city of troutdale · government certification agreement and letter of support. marlee boxler,...

219 E. Historic Columbia River Hwy. Troutdale, Oregon 97060-2078 (503) 665-5175 Fax (503) 667-6403 TTD/TEX Telephone Only (503) 666-7470

CITY OF TROUTDALE “Gateway to the Columbia River Gorge”

AGENDA CITY COUNCIL – REGULAR MEETING

Troutdale Police Community Center – Kellogg Room 234 SW Kendall Court

Troutdale, OR 97060-2078

Tuesday, January 28, 2020 – 7:00PM

1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, ROLL CALL, AGENDA UPDATE.

2. PUBLIC COMMENT: Public comment on non-agenda and consent

agenda items is welcome at this time. Public comment on agenda items will betaken at the time the item is considered. Public comments should be directed to thePresiding Officer, and limited to matters of community interest or related to matters whichmay, or could, come before Council. Each speaker shall be limited to 5 minutes for eachagenda item unless a different amount of time is allowed by the Presiding Officer, withconsent of the Council.

3. CONSENT AGENDA:3.1 MINUTES: December 10, 2019 City Council Regular Meeting.3.2 RESOLUTION: A resolution approving an Intergovernmental

Agreement with Multnomah County for cost sharing of the Stark Street Improvements project.

4. RESOLUTION: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign a Certified LocalGovernment Certification Agreement and Letter of Support.

Marlee Boxler, Associate Planner

5. MOTION: A motion accepting the Selection Committee’s recommendationfor appointments to the Budget Committee, Historic LandmarksCommission, Parks Advisory Committee, and Planning Commission.

Mayor Ryan

6. DISCUSSION: A discussion on potential motions directing staff to prepareCharter Amendments to elections for voter approval. Ray Young, City Manager &

Ed Trompke, City Attorney

Mayor Casey Ryan

City Council David Ripma Randy Lauer Jamie Kranz Glenn White Nick Moon

Zach Hudson

City Manager Ray Young

City Recorder Sarah Skroch

219 E. Historic Columbia River Hwy. Troutdale, Oregon 97060-2078 (503) 665-5175 Fax (503) 667-6403 TTD/TEX Telephone Only (503) 666-7470

7. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS

8. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS

9. ADJOURNMENT

Casey Ryan, Mayor Dated: January 22, 2020

City Council Regular Meetings will be replayed on Comcast Cable Channel 30 (HD Channel 330) and Frontier Communications Channel 38 on the weekend following the meeting - Friday at 4:00pm and Sunday at 9:00pm.

Further information and copies of agenda packets are available at: Troutdale City Hall, 219 E. Historic Columbia River Hwy. Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.; on our Web Page www.troutdaleoregon.gov or call Sarah

Skroch, City Recorder at 503-674-7258.

The meeting location is wheelchair accessible. A request for an interpreter for the hearing impaired or for other accommodations for persons with disabilities should be made at least 48 hours before the meeting to: Sarah Skroch,

City Recorder 503-674-7258.

TROUTDALE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 1 of 11 December 10, 2019 Exhibit A – Councilor Lauer’s written statement for agenda item #5 Exhibit B - PowerPoint presentation STAR Voting by Councilor Zach Hudson

MINUTES Troutdale City Council – Regular Meeting

Troutdale Police Community Center – Kellogg Room 234 SW Kendall Court Troutdale, OR 97060

Tuesday, December 10, 2019 – 7:00PM

1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, ROLL CALL, AGENDA UPDATEMayor Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:00pm.

PRESENT: Mayor Ryan, Councilor Ripma, Councilor Kranz, Councilor White (7:01pm), Councilor Moon and Councilor Hudson.

ABSENT: Councilor Lauer (excused).

STAFF: Ray Young, City Manager; Sarah Skroch, City Recorder; Ed Trompke, City Attorney; Tim Seery, Parks & Facilities Superintendent; Fred Oster, Public Works Director and Ryan Largura, Environmental Specialist.

Mayor Ryan asked, are there any agenda updates?

Ray Young, City Manager, replied there are no updates.

2. PUBLIC COMMENT: Public comment on non-agenda and consent agenda items iswelcome at this time.

Tina Tebbins, Troutdale resident, stated she was a former member of the Public Safety Advisory Committee and her husband, Carl Tebbins, served for 7 years on the Citizens Advisory Committee. She stated they care very much for their community. She explained her concerns about a property at 812 SW Hensley Road. She’s concerned about the individual that lives there. There are some huge problems with 6 vehicles and things getting piled up. She’s concerned about a possible vermin problem at the property.

3. CONSENT AGENDA:3.1 RESOLUTION: A resolution accepting the November 5, 2019 Special Election results from

the Director of Elections, Multnomah County. 3.2 RESOLUTION: A resolution approving the Intergovernmental Agreement between Metro

and the City of Troutdale for funding the Fiscal Year 2019-20 Metro and Local Government Annual Waste Reduction Program.

3.3 RESOLUTION: A resolution approving an Intergovernmental Agreement with Multnomah County for Electronic Equipment Services.

Agenda Item #3.1 1/28/20 Council Meeting


MOTION: Councilor Ripma moved to approve the consent agenda. Seconded by Councilor Hudson. Motion Passed 6-0.

4. REPORT: A report from the Port of Portland on the Troutdale Airport and the TroutdaleReynolds Industrial Park.

<0:05:00> Steve Nagy, Senior Manager for General Aviation and Ken Anderton, Senior Manager of Real Estate Development for the Port of Portland introduced themselves.

Ray Young gave the Council handouts on the Port of Portland and the Troutdale Reynolds Industrial Park (a copy can be found in the meeting packet).

Steve Nagy explained the Port is in the process of implementing the 2016 Master Plan which the Council was very involved in. The Port is also completing a study for the lower half of the south side of the Troutdale Airport and is the area of future aviation development. In order to complete the runway reconstruction and the south side redevelopment, the FAA requires the Port to do an environmental analysis which is 2/3 of the way done. The runway reconstruction is planned for 2022.

<0:09:14> Ken Anderton explained the TRIP property has been sleepy in terms of construction activity, but Amazon is up and running and FedEx is planning an expansion. Both companies are competing against each other and raising some of the hourly rates. The Port is making a conscience effort to focus on a sector of jobs and there needs to be more of a balance in terms of the types of jobs like manufacturing. The natural resource aspect of the project is going fantastic. The 40-Mile Loop trail is a project the Port is working on in partnership with Metro and ODOT. ODOT is doing the federal contracting and the trail is fully designed. The only problem is the Corps will be releasing soon its preferred options for the levee certifications through the Sandy River all the way down to the Willamette River. That could impact a couple sections of the trail. It’s still slated for completion in 2021. CRG finished their building and have gone in for permits for a CNS Grocers and will have around 150 employees. The Port continues with recruitment efforts and bringing quality jobs to the community.

5. MOTION: A motion accepting the Selection Committee’s recommendation forappointments to the Budget Committee, Citizens Advisory Committee, Historic LandmarksCommission, Parks Advisory Committee and Planning Commission.

<0:18:36> MOTION: Councilor Ripma made a motion to appoint Tanney Staffenson for Position

#4, Sandy Glantz for Position #5 and Paul Wilcox as Alternate for the Budget Committee. Seconded by Councilor White.

Ray Young read a written statement from Councilor Lauer (attached as Exhibit A to these minutes).


Councilor Ripma stated last year’s Selection Committee was a fiasco. The reason the committee decided to accept Tanney Staffenson’s application was because there were fewer applicants than the positions available. Last year there more applicants than positions available. He thinks the committee should consider late applications if there are not enough applicants.

<0:24:16> Councilor Kranz stated the selection process has always been clunky at best. The process needs to be streamlined so communication mistakes are not made again. Councilor Lauer brings up some good points. There was a deadline and it was missed. It’s the committee’s job to be fair and consistent with the rules. If the decision made at the Selection Committee meeting is amended, it’s just one year and there will be another year.

<0:27:41> Mayor Ryan explained his opinion about last year and what happened to Mr. Canfield was not okay. Coming into this year there was a rule that if you were late with your application, you were late. There were 4 applicants for the Budget Committee, 3 turned in on time and 3 openings. The one person that didn’t get their application in on time was Tanney Staffenson. Why would the committee ask one of the 3 people who got their applications in on time and asked to be on the Budget Committee specifically to go serve on another committee?

<0:31:47> Councilor White stated he feels the opposite. The committee used to automatically reinstate the chairs/veterans. It’s often hard to get enough volunteers for open positions. There are going to be more openings on the Budget Committee. Kyle recently emailed that he has scheduling conflicts and would not be re-applying.

<0:36:31> Councilor Moon stated he was not at the Selection Committee meeting because he was working. Tanney is a great guy but a rule is a rule and if you’re late you’re late.

Councilor Hudson stated he would like to speak in support of Tanney. Tanney explained there was an emergency. Someone came in 45 minutes late to their interview because of an emergency and it was understood, and the committee proceeded with that interview.

<0:40:10> Councilor Ripma clarified the 3 people that asked to be on the Budget Committee with applications turned in on time were appointed.

Mayor Ryan opened public comment.


Rob Canfield, Troutdale resident, stated last year he applied to be reappointed to the Budget Committee and that he submitted his application late. He didn’t believe that would be an issue because the City had emailed him an acknowledgement of his application and gave him an appointment time for an interview with the Selection Committee. On the evening of the interviews he received a phone call from the City asking if he could come in earlier for his interview because the other interviews had finished early. After arriving for his interview Councilor Ripma informed him that he wasn’t eligible for being on a committee because his application was not turned in on time. He was shocked, embarrassed, angered and humiliated by the Selection Committee and the City’s actions. He explained he has never been treated with such disrespect and contempt. He was told that this year’s Selection Committee had received a late application from Tanney Staffenson. But according to the rules that Council implemented last year, Tanney should’ve been made ineligible because his application was turned in late. He then found out that the City had recommended Tanney be reappointed to the Budget Committee even with a late application. At the Selection Committee meeting several of the City Councilors said that due to Mr. Staffenson’s long history of service on city committees, he should be reappointed to Budget Committee. If you appoint anyone that submitted a late application this will show corruption. He urged Council to step back from the precipice and obey the rules that they set.

<0:52:48> Paul Wilcox, Troutdale resident, stated he was at the Selection Committee meeting as an applicant. One of the first things Ray mentioned was that there were 2 late applications, Tanney and Jon Lowell. He explained that Jon’s wouldn’t be accepted because there were 5 applicants for the Citizens Advisory Committee but Tanney’s would for the Planning Commission because there weren’t enough applicants. Mr. Staffenson is not eligible for the Budget Committee based on his late application.

<0:54:52> Ray Young stated Mr. Staffenson’s application came in the day after the deadline so the City had time to do the background check on him so he could be on the list. There are 5 current vacancies right now and are actively recruiting for another round of interviews.

Diane Castillo White, Troutdale resident, stated she knows Tanney Staffenson. She is on a couple of committees and attends Council meetings and Planning and Budget meetings for 14 years. Tanney does a fabulous job on Budget Committtee. He is polite, gives everyone a chance to speak fairly and he doesn’t have biases or an agenda. He has a wisdom as a Chair on the committees. You can tell he really cares. Although others have applied, she can’t imagine them having more background and City knowledge than Tanney does.

<0:59:07> Tanney Staffenson, Troutdale resident, stated he would like to apologize because Council has been put in a difficult position. He stated his application was late, but he doesn’t think it’s necessary to be lectured on being on time. It was brought up that


someone with County budgeting experience didn’t get appointed to Budget Committee and that was Rob Kodiriy and he was appointed to Budget Committee. This is a tough position for the City. Pending the decision, he would like the opportunity to address the committee again.

<1:01:50> Tana Canfield, Troutdale resident, stated as a Troutdale citizen she has always been very proud of Troutdale. She came to meetings in support of different issues. What she finds in the last year or so is that she’s disappointed and frustrated. She hopes Council will bring back integrity.

Councilor Ripma explained that when he talked to Mr. Canfield on the night it was decided his application wouldn’t be considered it had been discussed for quite a while. Mr. Canfield was polite but hurt. It was a disaster. The committee is not committing some sort of corruption. It’s following a rule established last year but not established very clearly. It’s a good rule.

<1:09:58> Councilor Kranz stated there are too many inconsistencies in the selection process.

Councilor White stated Ray clarified before the meeting started that Tanney’s application would be accepted. Tanney had a death in the family and he doesn’t get paid for anything he does. The rules need to be tightened up at this point. The alternative would be to not fill that position on the Budget Committee.

Mayor Ryan stated this isn’t personal. There is a rule. The applicants were given 3 months to get their applications in. The City has failed to have rules that are black and white.

<1:14:54> Ray Young stated if staff had foreseen another late application the rule would have been clarified. Staff won’t let this happen again but that won’t solve it for this year.

Councilor Ripma suggested not appointing the Budget Committee now and opening it up for applicants again.

Mayor Ryan stated that would be best.

Rob Canfield stated he thinks a do over is a good idea.

Mayor Ryan stated he wants to make it clear that he doesn’t want future Council members to go through this again and it should be discussed at the Goal Setting meeting coming up.


<1:21:33> Councilor Ripma withdrew his motion for Budget Committee appointments.

MOTION: Councilor Ripma made a motion to appoint David Wheation for Position #2, Timothy Erich for Position #3, Alexander Lumiere for Position #4, Shelly Reynolds for Position #5 and Heidi Hinshaw for Alternate for the Citizens Advisory Committee. Seconded by Councilor Hudson.

VOTE: Councilor Ripma – Yes; Councilor Kranz – Yes; Mayor Ryan – Yes; Councilor White – Yes; Councilor Moon – Yes; and Councilor Hudson – Yes.

Motion passed 6-0.

MOTION: Councilor Ripma made a motion to appoint Erin Janssens for Position #2 and Sharon Nesbit for Position #3 for the Historic Landmarks Commission. Seconded by Councilor Kranz.


Motion passed 6-0.

MOTION: Councilor Ripma made a motion to appoint Shelly Reynolds for Position #2, James Gurtisen for Position #4, Natalie Rasmussen for Position #5 and David Wheaton for Position #6 for the Parks Advisory Committee. Seconded by Councilor Kranz.


Motion passed 6-0.

MOTION: Councilor Ripma made a motion to appoint Tanney Staffenson for Position #6, Sandy Glantz for Position #7 and Timothy Erich for Alternate for the Planning Commission. Seconded by Councilor White.


Motion passed 6-0.

6. RESOLUTION: A resolution amending Section 7, Parks, of the Fees and ChargesSchedule adopted by Resolution 1954 and amended by Resolution 2040.


<1:25:55> Ray Young directed Council to look at agenda item #6, Exhibit A with the existing and proposed changes in rental fees.

Fred Ostler, Public Works Director, gave a brief overview of the staff report.

Tim Seery, Parks & Facilities Superintendent, asked if there were any questions about the proposed changes.

Councilor White asked if the number of rentals is declining or increasing.

Tim Seery replied he hasn’t seen any change. He’s noticed a different clientele.

Councilor White asked why rates are being raised $300.00 for a full day.

Tim Seery explained that it’s cost recovery and Troutdale is middle of the road compared to other cities that were surveyed.

MOTION: Councilor Hudson moved adoption of a resolution amending Section 7, Parks, of the fees and charges schedule adopted by resolution 1954 and amended by resolution 2040. Seconded by Councilor Moon.

VOTE: Councilor Ripma – Yes; Councilor Kranz – Yes; Mayor Ryan – Yes; Councilor White – No; Councilor Moon – Yes; and Councilor Hudson – Yes.

Motion passed 5-1.

Councilor White asked if the City could track the usage of the shelters and buildings to see if there is a decline or not.

7. DISCUSSION: A discussion on Election Reform, including continuation on the STARvoting discussion from the November 11, 2019 meeting.<1:37:22> Paul Wilcox, Troutdale resident, gave a brief overview of the slides in his STAR Voting discussion presentation (included in the meeting packet). There was a charter amendment in November of 1976 (Paul read from agenda item #7 in the Council packet). Question: Shall members of the City of Troutdale Council be elected by position? Explanation: Under the present City of Troutdale Charter everyone seeking a position on the Council runs at large, each against all the others. The three candidates who receive the most votes are elected. If amended as proposed, each candidate would run for one of the three open positions as he or she may choose. For example, if a candidate wanted to challenge the councilman holding position number 2, he would file for that position. Each council position would be elected separately. When the voters approved this there was some unforeseen consequences which are represented in column 1 of the presentation slide with a whole slew of unopposed candidates. The way the amendment was proposed, it talks about challenging the councilmen,


so it’s implying that you have an incumbent running. About 1/3 of the time in all the elections between 1978 and now, there wasn’t an incumbent running. It averages out to about 5 candidates per election. On average, every election there’s going to be 1 candidate running unopposed. Every 2 elections there’s 2 candidates running unopposed. At any one time on average, you’re going to have 2 sitting councilors who will run unopposed. The two main reasons for running opposed is lack of candidates and the distribution of candidates. Paul read from the Lake Oswego City Charter and reviewed the 6 numbered examples of Top 3, term limits, resign to run, two-year term for Mayor, Council-appointed Mayor and reduce number of Councilors from 6 to 4 (included in the packet agenda item #7).

<1:56:03> Councilor Hudson stated that Clay and Annie from STAR Voting are in attendance and can answer questions. At the last discussion on STAR voting questions came up about what good it would do and there hasn’t been a problem before. Councilor Hudson showed the Council a PowerPoint presentation (attached as Exhibit B to these minutes). STAR voting and Top 3 voting are compatible and could happen together. He’s suggesting referring to the voters in November the option to adopt STAR voting and Top 3 voting and neither of them to be contingent upon the other.

Councilor Kranz asked if it was referred to the ballot in November, would there also be an option to just keep it how it is?

Councilor Hudson replied if no was voted on both then the current system would remain. And that could be explained in the voter’s pamphlet.

<2:10:27> Councilor Ripma stated the City Council should not refer these. It should be done by the people. People in Troutdale have the right to petition to change the Charter. They have that right and they can exercise it and it will look better coming from them rather than us. He is confident that he would have been elected each time he was elected had it been Top 3 voting because of name recognition. If someone is doing a bad job, you can challenge them but with Top 3, all you can do is run and hope that you and your colleagues make that person come in fourth. It’s hard to make a Councilor accountable to the voters. For STAR voting the same argument applies, it should come by a petition from the people of Troutdale. There is a big committee for STAR voting, and they may have the resources to circulate that in Troutdale. STAR Voting has not been adopted anywhere. He doesn’t think Council should adopt it.

<2:16:55> Councilor Hudson stated if the notion that voting is democracy and STAR voting is a gameshow, are we trying to establish whoever can win or are we trying to get information from the voters about who they want? If democracy means letting the voters choose who best suits them then we must support STAR voting. There are game theory simulations that can test contentions. It is true that no system is perfect but there are better systems. Paul Wilcox did try to circulate a petition and followed the rules by not approaching houses with no soliciting signs.


<2:22:30> Councilor Moon stated this is a much better presentation and he thinks having it organically grow through the public does look better.

Councilor Kranz stated she thinks it would be great to put this out to the voters however it gets on the ballot. She is opposed to term limits.

Mayor Ryan stated the presentation was way better than the last one. He doesn’t understand why it would make the Council look bad if they sent this to the voters. He thinks the voters should decide one way or the other. This item should be on a future agenda, STAR Voting and Top 3, so the Council could take an official vote on it.

<2:25:34> Ray Young stated he would call Multnomah County to see what costs would be for processing these types of ballots.

Diane Castillo White explained she has done some research on STAR Voting to better understand it (a handout was distributed; a copy can be found in the meeting packet). Lane County voted no but it’s coming back again. Eugene is working on it. It hasn’t gone through Multnomah County yet. Lane County and Multnomah County are both going through a petition process. It has not proven itself in the State of Oregon and she prefers Troutdale not be a case study.

<2:36:23> Paul Wilcox stated he forgot to mention earlier that resign to run is mostly to prevent candidates neglecting their current position to run for another position. Locally if you don’t have resign to run then you get a mid-term Councilor elected Mayor, his seat is vacated for the next 2 years and then you have an appointed Councilor. In his opinion they should be elected. In Benton County they passed ranked choice voting, which is very similar, but they haven’t had a chance to use it yet.

8. DISCUSSION: A discussion on Mayors’ Square Parking Lot – Tree Well.<2:41:38> Ray Young gave a brief overview of the staff report.

Mayor Ryan asked if the Parks Advisory Committee has approved the tree well.

Tim Seery, Parks & Facilities Superintendent, replied the committee has approved it and support it.

Councilor White stated this item has history and it’s been voted down with past councils. A live tree takes ongoing care and it’s subject to damage with the city’s winds. A live tree provides flexibility to a prime location with limited space and multiple uses. It’s an important to look at the overall potential uses of that space. A lot of people rely on income from selling Christmas trees.


Councilor Kranz stated she looked at the marks outlining the potential well and it doesn’t look too intrusive.

Councilor Ripma stated he thinks there would be disadvantages to a live tree like Glenn mentioned. To put in the well at the time that the parking lot is being redone is the most economical time to do it. He asked if the PAC is okay with making the decision of what kind of tree later.

Brenda Austin, Parks Advisory Committee Vice Chair, replied yes.

<2:48:24> MOTION: Councilor Ripma moved to put in a tree well in Mayor’s Square Park now

and discuss the tree later. Seconded by Councilor Moon.


Motion passed 6-0.

9. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS<2:48:54> Ray Young provided the following staff communications:

• Next Council meeting is January 14th

• City offices closed December 25th and January 1st

• Friday Night is the Holiday Movie Night

10. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS<2:49:48> Councilor Ripma wished everybody Happy Holidays.

Councilor Kranz stated she applied for a policy committee with the League of Oregon Cities to serve as a transportation policy committee member and was accepted.

Councilor White stated the City is getting closer to having their community resource officer on board and the code enforcement officer is starting soon.

Councilor Hudson stated he loves the idea of having an ad hoc committee regarding the committee and commissions recruitment process and volunteered to be on the committee.

11. ADJOURNMENTMOTION: Councilor Ripma moved to adjourn. Seconded by Councilor White. Motion

passed unanimously.


Meeting adjourned at 9:51pm.

Casey Ryan, Mayor Dated:

ATTEST:

Kenda Schlaht, Deputy City Recorder

CITY OF TROUTDALE

City Council - Regular Session 7:00PM

Tuesday, December 10, 2019

PLEASE SIGN l·N

Name - Please Print Address --� .. --.---�-

--� \��

Phone#

Ray Young

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Randy Lauer

Tuesday, December 10, 2019 8:38 AM

Casey Ryan

Ray Young

December 10th, 2019 - Agenda Item #5

Council, Staff, and Public in Attendance,

Exhibit A December 10, 2019 Council Meeting Minutes

I wanted to first apologize for my absence at tonight's meeting. My wife and I are celebrating

our 2nd anniversary and could not be here tonight. Also, I'd like to apologize for my confusion

during the committee interviews and the process we all thought we agreed to during last years

interview fiasco.

It was my understanding we agreed to the policy that if you turned in your application to a

citizen committee late, your application will not be accepted (we'll call this the "Canfield

Clause").

Now, somewhere along the way we muddied the waters a bit by amending the policy to allow late

applicants if the committee they applied to had more vacancies than applicants. I'm not sure

when and where this was agreed to but this serves as the point of my confusion during the

interview meeting. I do not and did not agree to this amendment.

Let me be clear here: I value ALL our citizen volunteers and the time they invest in their

community. It's a thankless task they take on and one that we as a council appreciate greatly.

In saying that, I view the application process, and subsequent committee interviews, as a job application and job interview process. If you want the job you seek, you must apply for it on

time and in the manner presented to you. No question. And, if you and your application want to

be considered, you must interview in-person for the position applied for. No question.

This is the only way we can assure that we as a council, and selection committee, remain

impartial, fair, and transparent during this process.

Unfortunately, this invalidates the application of Tanney Staphensen, for the budget committee.

I appreciate the time Tanney has devoted to the city's budget committee and processes but I cannot in good faith, continue with my recommendation to approve Mr. Staphensen's appointment to the budget committee. I invite Tanney to apply, on-time, for the budget

committee during the next application process.

1

Thank you,

Randy Lauer

Sent from my iPhone

2

bD C

·--1---'

>

cc:

Exhibit B December 10, 2019 Council Meeting Minutes

Wh

at is

th

e c

urr

ent

pro

ble

m?

T1ll

l'\ m

tOl1

Ct,\

"I'. !)

rS(

OV

I Jl

YQ

�,l�

. ,-.:

t.il[

R l

Lf

,,.q

I I

. F

l f:

ll I

t I

"I ,jlll

•

• I,

,. ,q

S.

(".1;

�

-e,

,_ . t

•• 1

:t

�1 I

�.;,;w

l�M

lP-.7

n

Ill

-----

AAAAA

----

AAAA

Wh

at is

th

e c

urr

ent

pro

bl

\ 'N

II

I,

r

fr

:.

'

I ' el

f-

I ..

\I

l �

C.

'-ii;,.

• '

I '1) .!

1 .'[�1H

R7

•

---

--

0

AAA

AA

We

ll, su

re P

ola

r

Exp

ress

is

my

favo

rite

, bu

t I'd

really p

refe

r

Elf

to

Ba

d M

om

s.

0 -

---

AAAA

Wh

at is

th

e c

urr

ent

pro

ble

m?

fJII

'-i

h.)

ll[

l\".\

C,

t,;;C

l"l\

111

. YO

U'-

. l�

NtFI.

fL

F

I�

'N ,

, ,

F I

.., 8.

, ,

, e1r-· _ I 11

. \J L

� ,

, .. ii,

"'

XI.J'.'l

;,MlR

7

!ff

00

!AJA

Mayb

e I

sho

uld

n't

act

ually v

ote

fo

r

my favo

rite

.

0

----

1:1:

1:1:

Wh

at is

th

e c

urr

ent

pro

ble

m?

w 1

1 1

f I

r,

11.1

,. '. ·1r

. ,,.._.., l�

,:-_

,.;,

. -e

:11J'.'t

J.mR

7

---

AAA

--

AA

\_

I sho

uld

n't

even

have r

un

.

----

AAAA

"On

e o

f H

am

lin

's f

avo

rite

exa

mp

les

of

the

failu

res

of

firs

t-p

ast

-th

e

po

st v

oti

ng is

the

19

91

Lo

uis

ian

a g

ub

ern

ato

rial e

lect

ion

. Th

ere

was

a

mo

de

rate

can

did

ate

: w

ide

ly lik

ed

De

mo

crati

c in

cum

be

nt

Go

v. B

ud

dy

Ro

em

er. A

mo

ng t

he

oth

er

can

did

ate

s w

ere

th

e n

oto

rio

usl

y c

orr

up

t

De

mo

crat

Edw

in E

dw

ard

s, l

ate

r se

nte

nce

d t

o a

de

cad

e in

fe

de

ral

pri

son

fo

r ra

cke

tee

rin

g,

an

d f

orm

er

Ku

Klu

x Kla

n G

ran

d W

izard

David

Du

ke, a R

ep

ub

lica

n.

Ro

em

er

did

ove

rwh

elm

ingly

be

tte

r th

an

Ed

ward

s in

he

ad

-to

-he

ad

po

llin

g.

Ro

em

er

als

o d

id o

ve

rwh

elm

ingly

be

tte

r th

an

Du

ke in

he

ad

-to

he

ad

po

llin

g.

Bu

t h

e lo

st t

o b

oth

of

the

m in

th

e t

hre

e-w

ay o

pe

n

pri

mary

, so

th

e g

en

era

l e

lect

ion

was

be

twe

en

a r

ack

ete

er

an

d a

wh

ite

sup

rem

aci

st -

eve

n t

ho

ugh

th

e e

lect

ora

te o

f Lo

uis

ian

a p

refe

rre

d

Ro

em

er

ove

r e

ith

er

of

the

m,

acc

ord

ing t

o H

am

lin

."

Kels

ey P

iper

on V

ax.c

om

, N

ovem

ber

15

, 20

18

Peo

ple

have

pre

fere

nce

s beyo

nd "

yes"

an

d "

no

".

•A

go

od

vo

tin

g s

yst

em

mu

st a

llo

w f

or

11be

tte

r" a

nd

11w

ors

e".

•W

hat

is t

he

re

al p

urp

ose

of

a v

ote

?

•W

ho

make

s th

e b

est

le

ad

er?

Th

e c

an

did

ate

wh

o is

mo

st p

eo

ple

's #

1 fa

vo

rite

?

OR

Th

e c

an

did

ate

wh

om

mo

st p

eo

ple

can

agre

e o

n?

It's

no

t co

mp

lica

ted

.

Sh

are

Yo

ur F

ee

db

ac

k

Cu:st ,om

,er r

evi ,e

ws

Str

ong

ly

Str

ong

ly

Dis

ag

ree

Dis

ag

ree

N

eutr

al

Ag

ree

A

gre

e

**

*4

I b

elie

ve

2.0

out o

f 5 s

tars

vth

is p

rod

uct

is m

ad

e o

f 0

0

0

�

0

h

igh

qu

alit

y

5 s

tar

50

%

ma

teri

als

4 s

tar

QOfo

I w

ou

ld

J

rec

om

me

nd

..

--th

is p

rod

uc

t 0

0

0

0

�

3 s

tar

25

%

-to

so

me

on

e

-2 s

tar

I 0

%

els

e

1 st

ar -

-----

--··-

---

------

---

--

25

%S

ub

mit

f

'--

Top

Th

ree

Vot

ing

Sin

ce C

ity

Co

un

cilo

rs d

on

't r

ep

rese

nt

dis

tric

ts,

wh

y do

we

ele

ct t

he

m t

o s

pe

cifi

c

seats

?

•Se

para

te r

ace

s lim

it v

ote

r ch

oic

e.

•Se

para

te r

ace

s m

ake

race

s le

ss c

om

pe

titi

ve.

•Se

para

te r

ace

s e

nco

ura

ge

riv

alr

y a

nd

ne

gati

vity

.

See

n a ri

o #

1: o

ne

cha

I len

ge

r. Se

at

1

Se

at

2

Se

at

3

A

B

C

D

•Ch

allen

ger

mu

st

sele

ct

on

e

incu

mb

en

t to

ch

allen

ge.

•Tw

o in

cu

mb

en

ts g

et

a f

ree r

ide.

•Ch

allen

ger

has

too

mu

ch

in

flu

en

ce o

nth

e o

utc

om

e.

•V

ote

r ch

oic

e is

lim

ited

.

See

n a ri

o #

2:

mu

lti p

ie c

ha

I len

ge

rs.

Se

at 1

Se

at 2

Se

at 3

A

B

C

•

•

D

E

Pote

nti

al

imb

ala

nce

in

challen

ged

seats

. Vo

ter

cho

ice is

lim

ited

.

See

n a ri

o #

2:

mu

lti p

ie c

ha

I len

ge

rs.

Se

at 1

Se

at 2

Se

at 3

A

B

C

D

E

F

•In

crease

d

like

lih

oo

d o

f

form

ing

coaliti

on

s.

•V

ote

r ch

oic

eis

lim

ite

d.

Scen

ario

#3: o

pen

seat.

op

en

B

D

E

F

G

H

•Li

kely

im

bala

nce

in

challen

ged

seats

.•

Incu

mb

en

ts lik

ely

un

challen

ged

.

•V

ote

r ch

oic

e is

lim

ite

d.

In e

ach

of

these

sce

nari

os,

vo

ters

are

no

t

free t

o p

ick

their

th

ree f

avo

rite

can

did

ate

s.

•Can

did

ate

s th

em

selv

es

have

to

o m

uch

infl

uen

ce o

n t

he

lin

eu

p.

• Race

s are

oft

en

im

bala

nce

d.

Un

der

the c

urr

en

t sy

stem

, th

ere

are

eig

ht

diffe

ren

t co

mb

inati

on

s of

thre

e t

hat

cou

ld b

e e

lect

ed

in

th

is

scen

ari

o.

Se

at 1

Se

at 2

Se

at 3

A

B

C

D

E

F

Un

der

PAL,

th

ere

are

tw

enty

dif

fere

nt

co

mb

inati

on

s o

f th

ree t

hat

co

uld

be

ele

cte

d in

th

e

sam

e s

cen

an

o .

Se

at 1

Se

at 2

Se

at 3

"C

ho

ose

th

ree

can

did

ate

s."

A

B

(

D

E

F

Can

STA

R v

oti

ng

work

wit

h

Top

-Th

ree

voti

ng

?

Yes.

May

we r

efe

r to

th

e v

ote

rs f

or

No

vem

ber .

..

•STA

R v

oti

ng

?

•To

p-T

hre

e v

oti

ng

?

• Bo

th, to

be

ap

pro

ved s

ep

ara

tely

?

Reviewed and Approved by City Manager:

CITY OF TROUTDALE STAFF REPORT

SUBJECT / ISSUE: A Resolution approving an Intergovernmental Agreement with Multnomah County for cost sharing of the Stark Street Improvements project.

MEETING TYPE: City Council Regular Mtg. MEETING DATE: January 28, 2020

STAFF MEMBER: Fred Ostler, Public Works Director

DEPARTMENT: Public Works

ACTION REQUIRED: Consent Agenda - Resolution PUBLIC HEARING: No

ADVISORY COMMITTEE/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A Comments: This project is listed in the current CIP.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution approving the IGA

EXHIBITS: A. IGA as presented by the County of Multnomah, Oregon.B. Aerial Map of the extents of the project.C. Excerpt from City CIP for Project ST-007

SUBJECT / ISSUE RELATES TO: ☒ Council Goals ☐ Legislative ☒ Other

– Included in the Capital Improvement Plan

ISSUE / COUNCIL DECISION & DISCUSSION POINTS:

SE Stark Street is a county road under the County’s jurisdiction. The portion of Stark Streetbetween SW 257th Drive and S Troutdale Road runs through the City of Troutdale,providing a critical primary mobility route for many Troutdale residents and businesses. Itis currently under-improved.

The Parties desire to improve the portion of Stark Street between SW 257th Drive and STroutdale Road. Improvements may include road widening, reducing curves, addition ofbicycle lanes and/or sidewalks (hereafter, “the Project”). Specific improvements will bedetermined during the Project design phase.

AGENDA ITEM #3.2

of 3

The purpose of this Agreement is to provide a portion of the funding for the design andconstruction of the Project.

Pursuant to ORS 190.010, the Parties wish to enter into this Agreement to provide for Citypayment of Three Hundred Sixty-Nine Thousand Dollars ($369,000) to the County forconstruction of the Project.

This project and associated City share of funding is reflected in the City’s current adoptedCapital Improvement Plan (Project #ST-007)

BACKGROUND: The county has received a federal grant for match money to local agencies for the improvement of Stark Street beginning at the intersection of 257th Avenue and one mile eastward to the intersection of Stark Street and Troutdale Road. This project will provide a full width street improvement that includes a turning lane in the middle of two lanes westward and two lanes eastward with sidewalk, curb and gutter, and bike lane improvements throughout the entire project. This phase of the project is the final phase that follows several fish friendly bridge and culvert upgrades made over the past few years that also provided the necessary width at the creek crossing to enable the street widening. This project is included in the city’s current CIP list and has been programed for several years with funds rolled forward awaiting design and construction.

PROS & CONS: Pros:

• Project costs are supplemented with a federal grant with the remaining cost sharedby Multnomah County and the City of Troutdale.

• Completes the final phase following previous projects that widened the road base andinstalled water quality and fish friendly improvements installed in recent years.

• Improves both traffic and pedestrian safety and mobility as there are southwardentrances to the Mount Hood CC and SW Corbeth Lane.

• Provides for four traffic lanes (two east bound, and two west bound)• Brings the entire roadway up to standards including the most recent versions of the

ADA.• Provides a center turning lane for safer left turns across oncoming traffic.• Provides the final roadway improvements addressing the stormwater quality issues

that will improve to a greater extent the water quality flowing into Beaver Creek off ofStark Street.

Cons: • None

of 3

Current Year Budget Impacts: ☐ Yes ☒ N/A

Future Fiscal Impacts: ☒ Yes (describe) ☐ N/A$369,000 from Street Improvement Fund in FY 20-21

City Attorney Approved: ☒ Yes ☐ N/A

Community Involvement Process: ☐ Yes (describe) ☒ N/A

Exhibit A

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE CITY OF TROUTDALE AND MULTNOMAH COUNTY

PAYMENT FOR STARK STREET MULTIMODAL IMPROVEMENTS

This Intergovernmental Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into by and between the City of Troutdale, hereinafter referred to as “City”, acting by and through its elected officials, and Multnomah County, hereinafter referred to as “County”, acting by and through its elected officials, all herein referred to individually as “Party” or collectively as “Parties”.

RECITALS

a) SE Stark Street is a county road under the County’s jurisdiction. The portion of Stark Streetbetween SW 257th Drive and S Troutdale Road runs through the City of Troutdale.

b) The Parties desire to improve the portion of Stark Street between SW 257th Drive and S TroutdaleRoad. Improvements may include road widening, reducing curves, addition of bicycle lanesand/or sidewalks (hereafter, “the Project”). Specific improvements will be determined during theProject design phase.

c) The purpose of this Agreement is to provide a portion of the funding for the design andconstruction of the Project.

d) Pursuant to ORS 190.010, the Parties wish to enter into this Agreement to provide for Citypayment of Three Hundred Sixty-Nine Thousand Dollars ($369,000) to the County forconstruction of the Project.

NOW THEREFORE, the premises being in general as stated in the foregoing Recitals, it is agreed by and between the Parties hereto as follows:

TERMS OF AGREEMENT

1. The County will prepare a Project design, perform ROW acquisition services, obtain allnecessary permits, licenses or other written authorizations, and oversee Project constructionby a properly selected and licensed contractor.The liaison for the County under this Agreement will be:

Jon Henrichsen, P.E.

Engineering Services Manager

1403 SE Water Avenue

Portland OR 97214

503-988-7126

[email protected].

2. The County shall invoice the City ether after July 1, 2020, or within 30 days following award ofthe construction contract, whichever comes later. Within 10 days of receiving the County’sinvoice, the City shall provide Three Hundred Sixty Nine Thousand Dollars ($369,000) for useby the County to cover a portion of costs incurred for this Project. County will provideseparate project-specific accounting of expenses.

3. The liaison for the City under this Agreement will be:

Travis Hultin, PE

City of Troutdale Public Works

342 SW 4th Street

Troutdale, OR 97060

503-674-7241

[email protected].

4. The Parties may terminate this agreement by mutual written consent 30 days prior to the startof solicitation for a construction contractor. If this Agreement is terminated as providedherein, the Parties shall be responsible for their own costs incurred prior to termination; andany unspent or otherwise non-obligated funds in the County’s possession shall be refunded tothe City.

5. This Agreement shall become effective on the date all required signatures are obtained andshall terminate upon completion of the Project and City’s payment to the County in full.

6. This Agreement may be amended by mutual written agreement of the Parties. Amendmentsshall be valid only when reduced to writing, approved as required, and signed.

7. In case of a dispute under this Agreement, the Parties shall attempt to resolve the disputeinformally. If the dispute cannot be resolved through this process, the Parties shall submittheir dispute to intergovernmental arbitration pursuant to ORS 190.710 through 190.800.Each of the Parties shall bear its own expense of attorney fees and arbitration.

8. This Agreement constitute the entire agreement between the Parties on the subject matterhereof. There are no understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or written, notspecified herein regarding this Agreement.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

9. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts (facsimile or otherwise) all of whichwhen taken together shall constitute one agreement binding on all Parties, notwithstandingthat all Parties are not signatories to the same counterpart. Each copy of this Agreement soexecuted shall constitute an original.

10. Subject to the conditions and limitations of the Oregon Constitution and the Oregon TortClaims Act, each Party shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless each of the other Partiesfrom and against all liability, loss, and costs arising out of or resulting from acts of that Party,its officers, employees, and agents in the performance of this agreement.

11. Each Party shall have access to the books, documents, and other records of the others whichare related to this Agreement for the purpose of examination, copying and audits, unlessotherwise limited by law.

12. The Parties agree that if any terms or provision of this Agreement is declared by a court ofcompetent jurisdiction to be illegal or in conflict with any law, the validity of the remainingterms and provisions shall not be affected, and the rights and obligations of the parties shallbe constructed and enforced as if the Agreement did not contain the particular term orprovision held to be valid.

THE PARTIES, by execution of this Agreement, hereby acknowledge that its signing representatives have read this Agreement, understand it, and agree to be bound by its terms and conditions.

CITY OF TROUTDALE MULTNOMAH COUNTY

By_________________________ By___________________________

Ray Young, City Manager Deborah Kafoury, Board Chair

Date________________________ Date__________________________

APPROVED AS TO LEGAL APPROVED AS TO LEGAL

SUFFICIENCY FOR THE CITY SUFFICIENCY

JENNY MADKOUR, COUNTY ATTORNEY

By__________________________ By___________________________

Ed Trompke Courtney Lords

City Attorney Assistant County Attorney

Exhibit B – Aerial Map of the Extents of the Project

EXHIBIT C

Excerpt from City CIP for Project ST-007

Resolution # Page 1 of 1

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH MULTNOMAH COUNTY FOR COST SHARING OF THE STARK STREET IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT

THE TROUTDALE CITY COUNCIL FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

1. This is the final phase of a multi-phased project that has been funded with federaltransportation monies, and through cost sharing between the City of Troutdale andMultnomah County. Both share in the proposed street, sidewalk, curb and gutter,and bike lane improvements to Stark Street, between the intersection of StarkStreet at SW 257th Ave, and eastward to the intersection of S. Troutdale Road(approximately one mile in length).

2. The Intergovernmental Agreement between the State of Oregon (acting as theagent for the Federal Transportation Administration), the City and the Countycompletes a series of fish friendly bridge and culvert improvements performed inrecent years by finishing the projects surface improvements.

3. This project will improve traffic and pedestrian safety and mobility on an importanttransportation corridor for Troutdale residents and businesses.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TROUTDALE

Section 1. The City Manager or designee is authorized to sign the Intergovernmental Agreement attached as Exhibit A to the Staff Report.

Section 2. This resolution is effective upon adoption.

YEAS: NAYS:

ABSTAINED:

Casey Ryan, Mayor

Date

Sarah Skroch, City Recorder Adopted:



SUBJECT / ISSUE: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign a Certified Local Government Certification Agreement and Letter of Support.


STAFF MEMBER: Marlee Boxler, Associate Planner

DEPARTMENT: Planning

ACTION REQUIRED: Resolution PUBLIC HEARING: No

ADVISORY COMMITTEE/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approval Comments: Historic Landmarks Commission is sponsoring this certification request

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve

EXHIBITS: A. Certified Local Government Fact Sheet B. Certified Local Government (CLG) Program Certification AgreementC. Letter of InterestD. Certified Local Government Program Annotated Performance Standards

SUBJECT / ISSUE RELATES TO: ☐ Council Goals ☒ Legislative ☒ Other (describe)

Comprehensive Land Use Plan – Goal 5, Policy 14


What is a Certified Local Government?

Should the City apply to become a Certified Local Government with the State Historic

Preservation Office?

AGENDA ITEM #4

of 3

BACKGROUND:

What is CLG? The Certified Local Government (CLG) program was established by the National Historic Preservation Act in order to extend the existing historic preservation partnership between the federal and state governments to the local level. The model in place at the state level, with a professionally qualified board reviewing nominations, was adapted so that local review bodies would also consider proposals for designation, alteration, moving, demolition, etc. of landmarks. In return, states pass through a minimum of 10% of their federal Historic Preservation Fund grant to the Certified Local Governments.

Local Adoption & Previous Actions In July of 2011, City Council amended the Troutdale Development Code (TDC) to create a new chapter, 4.200 Historic Landmark Protection, through Ordinance 810. These amendments created definitions specific to historic preservation, designated an existing list of Community Resources as Historic Landmarks, and refined standards for designation, alteration, relocation, demolition, and removal of historic resources. The amendments as adopted are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 5, which requires cities to create policies for historic preservation. This also qualified the City to participate in the CLG program, consistent with policies established in the City’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan. However, an application was never put forth from the City.

HLC Activities Since this time, the Historic Landmarks Commission has approved the designation of three more local Historic Landmarks, assisted with reviewing the renovation plans for the Historic Depot, and has the desire to designate additional properties. They also have an interest in doing a wide array of public education activities, creating a façade improvement grant program for locally designated resources (many of which wouldn’t qualify for National grants), attending workshops and conferences on historic preservation and more. All of these things are possible by participating in the Certified Local Government program. The main benefit of participating in the program is that it provides the City access to annual grant opportunities. The grants, which require a 50/50 match, range from $5,000 - $20,000 and can be used for a range of activities. It also allows us to attend workshops and conferences, network and enhance relationships with state and federal agencies,

Local Requirements The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO or “ship-o”) has program requirements and expectations for communities that participate in the program. Troutdale has similar relationships on extension programs with state and federal agencies already, especially with floodplain management, so this is not an unusual arrangement. Staff does not believe that the City of Troutdale will have issues meeting the expectations of a CLG, largely because we meet many of those requirements. One standard that is not currently met is for SHPO to be a stakeholder in the application process for selecting future members of the City’s Historic Landmarks Commission. This expectation will not preclude applicants without historic preservation experience from applying for a vacancy. For more information on these requirements, see Exhibit D.

of 3

PROS & CONS: Pros:

• Fulfills a long-held Comprehensive Land Use Plan policy (Goal 5, Policy 14)• Affirms that the City of Troutdale is dedicated to preserving its heritage through

historic preservation efforts.• Allows the City to apply for grants only available to communities participating in the

Certified Local Government program.• Provides exclusive training opportunities.• Enhances the City’s relationship with state and federal agencies.

Cons: • SHPO evaluates the CLG participating cities every 4 years, which may require some

reporting from staff.• Additional staff time and resources to follow through on CLG submittal and reporting

could take away from other policy priorities.• The CLG must provide the SHPO with the opportunity to comment on qualifications

of Historic Landmarks Commissioner candidates prior to their appointment.

Current Year Budget Impacts: ☐ Yes (describe) ☒ N/A

Future Fiscal Impacts: ☒ Yes (describe) ☐ N/A If the City applies for any grant opportunities, they would be required to provide a 50/50 match

City Attorney Approved: ☐ Yes ☒ N/A

Community Involvement Process: ☒ Yes (describe) ☐ N/A This effort is supported and sponsored by Historic Landmarks Commission. Public testimony in 2010 during the Periodic Review update for Goal 5 of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan indicated significant community support to pursue this effort.

Kuri Gill, CLG Coordinator Phone: (503) 986-0685 Email: [email protected]

Certified Local Government Certification

Requirements The basic certification requirements for local governments are as follows: Establish a historic preservation commission and appoint interested and

qualified residents to serve. To the extent they are available, atleast some of the commission members should meet "professional"qualifications in the disciplines of history, architecture, architecturalhistory, archaeology, or related fields.

Pass a preservation ordinance that outlines how the local government willaddress historic preservation issues.

Agree to participate in updating and expanding the state's historicbuilding inventory program. SHPO takes the lead in this effort bymaintaining the master database and the files for the statewide inventory,and by providing grants to survey additional properties.

Agree to review and comment on any National Register of HistoricPlaces nominations of properties within the local governmentboundaries. Nominations are usually submitted by the property ownersthemselves or other members of the public. SHPO administers theNational Register program in Oregon.

Affirm that it will fulfill its obligation to enforce existing statepreservation laws. This includes a designation process for historic properties.

Benefits Grants: CLGs may apply for annual grants from SHPO. The grants, which require a 50/50

match, have typically been in the $5,000--$20,000 range in recent years. Grants can be used for abroad range of preservation activities, though some of the most common grant-funded projects includethe following:

o Surveys of historic properties and accompanying context studieso National Register nominations of either individual buildings or historic districtso Public education activities: plaques, walking tour booklets, websites, etc.o Preservation planning: updating ordinances, preparing design guidelines, administering

local preservation programs, etc.o Architectural and engineering studies and plans for rehabilitating historic propertieso "Brick-and-mortar" rehabilitation work on National Register buildings

Training: workshops and conferences for staff and commission members SHPO and National Park Service assistance: CLGs enjoy a partnership relationship with the state

and federal agencies that have the primary responsibility for promoting historic preservation in theU.S. As such, CLGs are able to tap into the expertise and resources of these agencies in order to helpaddress their local preservation issues. Networking: Through CLG workshops, conferences, listservs,and websites, CLGs are able to participate in the discussion of preservation issues with other localgovernments throughout the state and country.

Increased Effectiveness: By participating in the CLG program, local governments become moreskilled and effective at promoting the economic, social, and educational benefits of historicpreservation in their community. They are also able to avoid much of the controversy that comesfrom mishandled local historic preservation issues.

Exhibit A1/28/20 Council Mtg. Item #4

Revised 9/24/2009

Oregon State Historic Preservation Office Certified Local Government (CLG) Program

Certification Agreement

Pursuant to the provisions of the 1980 amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act (P. L. 89-655), to applicable federal regulations (36 CFR 61), and to the State of Oregon procedures, the City/County of _____________________________________ hereby requests participation in the Certified Local Government program and agrees to:

(1) Enforce appropriate state or local legislation for the designation and protection ofhistoric properties.

(2) Maintain an adequate and qualified historic preservation review commissioncomposed of professional and lay members.

(3) Maintain a system for the survey and inventory of historic properties.

(4) Provide for adequate public participation in the historic preservation program,including the process of recommending properties to the National Register.

(5) Maintain adequate financial management systems.

(6) Adhere to all requirements of the Historic Preservation Fund Grants Manual.

(7) Adhere to any requirements mandated by Congress regarding use of federal historicpreservation funds.

(8) Adhere to requirements outlined in the State of Oregon Local Government ParticipationProcedures issued by the State Historic Preservation Office.

(9) Satisfactorily perform the responsibilities delegated to it under the Act.

_____________________________ ________________________________ Chief Elected Official Christine Curran

Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer _____________________________ Print Name & Title

______________________ _______________________ Date Date

Exhibit B1/28/20 Council Mtg. Item #4

HISTORIC

LANDMARKS

COMMISSION

Erin [anssens

Chair

Shnro11 Nesbit

Vice Chair

Cnro/ Allen

D011nn Erwi11.

Aurfre11 Lowell

(011 Lowell

LeA11.11 Stephan

Visit us on the Web:

www.troutdaleoregon.gov

0 Printed on llecyclecl Pa/,er

CITY OF TROUTDALE "Gateway to the Columbia River Gorge"

January 28, 2020

Oregon Heritage

Oregon Parks & Recreation Department

725 Summer St NE, Suite C

Salem, Oregon 97301

RE: Request to be approved as a Certified Local Government

This is a request for the City of Troutdale, Oregon to establish its Certified Local Government Status

with the State Historic Preservation Office.

In July of 2011, the City ofTroutdale City Council amended the Troutdale Development Code to create a

new chapter, 4.200 Historic Landmark Protection, through Ordinance 810. These amendments created

definitions specific to historic preservation, designated an existing list of Community Resources as

Historic Landmarks, and refined standards for designation, alteration, relocation, demolition, and

removal of historic resources. The amendments as adopted are consistent with Oregon Revised Statute

660-023-0200 that requires local governments to protect all historic resources of statewide significance

through local historic protection regulations.

Since this time, the Historic Landmarks Commission has approved the designation of three more local

Historic Landmarks. Additionally, Troutdale's Comprehensive Land Use Plan identifies becoming a CLG

as a policy goal in order to assist in implementation of historic resource protection and preservation

goals (Goal 5 Policy 14). We look forward to working with Oregon Heritage and other CLG communities

to preserve the places that are important to our community. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Casey Ryan, Mayor

City ofTroutdale

Attachments (2 copies of the following):

A. Original signed copies of the certification agreement

B. Ordinance 810

C. Troutdale Development Code Sections 4.200 & 6.500 (updated May 2017)

D. Resumes of the Commissioners

E. City staff contact person information

2200 SW 18th Way • Troutdale, Oregon 97060-9615

Phone (503) 674-7229 • Fax (503) 667-0524

Exhibit C1/28/20 Council Mtg. Item #4

OREGON STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICECERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAM

ANNOTATED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS – 2001

I. INTRODUCTION

The Certified Local Government (CLG) program was established by the National Historic Preservation Act as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) in order to extend the existing historic preservation partnership between the federal and state governments to the local level. The model in place at the state level, with a professionally qualified board reviewing nominations, was adapted so that local review bodies would also consider proposals for designation, alteration, moving, demolition, etc. of landmarks. Other responsibilities, which the states have under statute and rule (e.g. to inventory historic and prehistoric cultural resources and to provide for adequate public participation), are extended to the local level through the certification program. In return, states are required to pass through a minimum of 10% of their federal Historic Preservation Fund grant to the Certified Local Governments.

Just as the National Park Service periodically evaluates state programs, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is required to evaluate each CLG program every four years. Federal regulations, 36 CFR 61.6 and Chapter 9, Section L of the Historic Preservation Fund Grant Manual, outline federal requirements, and the State of Oregon Local Government Participation Procedures outline the SHPO's expectations. Evidence of serious inadequacies in CLG performance will trigger recommendations for corrective measures from the SHPO and will affect the Certified Local Government’s ability to obtain CLG funding. Failure to implement these corrective measures within 180 calendar days will result in the initiation of involuntary decertification procedures by the SHPO, pursuant to Chapter 9, Section M of the Historic Preservation Fund Grant Manual, and the State of Oregon Local Government Participation Procedures as amended.

The following annotated standards clarify what is expected of CLGs by the state and federal partners and how programs will be evaluated.

II. ANNOTATED STANDARDS

A. "The Certified Local Government enforces preservation legislation andordinances."

There is a government-to-government relationship between the SHPO and theCLG. The SHPO expects elected officials and administrators of CLGs to supporthistoric preservation programs with adequate funding, staff, and access, and ensurethat ordinances and other legislation designed to protect historic and prehistoriccultural resources are enforced (qq.v., OAR 660-023-0200 & “State or Local

Exhibit D1/28/20 Council Mtg. Item #4

2 Statute,” Historic Preservation Fund Grants Manual, Glossary–20). This relationship also means that in hearing appeals of controversial decisions, the elected body respects the expertise of its landmarks commission and gives due consideration to historic values in rendering its decision.

B. "The Certified Local Government establishes and maintains an adequate andqualified landmarks commission."

The CLG must seek the expertise necessary to make informed decisions abouthistoric and prehistoric cultural resources. This is normally provided by alandmarks commission composed of professional and lay members; however,qualified staff members and/or consultants may be relied upon as needed. At aminimum, the CLG must make a reasonable effort to seat commissioners with ademonstrated positive interest in historic preservation, the majority of whom shouldmeet the federal historic preservation professional standards (q.v., “MinimumRequirements for Certification,” Historic Preservation Fund Grants Manual,Chapter 9, (D)(2)). The CLG must provide the SHPO with the opportunity tocomment on qualifications of candidates prior to their appointment.

C. "The Certified Local Government designates local landmarks."

This standard relates to the initial protection of local historic and prehistoric culturalresources (q.v., “State and Local Statute,” Historic Preservation Fund GrantsManual, Glossary-20). Cultural resources may include, but are not limited to:districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects. Designation, or denial ofdesignation, must be based on clear and objective criteria embodied in the localordinance and supported by written findings of fact. The CLG shall also have awritten policy or ordinance provision that addresses the question of "ownerconsent" for local designation of landmark properties (qq.v., ORS 197.772 &LUBA No. 2000-160). Properties listed in the National Register of Historic Placesmust be protected as local landmarks under OAR 660-023-0200.

D. "The Certified Local Government reviews proposals to alter locallandmarks."

This standard extends the protection afforded by landmark designation through thereview of alteration proposals. The review process should be timely,straightforward, and not overly burdensome to proponents or opponents. The CLGis expected to provide its citizens and landmark commissioners with sufficientinformation and reference materials to make informed proposals and decisions, andapprise its building officials of the exceptions available to historic buildings undervarious codes and regulations. Proposed major alterations to properties listed inthe National Register of Historic Places must be reviewed under OAR 660-023-0200.

3 E. "The Certified Local Government reviews requests for demolition and

removal of local landmarks."

This standard ensures that proposals to demolish or remove landmarks are reviewedunder local ordinance provisions, and where applicable that delay periods forconsideration of alternatives are used. The CLG should actively seek alternativesto demolition or removal, and should require meaningful proof from proponentsseeking to justify such proposals on economic or hardship grounds. If demolitionsare allowed, recordation, curation of parts, salvage, or other mitigative measuresshould be required. Proposed demolitions or removals of properties listed in theNational Register of Historic Places must be reviewed under OAR 660-023-0200.

F. "The Certified Local Government seeks training opportunities for landmarkcommissioners."

This standard ensures that landmark commission decisions are consistent andcredible. Commissions often include individuals without formal historicpreservation education or experience in conducting public hearings. It is expectedthat the CLG will provide or take advantage of educational opportunities forcommissioners, especially relating to designation, alteration review, andconducting public hearings and meetings.

G. "The Certified Local Government seeks to educate the public regardinghistoric preservation in the community."

A public that understands its stake in the preservation of historic and prehistoriccultural resources is fundamental to a successful program. Public education maybe accomplished in a number of ways. The CLG can hold workshops onappropriate preservation techniques for rehabilitating or restoring historicproperties, sponsor National Historic Preservation Week activities, support orpromote historic house tours, lectures or seminars, and other activities that educateits citizens on the importance of the community's past. The CLG can alsoencourage preservation education in the local school system.

H. "The Certified Local Government maintains a system of survey and inventorythat is consistent with the Statewide Inventory of Historic Properties."

Although all current Oregon CLGs have inventories consistent with StatewideInventory of Historic Properties standards, history is not static. Because additionalhistoric properties reach eligibility with each passing year, a phased strategy of newsurveys, and a uniform inventory maintenance program are encouraged. ExistingStatewide Inventories and data generated through surveys are to be housed in a safeand secure location.

4 I. "The Certified Local Government conducts meetings in conformance with

State of Oregon public meeting statutes."

Decisions affecting historic resources are less vulnerable to challenge and overturnwhen they are made within the parameters of ORS 192.610-ORS192.690. To avoidany potential liability for conflict of interest, CLGs must include provisions in theirwritten procedures that meet NPS requirements (Historic Preservation FundGrants Manual, Chapter 3, C(1)(2)).

J. "The Certified Local Government reviews and comments on National Registernominations."

CLG participation is a key component in the National Register nomination process,and commissions are expected to review and comment on all National Registernominations forwarded from their jurisdictions. Comments must be made withbenefit of appropriate professional expertise, either from or obtained by thecommission. Nominations prepared or overseen by the CLG, particularly those forhistoric districts, require a higher degree of direct participation in the NationalRegister process, including responsibility for notification, presentation, editing orother technical corrections.

K. "The Certified Local Government administers subgrants in accordance withestablished procedures."

CLGs are expected to follow administrative procedures outlined in the SHPO GrantAdministration Manual. The Grants Coordinator evaluates performance in termsof timeliness, adherence to contract provisions, fiscal responsibility, and finalproducts.

Resolution # Page 1 of 1

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN A CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT CERTIFICATION AGREEMENT AND LETTER OF SUPPORT

THE TROUTDALE CITY COUNCIL FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

1. Historic preservation has been a long-established value within Troutdale based onthe legacy work of the Troutdale Historical Society and independent actors.

2. Goal 5 of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan addresses strategies and policies forthe City to pursue in order to promote and protect historic resources and landmarksin the community.

3. Policy 13 of Goal 5 established the Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC), whichhas faithfully served to promote and protect historic landmarks.

4. Policy 14 of Goal 5 seeks to continue the role the HLC by achieving Certified LocalGovernment (CLG) certification beyond the simple designation and review ofhistoric landmarks through access to grants, expansion of programmingopportunities, and training of appointed officials and staff to fulfill the intent of Goal5 of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TROUTDALE

Section 1. The Mayor is authorized to sign on behalf of the City an official Letter of Interest and Certification Agreement to fulfill the submittal requirements of obtaining Certified Local Government designation with the State Historic Preservation Office.

YEAS: NAYS:

ABSTAINED:

Casey Ryan, Mayor

Date

Sarah Skroch, City Recorder Adopted:



SUBJECT / ISSUE: A motion accepting the Selection Committee’s recommendation for appointments to the Parks Advisory Committee, Budget Committee, Planning Commission, and Historic Landmarks Commission.


STAFF MEMBER: Sarah Skroch

DEPARTMENT: Executive

ACTION REQUIRED: Motion PUBLIC HEARING: No

ADVISORY COMMITTEE/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approval Comments:

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the recommendations forwarded by the Selection Committee.

EXHIBITS: None

SUBJECT / ISSUE RELATES TO: ☐ Council Goals ☐ Legislative ☒ Other (describe)

Committee Appointments


Consider the recommendation forwarded from the Selection Committee for appointmentsto the City’s Committees.

BACKGROUND: The City Council, at their December 10, 2019 meeting, delayed making selections for the Budget Committee and directed staff to conduct a 2nd recruitment to fill vacant positions on the Budget Committee, Historic Landmarks Commission, Parks Advisory Committee, and Planning Commission with an application deadline of January 15, 2020. Ads were placed in the Troutdale Champion, on the City’s website, and on the City’s Facebook page soliciting citizens to apply for a position on one of our volunteer committees. The City received 11 additional applications.

AGENDA ITEM #5

of 2

The City’s Selection Committee (comprised of the Mayor, City Councilors and the Chair of the respective committee) met January 28, 2020, just prior to this meeting, to interview the applicants for the Budget Committee, Historic Landmarks Commission, Parks Advisory Committee, and Planning Commission. The Selection Committee’s recommendations will be announced during this agenda item.

Below is a list of the vacant positions for each committee that need to be filled.

Budget Committee Position #4 ______________________ Term Expires 12/31/22 Position #5 ______________________ Term Expires 12/31/22 Alternate ______________________ Term Expires 12/31/20

Historic Landmarks Commission Position #1 ______________________ Term Expires 12/31/23 Alternate #1 _____________________ Term Expires 12/31/20 Alternate #2 _____________________ Term Expires 12/31/20

Parks Advisory Committee Position #7 _____________________ Term Expires 12/31/20 Alternate _____________________ Term Expires 12/31/20

Planning Commission: Position #1 _____________________ Term Expires 12/31/20 Alternate _____________________ Term Expires 12/31/20



SUBJECT / ISSUE: Discussion and potential Motions directing staff to prepare Charter Amendments to elections for voter approval.


STAFF MEMBER: Ray Young

DEPARTMENT: Executive

ACTION REQUIRED: Motion PUBLIC HEARING: No

ADVISORY COMMITTEE/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A Comments:

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Staff has no position

EXHIBITS: A. None

SUBJECT / ISSUE RELATES TO: ☐ Council Goals ☐ Legislative ☒ Other (describe)


Should the Charter sections regarding election of the Council be changed.

Which of the recently suggested topics of amendment should be referred to the voters for

possible adoption.

BACKGROUND:

The City’s Charter is the foundational legal document which authorizes and controls the powers

of a City. It is analogous to what the U. S. Constitution means to the Federal Government.

Considering that Oregon is a “Home Rule” state when it comes to Cities and Counties, the Charter

is a critical document for how the City exercises its authority. While a City is generally subject to

AGENDA ITEM #6

of 4

the laws of the State and the Federal governments, the Charter sets the rules for how government

operates within the City.

The Charter states how it can be amended: “SECTION 37. AMENDMENT OF CHARTER. All

amendments to this charter must be made by a vote of the electorate. The council may refer, and

the city voters may initiate, amendments to this charter. A proposed charter amendment may

embrace only one subject and matters properly connected with it. The council shall provide by

ordinance for a procedure to revise this charter.”

In the last year both Council members and citizens have brought up various issues that might be

subject to a vote to amend the Charter on how we vote for Council and Mayor. This agenda item

is to allow Council to finally decide if staff should prepare the appropriate resolutions to put a

possible change on the ballot for 2020. The Charter amendment issues identified so far are as

follows:

1. Should Plurality-at-large (PAL) voting, also known as block vote or multiple non-transferable vote, be used to elect the Mayor and Council?: Currently every 2 years

three separate Council positions are elected for 4 year terms. One or more candidates run

for each position. A PAL voting system for electing several representatives from a City uses

a series of checked boxes by a list of candidates similar to a plurality election. Multiple

winners are elected simultaneously to serve the City. For the City it would likely mean that

all citizens who want to run for Council file for these three positions on one list. If more than

three file, the three with the most votes fill the positions. Each citizen gets three votes in this

scenario. Locally the City of Lake Oswego uses this system. Of major U.S. cities, Detroit

and Cincinnati also elect City Councilors in this fashion. The common discussion points with

this type of election are as follows:

a. PAL might encourage citizens to run when three incumbents are up for re-election. Under

the current system a potential candidate may feel a “one on one” race against an incumbent

will have less chance of success than being in a “field” of candidates where they only have

to get more votes than one of three incumbents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting_system

of 4

b. Reduces Head to Head Acrimonious Races: In a PAL each candidate is running against

all the other candidates, the “field” so to speak. There are no “one on one” races. Some

could argue it requires candidates to focus more on issues than personalities.

c. Minimizing Wasted Votes: PAL generally produces a high ratio of wasted votes. It adds an

additional wrinkle, in that many voters “bullet vote,” – that is they don’t use all of the votes

to which they are entitled – to strategically help favored candidates or because they only

recognize a few. Such withheld votes are essentially the same as wasted votes since they

are thrown away and do not go to winning candidates.

d. Majority Rule: Although candidates without strong organizational structure and funding

may win some seats, if too many candidates who band together as a group are supported

by better organization and funding the dominant group can generally win a sweep of all

seats.

2. Should the STAR voting process be used to elect the Mayor and Council? With STAR

voting a voter can score any of the candidates for an office on a scale from zero to five, with

zero meaning “no support” and five meaning “full support.” The ballots are then counted in

a two-step process. The first count determines which two candidates received the highest

overall scores from voters. The second count is the “Automatic Runoff” between these two

finalists, in which your vote goes to the one you scored higher. The candidate who gets the

most votes in the runoff wins.

a. Allows similar candidates to campaign in coalition if they shared a platform and values.

Preference voting in general has been found to encourage positive campaigns

b. Eliminates the "spoiler effect", the more extreme and polarizing candidate can’t win over

two more popular choices who split their vote.

c. Gives meaning to a vote even if that voters first choice doesn’t win.

d. Is it too complicated, especially considering the rest of the voter’s ballots for Federal,

State and other local races don’t use this system.

e. Should Troutdale be the first, or should other, larger jurisdictions be the “guinea pig”.

of 4

Current Year Budget Impacts: ☐ Yes (describe) ☒ N/A

Future Fiscal Impacts: ☐ Yes (describe) ☒ N/A

City Attorney Approved: ☒ Yes ☐ N/A

Community Involvement Process: ☐ Yes (describe) ☒ N/A

city of troutdale · government certification agreement and letter of support. marlee boxler,...

Documents