-related expenses. In recent years, legislation has been introduced in Oregon that would have provided additional assistance to low-income homeowners and renters that struggle with energy affordability. Unfortunately, legislation did not pass. The need for such assistance has increased as a result of the economic hardships resulting from COVID-19. In addition to bill payment assistance, there is a need for programs that will support low-income home weatherization in order to make energy bills more affordable in the long-term. Presented by the Energy and Environment Committee P.Marijuana Tax Local Rate Limitation Increase Legislation: The League proposes increasing the current 3% cap on local marijuana taxes. This would give local voters greater choice in choosing a rate that reflects their needs or their community. Background: Retailers licensed by the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) are required to charge a state- imposed retail sales tax of 17 percent for all recreational marijuana sold. Cities and counties (unincorporated areas only) may also impose a local retail sales tax of up to 3%, subject to voter approval. Tax rates for recreational marijuana vary widely across the states, but the total Oregon tax burden at a maximum of 20% is the lowest of West Coast states. Washington imposes a 37% state excise tax, but with a state sales tax of 6.5% and local rates of up to 1.9% the total rate can reach over 45%. California has a retail tax of only 15%, but with a state sales tax of 7.5% and local taxes up to 15.25% the total rate can reach up to 37.75%. Oregon consistently ranks among the lowest of the states for marijuana prices. Cities are sensitive to the desire to not push consumers to the black market and will work with the legislature on an increased cap that balances that concern with local revenue needs. Presented the Finance and Tax Committee Q.Mental Health Service Delivery Legislation: Support the delivery of mental health services in order to reduce negative police interactions and ensure that those in need receive the help they require. Background: The Committee and the LOC membership have prioritized the delivery of mental health services periodically over the last 5 years. Items contained in this priority have included crisis intervention training for police officer, mobile police and social worker teams to proactively work with people in danger of going into crisis, jail diversion, mental health courts and greater access to care. In the immediate past short session, the LOC worked with its coalition partners to obtain $9 million in additional funding for aid-and-assist, community care and jail diversion but was unsuccessful due to a lack of quorum. While the measurements are subjective and not in general agreement, most surveys of behavioral health and alcohol and drug addiction service availability place Oregon near or at the bottom of state rankings. As a result, Oregon ranks third in the nation for alcohol related deaths, and above the national average in suicides. Anecdotally, most police chiefs that have participated in LOC conversations on this topic report a growing number of calls for service stemming from people in mental health crisis. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated some of these issues with Portland Police Bureau reporting a 41% increase in suicide related calls (including attempts and threats) over this time last year. This priority would include but not be limited to: Investment: The stark truth is that Oregon has never financially supported mental health services at a level commensurate with need. More beds and more capacity will allow for greater delivery. The spending plan may be complicated but many advocates bristle at the idea of “mental health reform” when it’s never been funded as a priority. The League does not have a specific number at this time but is in conversation with partners to develop one. Decimalization of Mental Illness: People suffering from mental illness that interact with the criminal justice system typically spend more time incarcerated and suffer a disruption in treatment. Jail diversion has been something the League has advocated for in previous sessions and but will require changes in law, training and investments. Workgroups Outcomes: There are currently several workgroups developing behavioral health reform plans that have yet to be completed, much of that work has been interrupted by COVID 19. LOC staff can update the Committee on these their work continues but cannot make recommendations on them now. Alcohol Availability: The prevalence of cheap and potent alcoholic beverages that are produced and sold for the express purpose of achieving rapid intoxication has been a concern for Oregon Recovers, an advocacy group for those recovering from addiction. OLCC sells several 750 ml bottles for under $10 and some as low as $5. Creating a minimum price per international unit of alcohol has had an impact on consumption of cheap, potent beverages in Scotland and is believed to have had an impact on consumption there. Raising the price of low cost but high-volume products would also increase city shared revenue and provide additional funding for behavioral health services. Mental Health Parity: Oregon and the federal government have enacted statutes to ensure that mental health services are treated as a health issues in a manner identical to physical health by health insurers. The legislative intent behind these laws has not been met as evidence by reports of denied coverage. Ensuring effective parity would increase treatment an access. Presented by the General Government/Human Resources Committee, endorsed by the Community Development Committee R. Municipal Broadband and Pole Protection Legislation: Oppose legislative efforts to restrict existing municipal authority to provide broadband services, and own and operate poles in the rights-of-way. Background: As the public grows more dependent on the Internet for expanding parts of their lives, community choices for gaining access at a reasonable price, for both consumers and producers, are dwindling. Some municipalities choose to become service providers themselves. Municipal broadband is sometimes the only way to bring high speed internet to a community and it can serve as an access point to neighboring communities. Additionally, municipal broadband adds competition to the market and can help lower prices for community members. As there is a push for more connectivity and bridging the digital the divide, the LOC will protect localities rights to be internet service providers for their own communities. Additionally, as more and more small cell and 5G technology is deployed in the rights-of-way, the LOC will protect the right of municipalities to own, operate and regulate attachments that are allowed on their poles. Presented by the Telecom, Broadband & Cable Committee S.New Mobility Services Legislation: Support for a variety of new mobility services that promote a safe, sustainable, and equitable multimodal transportation system, while preserving local government's authority to regulate services and ensure they best serve the local context. Background: Transportation mobility has been rapidly changing over the last few years. The emergence of ridesharing services such as Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) now provide the public with more options to get from point “a” to point “b.” New platforms continue to emerge such as scooters, shared bikes, electric delivery tricycles for package delivery and the possibility of future driverless delivery and vehicle fleets. Cities must have the flexibility to address the impacts of emerging technologies on their communities such as increased congestion and air pollution while protecting consumers and maintaining a safe transportation network that recognizes the unique needs of individual communities. Presented by the Transportation Committee T.Photo Enforcement Safety Cameras Legislation: Support continuation and expansion of fixed speed and red-light cameras and mobile speed radar state- wide to improve public safety in high-crash corridors. Explore changes that enable more streamlined processing of citations. Allow for local governments to form IGA’s with other local governments to facilitate the use of safety cameras and mobile radar in their communities. Background: The Oregon Transportation Safety Action Plan sets a goal of no deaths or life-changing injuries on Oregon’s transportation system by 2035. In 2015, the Oregon Legislature granted the city of Portland the authority to implement a fixed speed safety camera program (HB 2621). Portland’s fixed speed camera systems have been operating on “urban high crash corridors” for the past several years. Data collected at these locations shows a distinct change in driver behavior that has reduced the risk of collisions (See PBOT Report). Under existing statutes, photo radar is allowed in the cities of Albany, Beaverton, Bend, Eugene, Gladstone, Medford, Milwaukie, Oregon City, Portland and Tigard. LOC’s goal is to bring this authority state-wide providing all cities with the choice of operating speed radar in their communities to improve safety and reduce the risk of high-speed crashes. Presented by the Transportation Committee U.Property Tax Reform Legislation: The League of Oregon Cities proposes that the Legislature refer a constitutional measure and take statutory action to reform the property tax system as part of the 2021 session. With the passage of the Corporate Activities Tax Oregon has taken a step towards long term financial stability at the state and school district level, but local budgetary challenges persist and the legislature must take action to allow cities and other local governments to adequately fund the services that residents demand. Background: The property tax system is broken and in need of repair due to Measures 5 and 50, which are both now over 20 years old. The current system is inequitable to property owners and jurisdictions alike, is often inadequate to allow jurisdictions to provide critical services, removes all local choice, and is incomprehensible to the majority of taxpayers. Local governments and schools rely heavily on property tax revenues to pay for services and capital expenses. Therefore, the League will take a leadership role in forming coalitions to help draft and advocate for both comprehensive and incremental property tax reform option packages. The League will remain flexible to support all legislation that improves the system, with a focus on a property tax package that includes, but may not be limited to these elements: • To restore local choice, a system that allows voters to adopt tax levies and establish tax rates outside of current limits and not subject to compression (requires constitutional referral). • To achieve equity, a system that has taxpayers’ relative share tied to the value of their property, rather than the complex and increasingly arbitrary valuation system based on assessed value from Measure 50 (requires constitutional referral). • To enhance fairness and adequacy, a system that makes various statutory changes, some of which would adjust the impact of the above changes. For example, as a part of comprehensive reform the League supports a new reasonable homestead exemption (percentage of RMV with a cap) but also supports limiting or repealing various property tax exemptions that do not have a reasonable return on investment. Presented by the Finance and Tax Committee, endorsed by the Community Development Committee V. Reducing Wastewater Impacts from Wipes and Other “Non-Flushables” Legislation: The LOC will work with other stakeholders, including the Oregon Association of Clean Water Agencies address challenges resulting from wipes and other non-flushable items. Legislation pursued will likely focus on requirements for manufacturers to clearly label product packaging to indicate that the product should not be flushed, however, the LOC will additionally explore other viable opportunities to address the public health, environmental and economic challenges resulting from improper disposal of these products. Background: In recent years, public wastewater systems have experienced significant increases in sewer line clogs, environmental impacts, infrastructure impacts and costs associated with wipes being flushed down toilets. Most wipes don’t break down when flushed, and even wipes that are labeled as “flushable” can clog pipelines and pumps and can cause sewage overflows in residences and the environment. The COVID-19 pandemic has made this challenge even worse due to shortages of toilet paper and increased use of disinfecting wipes. The EPA and other national organizations, as well as statewide and local wastewater agencies, are working to get the message out to avoid costly as well as environmental impacts of wipes in our sewer and treatment systems. In March of 2020, the state of Washington passed legislation requiring manufacturers to label products with a “do not flush” logo if the product does not meet national “flushability” standards (i.e. breaking down in the sewer system). Presented by the Water/Wastewater Committee W. Right-of-Way/Franchise Fees Authority Preservation Legislation: Oppose legislation that, in any way, preempts local authority to manage public rights-of-way and cities’ ability to set the rate of compensation for the use of such rights-of-way. Background: In its commitment to the protection of Home Rule and local control, the LOC consistently opposes restrictions on the rights of cities to manage their own affairs. From time to time, in the context of public rights-of-way management authority discussions, legislative proposals to restrict this authority arise. Efforts to restrict local authority often include proposals for a statewide right-of-way access policy and compensation system as well as limiting the ability of cities to charge fees of other government entities. This is contrary to local government management authority; the ability to enter into agreements with users of the right-of-way either by agreement/contract or ordinance; to set terms of right-of-way use and to set the rate of compensation. In recent years the FCC has passed rulemaking through various orders like the Small Cell Orders (FCC 18-133 and FCC 18-111) and the Cable Franchising Order (FCC 19-80) that erode cities’ right-of-way and franchising authority. Local governments around the U.S. are fighting these orders in court. There is a fear that the language of these orders will be codified in state legislatures. This would mean if the orders are overturned in court at the federal level, they will still impact cities in states that have passed laws codifying the orders. Presented by the Telecom, Broadband & Cable Committee X. State Highway Funds Formula Legislation: Consider opening the state highway fund distribution formula to allow for an additional percentage to cities. Currently the split is 50-30-20 with the State receiving 50%, Counties receiving 30% and the balance going to Cities 20%. Background: Oregon has had a distribution formula for the state highway fund for decades. This fund combines the revenues generated from the state’s gas tax, weight-mile tax on heavy trucks, licenses, fees, and bond proceeds. Approximately 77 percent of the total revenue collected by Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) is from state sources, while only 23 percent comes from federal sources. During the 2017 session base level funding for the least populated counties was established along with a $5 million-dollar small city fund for cities under 5,000 in population with a maximum award of $100,000 and no match requirement. LOC will engage with other transportation interests to determine if there is adequate support to advance legislation that would revisit the current 50-30-20 distribution. Presented by the Transportation Committee Y. Tort Liability Reform Legislation: COVID-19 and existing federal court decisions have added risk exposure to cities in areas where their authority has been limited or have not received adequate support. This priority seeks to ensure that cities are not held liable in these areas. Background: CIS has already had a COVID related claim filed against it for a COVID related exposure. While there may be many legitimate reasons for a person to seek damages related to the outbreak, local governments have been hampered by inadequate supplies of PPE, testing capability, direct financial support, and legislative relief. Additionally, the Boise decision that prevents cities from enforcing no camping rules and ordinances subject cities to additional tort liability. The ruling holds that if a person has no place else to go, a city must allow them to sleep somewhere. While there is a logical basis for the core of the ruling, if a city allows a person to sleep in an area that is not designed for camping, such as a park, the person may seek damages. Please note that recreational users of parks may not seek damages due to Oregon’s recreational immunity statute that were corrected in 2017. Finally, in previous sessions, legislation has been introduced but not passed to require cities to permit shelters in areas where they may not be appropriate and “codify” the Boise decision in state law. This legislation did not include immunity from tort liability while removing city authority. Presented by the General Government/Human Resources Committee Z. Water Utility Rate and Fund Assistance Legislation: The League will work during the 2021 legislative session to provide water utility funding assistance for ratepayers that are experiencing ongoing or recent economic hardships. In addition, the LOC will work to identify opportunities for additional investments in public infrastructure, including water supply, wastewater treatment, stormwater management, green infrastructure opportunities and resilience for water systems. Finally, the LOC Water & Wastewater Policy Committee has identified a need for additional, targeted grant funding assistance that will benefit smaller communities. This includes additional funding to conduct rate studies, feasibility studies and funding to help communities comply with new regulatory requirements, including the requirement to include a seismic risk assessment and mitigation plan within regular water master plan updates. Background: In response to economic impacts associated with the spread of COVID-19, many of Oregon’s drinking water and wastewater utility providers have offered additional assistance to ratepayers. The LOC is aware that most water utility providers have temporarily ceased water service shut offs (disconnections) for non- payment or past due bill collection during this period of economic hardship. Impacts associated with residential ratepayer revenue losses and decreased water consumption from businesses that have either closed or limited operations has resulted in revenue losses for many Oregon water utility providers. Some water utilities have outstanding debt from prior infrastructure investments and have expressed concerns that reductions in revenue may impact the ability to make the ongoing debt payments. In addition, the economic hardships that are being experienced by many Oregonians, especially in low-income and minority communities, will be ongoing; highlighting the need for additional ratepayer assistance investments that focuses on equity and our most vulnerable populations. The LOC will work to identify funding for water utility ratepayer assistance and will work to establish a framework for the distribution of funds and will seek to ensure that this crisis does not exacerbate existing inequities, especially for Black, Indigenous, other Communities of Color and for rural Oregonians. In addition, while COVID-19 has created unique revenue challenges for water utility providers, a key issue that most cities continue to face is how to fund infrastructure improvements (including maintaining, repairing and replacing existing infrastructure and building new infrastructure to address capacity and regulatory requirements). Increasing resources in programs that provide access to lower-rate loans and infrastructure-specific grants will assist cities in investing in vital infrastructure improvements which will also help bolster economic recovery. Infrastructure development impacts economic development, housing, and livability. The level of funding for these programs has been inadequate compared to the needs over the last few biennia and the funds are depleting and unsustainable without significant program modifications and reinvestments. The LOC will pursue additional funding through the state’s Special Public Works Fund, which provides funding assistance through Business Oregon for a variety of public infrastructure needs and will explore state bonding capacity opportunities for water-specific infrastructure needs. In addition, LOC will pursue funding for small communities that face regulatory and operational challenges. Examples of small- community funding assistance opportunities may include expanded grant opportunities through existing funding programs and additional funding assistance to help communities with regulatory compliance and engage in utility best practices, including rate studies. Presented by the Water/Wastewater Committee, endorsed by the Community Development Committee Acknowledgements Thank you to all that participated in the policy committee process. Community Development Committee Brian Latta, Dallas (Chair) Timothy Rippe, Forest Grove (Vice-Chair) Tom Armstrong, Portland Michael Boquist, La Grande Barbara Bull, Corvallis Steve Clements, La Grande Katy Dunsmuir, Estacada Len Goodwin, Veneta Allen Hobson, Winston Kelly Madding, Ashland Hilary Norton, Halsey Heather Richards, McMinnville Scot Siegel, Lake Oswego Michael Sykes, Scappoose Derrick Tokos, Newport Ryan Wells, Cornelius Kenna West, Willamina John Williams, West Linn Steve Wright, Seaside Stacy Cowan, Portland Erik Kancler, Bend Ethan Nelson, Eugene Eric Noll, State, Portland Anne Davies, Lane Council of Governments Spencer Parsons, Beery, Elsner & Hammond Ariel Nelson, LOC Energy & Environment Committee Steve Uffelman, Prineville (Chair) Kathryn Hyzy, Milwaukie (Vice-Chair) Thomas Brownson, Astoria Steve Dahl, Drain Steve Forrester, Prineville Jerry Gillham, Sutherlin Tonya Graham, Ashland Scott Hill, McMinnville Theresa Kohlhoff, Lake Oswego Vinh Mason, Portland Sandra Spelliscy, Talent Biff Traber, Corvallis Stacy Cowan, Portland Jennifer Joly, OMEU Tracy Rutten, LOC Finance & Taxation Committee Don Hudson, Tualatin (Chair) Paul Chalmers, Pendleton (Vice-Chair) Martha Bennett, Lake Oswego David Bodway, Sherwood Nancy Brewer, Corvallis Thomas Brownson, Astoria Gretchen Buehner, King City Barbara Bull, Corvallis Katy Dunsmuir, Estacada Jessica Eden, Portland Joseph Gall, Sherwood Peter Hall, Haines Bessie Johnson, Albany Suzanne Lineen, Hillsboro Heidi Lueb, Tigard Anthony Martin, Hillsboro Brian McDowell, Union Seth Reeser, Wood Village Tim Rosener, Sherwood Byron Smith, Hermiston Jim Snyder, Phoenix Andrew Struthers, Corvallis Tyler Wallace, Portland Kenna West, Willamina Steve Wright, Seaside Eric Chambers, Gresham Ethan Nelson, Eugene Eric Noll, Portland Carol Samuels, Piper Sandler & Co. Mark Gharst, LOC General Government/Human Resources Committee Jake Boone, Cottage Grove (Chair) Aaron Cubic, Grants Pass (Vice-Chair) David Allen, Newport David Bodway, Sherwood Jerry Gillham, Sutherlin Mark Gissiner, Eugene Jeff Groth, Sherwood Cathy Henson, Portland Allen Hobson, Winston Bessie Johnson, Albany Heidi Lueb, Councilor, Tigard Stephanie Moran, Junction City Lisa Morgan, Prineville Ethan Nelson, Eugene Jim Snyder, Phoenix Steve Uffelman, Prineville Tyler Wallace, Portland Stacy Cowan, Portland Eric Noll, Portland Scott Winkels, LOC Telecom, Broadband and Cable Committee Peter Truax, Forest Grove (Chair) Ryan Zink, Salem (Vice-Chair) Pam Berrian, Eugene Steve Callaway, Hillsboro Len Goodwin, Veneta Anne Hill, Portland Robert Kellogg, Tualatin Marilyn Morton, Independence Elisabeth Perez, Portland Seth Reeser, Wood Village Heather Richards, McMinnville Tim Rosener, Sherwood Byron Smith, Hermiston Pam Vaughan, Corvallis Nancy Wyse, Corvallis Maja Haium, Portland Jennifer Joly, OMEU Eric Noll, Portland Reba Crocker, ROW Consultants LLC Anne Davies, Pricipal Attorney, Lane Council of Governments Spencer Parsons, Beery, Elsner & Hammond Chris Tamarin, Buisness Oregon Jenna Jones, LOC Transportation Committee Ken Woods, Dallas (Chair) Timm Slater, North Bend (Vice-Chair) Mike Bisset, McMinnville Tom Boyatt, Springfield Gretchen Buehner, King City Steve Callaway, Hillsboro Shoshana Cohen, Portland Joseph Gall, Sherwood Scott Hill, McMinnville Rob Inerfeld, Eugene Robert Kellogg, Tualatin Theresa Kohloff, Lake Oswego Jamie Kranz, Troudale Brian Latta, Dallas Keith Mays, Sherwood Walt Perry, Jefferson Michael, Quilty, Central Point Timothy Rippe, Forest Grove Tim Rosener, Sherwood Michael Sykes, Scappoose Biff Traber, Corvallis Julie Warncke, Salem John Williams, West Linn Stacy Cowan, Portland Kayla Hootsmans, ODOT Jim McMauley, LOC Water/Wastewater Committee Jason Pulley, Salem (Chair) Niki Iverson, Hillsboro (Vice Chair) Alice Brawley-Chesworth, Portland Steve Dahl, Drain Tim Gross, Newport Jan Lee, Sandy Brian McDowell, Union Sara Petrocine, Portland Paul Rheault, Bend Dean Sawyer, Newport Julie Smitherman, Ashland Eric Noll, Portland Susie Smith, ACWA Tracy Rutten, LOC State Legislative State Legislative State Legislative Tigard, OR 2020 Tigard, OR 2020 Tigard, OR 2020 AGENDA AGENDA AGENDA The regional impact and value of State Highway 99W transcends local jurisdictions. The City of Tigard, in partnership with Tualatin, King City, Sherwood, TriMet, ODOT and Washington County, is seeking a million in state funding for a 99W Corridor Plan to identify investments and policy updates needed to improve multimodal safety, transportation system management, economic activity, development and land use along a 10-mile stretch. Partners have begun a preliminary study to outline the full extent of a multi-jurisdiction project. Partners will prepare a unifying strategy to guide how this corridor will serve local, regional and state needs as growth continues to stress our shared infrastructure network. The regional impact and value of State Highway 99W transcends local jurisdictions. The City of Tigard, in partnership with Tualatin, King City, Sherwood, TriMet, ODOT and Washington County, is seeking a million in state funding for a 99W Corridor Plan to identify investments and policy updates needed to improve multimodal safety, transportation system management, economic activity, development and land use along a 10-mile stretch. Partners have begun a preliminary study to outline the full extent of a multi-jurisdiction project. Partners will prepare a unifying strategy to guide how this corridor will serve local, regional and state needs as growth continues to stress our shared infrastructure network. The regional impact and value of State Highway 99W transcends local jurisdictions. The City of Tigard, in partnership with Tualatin, King City, Sherwood, TriMet, ODOT and Washington County, is seeking a million in state funding for a 99W Corridor Plan to identify investments and policy updates needed to improve multimodal safety, transportation system management, economic activity, development and land use along a 10-mile stretch. Partners have begun a preliminary study to outline the full extent of a multi-jurisdiction project. Partners will prepare a unifying strategy to guide how this corridor will serve local, regional and state needs as growth continues to stress our shared infrastructure network. Tigard hopes to shape property tax reform efforts to lay the groundwork for the 2021 session. Tigard supports past efforts to allow cities to use more property tax tools to address local funding issues, including support for referral to voters that would allow local control of temporary property tax outside of statewide caps; amending the state constitution to reset a property’s assessed value to its real market value at the time of sale or construction; and a statutory change regarding the way new property is added to the tax rolls to provide the option of applying a citywide changed property rate to new property. Tigard hopes to shape property tax reform efforts to lay the groundwork for the 2021 session. Tigard supports past efforts to allow cities to use more property tax tools to address local funding issues, including support for referral to voters that would allow local control of temporary property tax outside of statewide caps; amending the state constitution to reset a property’s assessed value to its real market value at the time of sale or construction; and a statutory change regarding the way new property is added to the tax rolls to provide the option of applying a citywide changed property rate to new property. Tigard hopes to shape property tax reform efforts to lay the groundwork for the 2021 session. Tigard supports past efforts to allow cities to use more property tax tools to address local funding issues, including support for referral to voters that would allow local control of temporary property tax outside of statewide caps; amending the state constitution to reset a property’s assessed value to its real market value at the time of sale or construction; and a statutory change regarding the way new property is added to the tax rolls to provide the option of applying a citywide changed property rate to new property. Tigard supports increased funding for resources to unhoused individuals and families. The city advocates for strategies that empower and supports individuals. Tigard supports increased funding for resources to unhoused individuals and families. The city advocates for strategies that empower and supports individuals. Tigard supports increased funding for resources to unhoused individuals and families. The city advocates for strategies that empower and supports individuals. 99W Corridor 99W Corridor 99W Corridor Property Tax Reform Property Tax Reform Property Tax Reform Houselessness Houselessness Houselessness 13125 SW Hall Blvd.|Tigard, Oregon 97223 503.639.4171 | www.tigard-or.gov City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd.|Tigard, Oregon 97223 503.639.4171 | www.tigard-or.gov City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd.|Tigard, Oregon 97223 503.639.4171 | www.tigard-or.gov City of Tigard Oregon Legislature Oregon Legislature Oregon Legislature Short Session: Feb. 3 - March 7 Short Session: Feb. 3 - March 7 Short Session: Feb. 3 - March 7 While lawmakers will address several issues, the focus this session is a continuation of the cap-and-trade bill debate from 2019. Below is a list of your state elected officials: While lawmakers will address several issues, the focus this session is a continuation of the cap-and-trade bill debate from 2019. Below is a list of your state elected officials: While lawmakers will address several issues, the focus this session is a continuation of the cap-and-trade bill debate from 2019. Below is a list of your state elected officials: On January 14, the Tigard City Council recommened the issues outlined on this document as the city’s top priorities this legislative session. On January 14, the Tigard City Council recommened the issues outlined on this document as the city’s top priorities this legislative session. On January 14, the Tigard City Council recommened the issues outlined on this document as the city’s top priorities this legislative session. Contact Information: councilmail@tigard-or.gov | 503-718-2476 Contact Information: councilmail@tigard-or.gov | 503-718-2476 Contact Information: councilmail@tigard-or.gov | 503-718-2476 Sen. Kim Thatcher Senate District 13 900 Court St. NE, S-307, Salem, OR 97301 503-986-1713sen.kimthatcher@oregonlegislature.gov Sen. Kim Thatcher Senate District 13 900 Court St. NE, S-307, Salem, OR 97301 503-986-1713sen.kimthatcher@oregonlegislature.gov Sen. Kim Thatcher Senate District 13 900 Court St. NE, S-307, Salem, OR 97301 503-986-1713sen.kimthatcher@oregonlegislature.gov Rep. Margaret Doherty House District 35 900 Court St. NE, H-282, Salem, OR 97301 503-986-1435rep.margaretdoherty@oregonlegislature.gov Rep. Margaret Doherty House District 35 900 Court St. NE, H-282, Salem, OR 97301 503-986-1435rep.margaretdoherty@oregonlegislature.gov Rep. Margaret Doherty House District 35 900 Court St. NE, H-282, Salem, OR 97301 503-986-1435rep.margaretdoherty@oregonlegislature.gov Senate Majority Leader Ginny Burdick Senate District 18 900 Court St. NE, S-223, Salem, OR 97301 503-986-1700sen.ginnyburdick@oregonlegislature.gov Senate Majority Leader Ginny Burdick Senate District 18 900 Court St. NE, S-223, Salem, OR 97301 503-986-1700sen.ginnyburdick@oregonlegislature.gov Senate Majority Leader Ginny Burdick Senate District 18 900 Court St. NE, S-223, Salem, OR 97301 503-986-1700sen.ginnyburdick@oregonlegislature.gov Rep. Courtney Neron House District 26 900 Court St. NE, H-281, Salem, OR 97301 503-986-1426rep.courtneyneron@oregonlegislature.gov Rep. Courtney Neron House District 26 900 Court St. NE, H-281, Salem, OR 97301 503-986-1426rep.courtneyneron@oregonlegislature.gov Rep. Courtney Neron House District 26 900 Court St. NE, H-281, Salem, OR 97301 503-986-1426rep.courtneyneron@oregonlegislature.gov Mayor and City Council Mayor and City Council Mayor and City Council Jason SniderMayor Jason SniderMayor Jason SniderMayorJohn GoodhouseCouncil President John GoodhouseCouncil President John GoodhouseCouncil President Heidi LuebCouncilor Heidi LuebCouncilor Heidi LuebCouncilorTom AndersonCouncilor Tom AndersonCouncilor Tom AndersonCouncilorLiz NewtonCouncilor Liz NewtonCouncilor Liz NewtonCouncilorMeghan TurleyYouth Councilor Meghan TurleyYouth Councilor Meghan TurleyYouth Councilor TIGARD, OREGON Key Contacts: Jason Snider, Mayor 503-810-0269 | jason@tigard-or.gov Marty Wine, City Manager 503-718-2486 | marty@tigard-or.gov Nicole Hendrix, Senior Management Analyst 503-718-2416 | nicoleh@tigard-or.gov Federal Priorities 2020 13125 SW Hall Blvd.|Tigard, Oregon 97223 503.639.4171 | www.tigard-or.gov 13125 SW Hall Blvd.|Tigard, Oregon 97223 503.639.4171 | www.tigard-or.gov City of Tigard City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223 503.639.4171 • www.tigard-or.gov 8777 SW Burnham St., Tigard, Oregon 97223 503.718.2591 • www.tigard-or.gov TIGARD PUBLIC LIBRARY Serving the public since 1963 13500 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-684-6537 • www.tigard-or.gov/library TIGARD PUBLIC LIBRARY Serving the public since 1963 City of Tigard |COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of Tigard |PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 13125 SW Hall Blvd.|Tigard, Oregon 97223 503.639.4171 | www.tigard-or.gov 13125 SW Hall Blvd.|Tigard, Oregon 97223 503.639.4171 | www.tigard-or.gov City of Tigard City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 97223 503.639.4171 • www.tigard-or.gov 8777 SW Burnham St., Tigard, Oregon 97223 503.718.2591 • www.tigard-or.gov TIGARD PUBLIC LIBRARY Serving the public since 1963 13500 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 503-684-6537 • www.tigard-or.gov/library TIGARD PUBLIC LIBRARY Serving the public since 1963 City of Tigard|COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of Tigard |PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Tigard, Oregon Bordering the City of Portland, Tigard is Oregon’s 12th largest city with a population of 54,758. The city is largely residential and offers a mix of industrial, commercial and retail space which results in a daytime population around 100,000. Due to the demand placed on its transportation, water and public safety resources, Tigard faces big-city infrastructure issues. Late in 2014, the City Council adopted a strategic plan to become “the most walkable community in the Pacific Northwest where people of all ages and abilities enjoy healthy and interconnected lives.” This 20-year strategic vision, along with four strategic goals, provide guidance and direction for the city’s priorities long-term by leveraging and building on our strengths to grow Tigard as a thriving community. COPS Hiring Grant Infrastructure Investment FAST Act Reauthorization Restore SALT Deduction and Advanced Refunding BUILD 2020 Grant Program The City of Tigard is applying for the COPS Hiring grant to fund two additional officers in order to reduce response times to emergency calls, address quality of life, and chronic nuisance issues. Tigard’s residential population has grown 14% in the past 10 years while staffing levels dropped 9.5% in the same period due to economic downturn. Two additional police officers will help Tigard reach its goal to reduce emergency response times to five minutes. The City of Tigard would like to leverage the proposed $2.8 billion regional Southwest Corridor light rail investment by including a multi-use path on the light rail bridge over Highway 217. This project will increase bicycle and pedestrian safety between two proposed light rail stations and connect two of the city’s employment centers separated by Highway 217. The cost of this enhancement is estimated at $12 million. A key funding partner for this project is the federal BUILD 2020 grant program. The City is concerned about the impact of the $10,000 cap on tax deductions for property, state and local taxes on lower and middle-income families. The City supports full restoration of the State and Local Tax deduction. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 eliminated the ability of municipalities to refinance bond debt. Refinancing lowers debt service and reduces tax burden on local residents. The bank-qualified provision is a proven incentive for local banks to purchase the tax-exempt debt of small local governments and borrowers for bonds $10 million or less. Tigard supports the restoration of advance refunding tax-exempt municipal and bank qualified-bonds. Fiscal Year 2021 Program Levels Maintain adequate funding levels for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), Economic Development Administration (EDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Brownfields Assessment and Cleanup, the Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) and Byrne Justice Assistance Programs. Southwest Corridor Light Rail The City is part of a coalition working to extend light rail service from Portland to Tigard. Tigard is in one of the region’s most congested corridors with an expected 17 percent increase in hours of congestion by 2035. Light rail is one of the few solutions for counteracting this trend, with forecast to carry around 40,000 passengers daily and a guaranteed 30-minute ride from Bridgeport Village to downtown Portland. Six of the 13 stations will be within Tigard, improving physical and transit connections in the community while strengthening connection regionally. Tigard supports a comprehensive infrastructure package to address our nation’s growing backlog of water, broadband, seismic resiliency and transportation system deficiencies while also investing in workforce skills training that can maintain, build, and strengthen our infrastructure for decades to come. •Maintaining the Categorical Exclusion for projects with minimal federal participation and streamline the federal permitting process. In partnership with the National League of Cities, Tigard supports timely reauthorization of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. •Creation of programs that allow municipalities direct access to federal resources and competitive grants. Today, more than 90% of federal highway assistance is distributed to states by formula. •Maintaining and increasing funding for New Starts, Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) and Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD). •Providing more funding and increased set asides to local governments within key transportation programs, including the Surface Transportation Block Grant and the Transportation Alternative Program. DRAFT (Version 2) Tigard Public Safety Transformation Commission Background: The city has received an unprecedented amount of input and feedback (200+) about public safety and police services via e‐mail, paper mail, phone calls, in‐person, and social media since May 30, 2020. The mayor challenged the entire Tigard community on June 3rd to accomplish the following: Eliminate institutional racism and ensure equity within all city operations and structures Eliminate institutional racism and ensure equity within the Tigard community Improve the lived experience of all persons of color in Tigard such that everyone enjoys the safety and privilege that white men do today. And, the entire city council has embraced this challenge. The mayor also asked for community input on how to tackle the three objectives. The city received hundreds of suggestions, thoughts, and feedback on “what” should be reviewed, changed, and considered. However, the city received little or no input on the “how”/process. This is a draft framework for the city council, staff, and community members to review and provide input on both the “how” and the “what” in the public safety space. Similar community input and draft frameworks will be needed for all other areas of city operations. Transformation Commission: The significant number of issues raised and suggestions made need thorough review and consideration by a group of citizens that well represent persons of color in Tigard along with city staff that have public safety expertise. Accordingly, the Tigard Public Safety Transformation Commission will be established to consider and act on the issues raised by the community below. The commission will meet weekly for 2 hours until issues and suggestions are acted on (by consensus) in each topic area or the commission decides an alternative meeting schedule is more appropriate. The commission will be made up of 12 people: Police Chief or designee (must be sworn member of department) Tigard Police Officers’ Association designee (must be sworn member of department) City Attorney City Presiding Judge President of Tigard High School Black Student Union or designee Tigard Youth City Councilor Licensed Mental Health Professional or leader of Mental Health organization with a presence in Tigard (preference to those that regularly interact with community members in crisis and/or community members that have regular contact with law enforcement as the only available social services resource)  5 Tigard residents from the community at‐large, with preference to those that can best represent people of color in Tigard The commission will research, review, and consider all of the topics below and then make evidence‐ based decisions that are best for the Tigard community. Decision‐making will strive for consensus Commented [JS1]: City leadership team feedback ‐‐ So that the response can align with the problem, we would recommend putting learning about institutional racism – what it is, how it presents, how to change it here – ahead of the urgency to act to address it. Commented [JS2]: City leadership team feedback ‐‐ Much of the advice we have elicited so far comes from those that are already comfortable with the current governmental institution. This is inherently inequitable. Consider access for those in our community without access to the internet, who may not be able to devote intensive time to weekly meetings – will it prevent participation from those we need to hear from? Commented [JS3]: City leadership team feedback ‐‐ Heavy focus on Police services seems out of balance with all the city services that need review and change, and the work of the whole city. The Anti‐Racism Action Plan will encompass the services of the whole city. Consider if work on other city services/changes would be considered in parallel by the Transformation Commission. Commented [JS4]: City leadership team feedback ‐‐ This approach could be an effective step for Tigard to become an anti‐racist organization if it is done well. Both the implementation of the Anti‐Racism Action Plan and the Transformation Commission need to include an approach that includes learning, help from a facilitator, and focusing on what’s in the city’s control. Commented [JS5]: City leadership team feedback ‐‐ Get support from an outside facilitator to guide a group’s work; someone who can help us learn what we don’t know and can’t see today. Commented [JS6]: Youth Councilor Calderon commented that perhaps this group should pick to replace themselves in the future. SUPPLEMENTAL PACKET FOR JULY 14, 2020 AGENDA ITEM 7 (defined as at least 10 of 12 votes). If consensus cannot be reached on a particular topic, each competing perspective will be summarized along with why consensus could not be reached. The Tigard City Council will then consider each of these and make a final decision. The commission shall have the authority to prioritize its own work, add topic areas to address, and add, change or remove questions/criteria as needed. The commission may also use surveys to gain additional data and insights about broader community perspectives. The commission also has the authority to use smaller groups to work issues and/or bring in subject matter experts in particular fields. The commission may also decide if public testimony will be heard at all, some, or none of its commission sessions. To encourage rapid transformation, the city council encourages the commission to start by focusing on and prioritizing topic areas that are within the direct control of the city. Transformation Community Advisors: All Tigard residents that express an interest in serving on the Transformation Commission will be designated as Community Advisors (broad stakeholder group). This broad stakeholder group will select the 5 Tigard residents from the community at‐large that will sit on the Transformation Commission and represent the interests of the entire stakeholder group. It is expected that the 5 at‐large community members will regularly conduct listening and feedback sessions with the broad stakeholder group to receive comments from the entire community. Topic Areas for Commission to Address: Accountability and Transparency Qualified immunity ‐ Is qualified immunity working as intended? ‐ What are the positive and negative impacts to the city and community? ‐ Does the city have the authority to make a change on its own? ‐ Should a change be made or advocated for? ‐ If yes, what change? Body cameras ‐ When should they be used? ‐ What officers should use them? ‐ How quickly should a change in practice be implemented? ‐ What is the financial impact and how will this be paid for? Public access to misconduct investigation results ‐ What are the positive and negative impacts to the city and community? ‐ Does the city have the authority to make a change on its own? ‐ Should a change be made or advocated for? ‐ If yes, what change? Commented [JS7]: City leadership team feedback ‐‐ Evidence‐based and consensus‐based advice could conflict – figure out how to resolve this and balance opinion and fact. Commented [JS8]: City leadership team feedback ‐‐ The work of a commission/advisory group should focus on what the city has the authority and control to change. Examples on this topic list include: use of body‐worn cameras, level of training, workforce diversity, deployment of resources. Or, the list that needs advocacy for change that others control should be created early. Commented [JS9]: Councilor Newton commented that this group could get tripped up around appointing members. Commented [JS10]: City leadership team feedback ‐‐ Some topics on this list have a much-needed education element to them (qualified immunity, choke holds, issues around bail). Making informed recommendations would require a major time investment. National databank/registry for police misconduct ‐ Should Tigard advocate for a national databank/registry for police misconduct (modeled after physician’s National Practitioner Data Bank?, more info at: https://www.npdb.hrsa.gov/topNavigation/aboutUs.jsp) Labor arbitration re‐instatement of officers terminated for mis‐conduct/bias/excessive use of force ‐ What are the positive and negative impacts to the city and community? ‐ Does the city have the authority to make a change on its own? ‐ Should a change be made or advocated for? ‐ If yes, what change? Citizens police oversight and/or use of force review committee ‐ What are the positive and negative impacts to the city and community? ‐ Does the city have the authority to make a change on its own? ‐ Should a change be made or advocated for? ‐ If yes, what change and what would the oversight committee have authority to do and review? Officer clear identification in all instances, including riot control ‐ What are the positive and negative impacts to the city and community? ‐ Does the city have the authority to make a change on its own? ‐ Should a change be made or advocated for? ‐ If yes, what change and what would the oversight committee have authority to do and review? Use of Force Re‐implementing a force continuum (as requested by #8cantwait) vs. current Grahm vs. Connor standard ‐ What are the positive and negative impacts to the city and community? ‐ Does the city have the authority to make a change on its own? ‐ Should a change be made or advocated for? ‐ If yes, what change? Choking Out ‐ Is the change already made to policy in June 2020 adequate (limited to use of deadly force)? ‐ Should the practice be prohibited altogether? Change in training and policies to allow or direct an officer to back down from an immediate arrest when the suspect is identified and the seriousness of the situation does not warrant further escalation of force just to effect an immediate arrest ‐ What are the positive and negative impacts to the city and community? ‐ Does the city have the authority to make a change on its own? ‐ Should a change be made or advocated for? ‐ If yes, what change? Re‐evaluate deadly force assumptions, just because deadly force is authorized, should it be used? (e.g. taser taken and cartridge used) ‐ What are the positive and negative impacts to the city and community? ‐ Does the city have the authority to make a change on its own? ‐ Should a change be made or advocated for? ‐ If yes, what change? Eliminate or limit the use of “no knock” warrants ‐ What are the positive and negative impacts to the city and community? ‐ Does the city have the authority to make a change on its own? ‐ Should a change be made or advocated for? ‐ If yes, what change? Training Implicit bias, cultural awareness, sensitivity training, and trauma informed care ‐ Should these be required before working independently? ‐ Is the current training adequate? ‐ If not, what is missing and how can it be added? ‐ Is regular refresher training needed? Use of force ‐ Re‐train whatever changes are made by commission De‐escalation training ‐ Should it be required before working independently? DPSST developed but never deployed training on the Police Legitimacy and Procedural Justice (7 hours) ‐ Should this be added as required content for Tigard officers? ‐ Should it be required before working independently? ‐ What are the positive and negative impacts to the city and community? ‐ Does the city have the authority to make a change on its own? ‐ Should a change be made or advocated for? ‐ If yes, what change? Hours of Training in the basic police academy in Oregon ‐ Is the current amount of time in police training adequate to prepare officers for current work? Compare to other professions like hairdresser, electrician, etc… ‐ If not, why not? ‐ Should a change be made or advocated for? ‐ If yes, what change? Medical training on airway management and respiratory system, including signs and symptoms, pathophysiology, complications from pre‐existing respiratory diseases, and how different physical positions comprise the mechanics of effective respiration and work of breathing (estimate 6‐8 hours) to be taught by medical professional with advanced airway management and physiology training (Physician, respiratory therapist, emergency RN, or paramedic) ‐ Should this be added as required content for Tigard officers? ‐ Should it be required before working independently? ‐ What are the positive and negative impacts to the city and community? ‐ Does the city have the authority to make a change on its own? ‐ Should a change be made or advocated for? ‐ If yes, what change? Restorative justice training for police department leadership ‐ What are the positive and negative impacts to the city and community? ‐ Should a change be made or advocated for? ‐ If yes, what change? Hiring/Human Resources Exclude any candidate that demonstrates any sort of bias on the psychological assessment (zero tolerance) ‐ What are the positive and negative impacts to the city and community? ‐ Does the city have the authority to make a change on its own? ‐ Should a change be made or advocated for? ‐ If yes, what change? Police workforce that reflects the community ‐ Is the current police staffing reflective of the Tigard Community? ‐ If not, why not? ‐ Should a change be made or advocated for? ‐ If yes, what change? Monitoring to ensure no officers are members of extremist/racist groups and this is a condition of employment ‐ What are the positive and negative impacts to the city and community? ‐ Does the city have the authority to make a change on its own? ‐ Should a change be made or advocated for? ‐ If yes, what change? Deployment of Resources School Resource Officers ‐ To be addressed through joint process already underway with TTSD and City of Tualatin Establish a non‐police response for mental health, homelessness, and other non‐criminal calls ‐ Is the Cahoots model from Eugene viable in Tigard and/or Washington County? ‐ What are the positive and negative impacts to the city and community? ‐ Does the city have the authority to make a change on its own? ‐ Should a change be made or advocated for? ‐ If yes, what change? ‐ How quickly should a change in practice be implemented? ‐ What is the financial impact and how will this be paid for? Eliminate officers from using pre‐texts commonly used to stop people of color for something they would never stop a close family member for (e.g. jaywalking, tail light, etc) ‐ What are the positive and negative impacts to the city and community? ‐ Does the city have the authority to make a change on its own? ‐ Should a change be made or advocated for? ‐ If yes, what change? Stop making traffic stops for violations and instead record them on video and have officers issue citations by mail to reduce the danger to both officers and the public ‐ What are the positive and negative impacts to the city and community? ‐ Does the city have the authority to make a change on its own? ‐ Should a change be made or advocated for? ‐ If yes, what change? ‐ Should this concept be broadened to other frequent police activities where potentially dangerous interactions could be avoided? Other Societal Considerations Consequences for calling 911 to report normal community activity based primarily on race ‐ Should this be a crime in Tigard and/or Oregon? ‐ What are the positive and negative impacts to the city and community? ‐ Does the city have the authority to make a change on its own? ‐ Should a change be made or advocated for? ‐ If yes, what change? Advocate for the release of all offenders Tigard helped prosecute for activities that would not be a crime today (e.g. marijuana possession) ‐ What are the positive and negative impacts to the city and community? ‐ Does the city have the authority to make a change on its own? ‐ Should a change be made or advocated for? ‐ If yes, what change? Commented [JS11]: Councilor Newton commented that perhaps the commission could focus/direct certain types of policing activities to focus on Advocate for a change in the cash bail system to make it equitable for everyone ‐ What are the positive and negative impacts to the city and community? ‐ Does the city have the authority to make a change on its own? ‐ Should a change be made or advocated for? ‐ If yes, what change? Change bail/fine system within the Tigard Municipal Court so the cost of fines are equitable for all ‐ Should fines be tied to AGI or some other indicator of wealth/income vs. current practice of a flat fee? ‐ What are the positive and negative impacts to the city and community? ‐ Does the city have the authority to make a change on its own? ‐ Should a change be made or advocated for? ‐ If yes, what change? ‐ Color and style of uniforms and color of cars are intimidating/militaristic ‐ What are the positive and negative impacts to the city and community? ‐ Should a change be made or advocated for? ‐ If yes, what change?