HomeMy WebLinkAboutAMENDED Agenda Packet 4-17-19 Work SessionApril 17, 2019, Work Session
AMENDED AGENDA
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
April 17, 2019
12:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Harris Hall, 125 East 8th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Meeting of April 17, 2019;
Her Honor Mayor Lucy Vinis Presiding
Councilors Betty Taylor, President Emily Semple, Vice President Mike Clark Greg Evans Chris Pryor Claire Syrett Jennifer Yeh Alan Zelenka
Note: This agenda has been amended to reflect the addition of Item 1.
12:00 p.m. EUGENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Harris Hall, 125 East 8th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
1. POSSIBLE ACTION: A Resolution Requesting the Federal Government to
Update Studies on Potential Health Risks of 5G Radio Frequency Wireless
Emissions and Publish Findings, as Federal Guidelines Push for More Rapid
Deployment of 5G
2. WORK SESSION: Municipal Court Presiding Judge
3. WORK SESSION: Local Options for Inclusionary Zoning
April 17, 2019, Work Session
For the hearing impaired, an interpreter can be provided with 48 hours' notice prior to the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation will also be provided with 48 hours' notice. To arrange for these services, contact the receptionist at 541-682-5010. City Council meetings are telecast live on Metro Television, Comcast channel 21, and rebroadcast later in the week.El consejo de la Ciudad de Eugene agradece su interés en estos asuntos de la agenda. El lugar de la reunión tiene acceso para sillas de ruedas. Se puede proveer a un intérprete para las personas con discapacidad auditiva si avisa con 48 horas de anticipación. También se puede proveer interpretación para español si avisa con 48 horas de anticipación. Para reservar estos servicios llame al 541-682-5010. Las reuniones del consejo de la ciudad se transmiten en vivo por Metro Television, Canal 21 de Comcast y son retransmitidas durante la semana.
For more information, contact the Council Coordinator at 541-682-5010 or visit us online at www.eugene-or.gov.
Resolution -- Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. _____
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO
UPDATE STUDIES ON POTENTIAL HEALTH RISKS OF 5G RADIO
FREQUENCY WIRELESS EMISSIONS AND PUBLISH FINDINGS, AS
FEDERAL GUIDELINES PUSH FOR MORE RAPID DEPLOYMENT OF 5G.
A. The Federal Communications Commission, hereinafter referred to as FCC, is
required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to evaluate the effects of emissions
from FCC-regulated transmitters on the quality of the human environment.
B. On August 1, 1996, the FCC adopted National Council on Radiation Protection
and Measurements' recommended Maximum Permissible Exposure limits for field strength
and power density for the transmitters operating at frequencies of 300 kHz to 100 GHz.
C. The FCC has not updated its guidelines for human exposure to radio
frequency, hereinafter referred to as RF, electromagnetic fields from wireless facilities for
over twenty years.
D. Currently no federally-mandated RF exposure standards exist.
E. The FCC relies upon federal agencies with health and safety expertise, such
as the Food and Drug Administration, hereinafter referred to as FDA, the Environmental
Protection Agency, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which have assigned roles in federal law for
monitoring and investigating issues related to RF exposure.
F. The FCC has jurisdiction over non-federal wireless facilities, authorizing and
licensing all non-federal devices, transmitters and facilities that generate RF radiation.
G. Federal law preempts state and local governments, including the City of
Eugene, from considering health concerns in the regulation and placement of wireless
facilities, so long as such facilities otherwise comply with applicable federal law.
H. The Government Accounting Office in 2001 prepared a report of its
investigation into safety concerns related to mobile phones, and concluded that further
research into wireless technology is needed, recommending the FDA take the lead in
monitoring research results.
I. In September 2017, 180 scientists and doctors from 36 countries sent an
appeal to the European Commission recommending a moratorium on the roll-out of 5G until
potential hazards for human health and the environment had been fully investigated by
scientists independent from industry.
J. The results of the world's largest study on the link between RF radiation
associated with 2G and 3G cell phones and cancer were released on November 1, 2018 by
the National Toxicology Program, an inter-agency program within the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, found evidence of cancerous heart tumors, as well as some
evidence of cancerous brain tumors, in male rats exposed to high levels of RF radiation like
Resolution -- Page 2 of 2
that used in 2G and 3G cell phones. However, researchers have cautioned that findings "do
not apply to 4G or 5G technologies."
K. On December 3, 2018, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal and Congresswoman
Anna G. Eshoo co-authored a letter to FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr that requested the
FCC and relevant health agencies provide them studies informing the FCC's 5G safety
determination, and while they did receive a letter from the FCC on December 17, 2018, it had
no mention of 5G-specific safety testing.
L. The Resolution by the City Council would permit the City to: (1) advocate for
updated studies on RF Exposure Limits; and (2) potentially influence the outcome of the
proceeding for the benefit of Eugene community members.
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EUGENE, a Municipal
Corporation of the State of Oregon, as follows:
Section 1. The Eugene City Council requests the FCC to work in cooperation with the
FDA and other relevant federal agencies to revisit and update studies on potential health
concerns arising from RF wireless emissions considering 5G Technology.
Section 2. The Eugene City Council requests the FCC make findings from such studies
publicly available in a timely manner.
Section 3. The City Manager shall cause a copy of this Resolution to be sent to all
members of the FCC, to the FDA Commissioner, and to all members of the Oregon
Congressional Delegation.
Section 4. This Resolution is effective immediately upon its passage by the City Council.
The foregoing Resolution adopted the ____ day of _____________, 2019.
____________________________________
City Recorder
April 17, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Work Session: Municipal Court Presiding Judge
Meeting Date: April 17, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 2
Department: Central Services Staff Contact: Becky DeWitt
www.eugene‐or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541‐682‐5616
ISSUE STATEMENT
This work session is an opportunity to for council to discuss the position of the Municipal Court
Presiding Judge. This is a follow up to the January 9 and January 28, 2019, work sessions on this
topic.
BACKGROUND
The presiding Municipal Court judge performs and oversees all judicial functions of the Eugene
Municipal Court. At the January 9 work session, council expressed an interest in exploring hiring
the municipal judge as a regular employee that reports directly to council as the City Manager and
Police Auditor do. Council also expressed an interest in involving the entire council in discussions
about the parameters, qualifications and process for hiring a judge.
At the January 28, 2019, work session, City staff presented information related to options for
filling the municipal judge position which included draft code amendments as well as a draft job
description for the municipal judge.
Based on this information, City Council directed the City Manager to present the proposed code
amendments for public hearing which is scheduled for April 15, 2019. In addition they directed
the City Manager to schedule time for council discussion regarding the job description and salary
for the municipal judge position and to schedule a future date for council to have the opportunity
to interview the current associate judge in consideration for a direct appointment into the
municipal judge position.
Finalizing a job description and salary placement will establish a framework that can be used
when filling the municipal court judge role. The attached job description incorporates feedback
based on the experience and input from the previous municipal court judge, and the salary
information includes both internal and external comparable information for consideration. Staff
will come prepared to discuss both items during the work session.
April 17, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
PREVIOUS COUNCIL DIRECTION
January 9, 2019, City Council Work Session
Councilors expressed general support for keeping the delineation of the council’s three employees
as clear as possible; pursuing a salaried model, rather than contracted employee; and involving
the entire council in a discussion about the parameters, qualifications, and process for hiring a
new judge.
January 28, 2019, City Council Work Session
Councilors reiterated their support for transitioning to a salaried model for the Municipal Court
Presiding Judge and for pursuing a direct‐appoint of Judge Greg Gill.
MOTION: Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Syrett, moved to direct the City Manager to
1) bring back the proposed code language in the AIS, Attachment A to a public hearing to make
the City Judge a council employee and 2) to schedule as soon as practicable an interview with
Judge Gill to consider the possibility of direct appointment of him. PASSED 7:1, Councilor
Taylor opposed.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
The following are options for City Council consideration and will be detailed during the work
session.
1. Approve the job description and related salary as an average of wages presented.
2. Modify the job description and related salary.
3. Take no action.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft job description
B. Potential salary placement
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Becky DeWitt
Telephone: 541‐682‐5616
Staff E‐Mail: bdewitt@eugene‐or.us
ATTACHMENT A
1
Presiding Municipal Court Judge
Bargaining Unit: Non-Represented
Salary: TBD
DEFINITION:
The Presiding Municipal Court Judge reports to the Eugene City Council, performs and oversees
all judicial functions of the Eugene Municipal Court, and ensures conformance with municipal,
state, federal, and other legal requirements.
DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS
The Presiding Judge shall have all inherent authority, statutory powers, and duties of a justice of
the peace within the jurisdictional limits of the city. This position is characterized by the Presiding
Judge maintaining the independence of the Court in performing all the legal and statutory
requirements.
SUPERVISION RECEIVED AND EXERCISED
Receives general supervision from the City Council.
Exercises direct supervision over the Associate and Assistant Municipal Court Judges.
EXAMPLES OF DUTIES – Duties may include, but are not limited to, the following:
Provides regular updates and reports to Eugene City Council.
Presides over trials and renders judgements for misdemeanor traffic and non-traffic crimes,
violations of city ordinances, traffic violations, parking violations, and any other cases within the
jurisdiction of the Municipal Court.
Presides over pretrial disposition conferences, arraignments, motion hearings, traffic hearings,
jury and non-jury trials and various other court settings as required for the City of Eugene.
Presides over specialty court dockets such as Community Court and Mental Health Court.
Presides over in-custody appearances at the Lane County Adult Corrections facility.
Authorizes issuance of search and arrest warrants.
Writes opinions, stays current with municipal and state law and changes.
Accomplishes, by lawful means, notices of jury duty, summonses, and all other orders of the court
necessary for the proper conduct thereof and, within the limit set by the penalty and state law,
may prescribe the security amounts, fine or forfeiture for violation of any provision of this code.
April 17, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
2
Represents Municipal Court on a variety of City committee and task teams, establishing
productive and positive relationships with community groups, stakeholders and municipal court
staff.
Works with the Court Administrator and other judges to establish the policies, procedures and
priorities for the Court, including establishing policies regarding security amounts, fines and the
entry and docketing of judgments and all other matters touching the conduct of proceedings in
the Court.
Works closely with the Court Administrator to build a culture committed to innovative programs
and achieving a high performance court. This is accomplished through implementation of best
practices in case flow management, data analysis, and employee engagement.
Works closely with the Court Administrator to stay within the annual budget allocation for the
Municipal Court.
Sets standards for judicial conduct and decision-making in the Court.
Responsible for assigning cases, conducting judicial meetings and providing training for associate
and assistant judges as necessary.
In consultation with the Associate Municipal Judge, appoints the Assistant Municipal Judges from
active members of the Oregon State Bar Association in good standing.
Ensures implementation of, and adherence to the City’s Affirmative Action Plan and diversity
initiatives. Facilitates judicial development on such issues as diversity and creating a respectful
working environment.
Performs other duties, as required.
QUALIFICATIONS
Knowledge of:
Oregon law on traffic violations, traffic procedure, Oregon evidence code, misdemeanor crimes
and criminal procedure.
Pertinent federal, state and local laws, codes and regulations.
Current social, political and economic trends related to the operations and issues of municipal
government and criminal justice.
Ability to:
Work closely with the Court Administrator with regards to court programs, policy development and
implementation; determine how to work effectively and collaboratively with a variety of
stakeholders by identifying potential problems and opportunities.
Conduct court room proceedings in a neutral environment.
April 17, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
3
Work closely with the Court Administrator with regards to non-judicial functions of the Municipal
Court System and to create and maintain a collaborative, welcoming, respectful, and productive
work environment.
Communicate with a variety of cross-cultural audiences clearly, concisely and effectively, both
orally, including public speaking, and in writing.
Listen effectively to individuals and groups to build trust and fairness.
Maintain confidentiality.
Operate standard office equipment and learn case management software.
Training and Experience:
The Presiding Municipal Judge must have a Juris Doctorate from an accredited university and
have at least five (5) years’ experience as a practicing attorney in municipal law, criminal law, trial
experience, or as an administrative hearings officer, arbitrator or judge, or any equivalent
combination of experience and training that demonstrates possession of the required knowledge,
skills, and abilities.
Active Member and in good standing with the Oregon State Bar.
Compliance with Oregon State Statute 2017 ORS 221.142 Qualifications for Municipal Judges.
Desired but not required, is experience in Community Court Administration or other form(s) of
alternative jail programs.
Additional Requirements:
Candidates for this position are subject to a police background investigation and must obtain Law
Enforcement Data System (LEDS) clearance.
Candidates must also possess or have the ability to obtain and maintain an appropriate, valid,
Oregon driver’s license, and respond to incidents within a reasonable amount of time.
Working Conditions:
This position primarily works in a fast-paced courtroom setting, deals with distraught individuals
and challenging interactions. While performing the duties of this job, the employee may have
prolonged periods of sitting, using a keyboard or similar device, and focusing on a computer
screen. Periodic attendance at meetings or activities outside of normal working hours.
Court is held at three locations Lane County Adult Correctional Facility, Eugene Public Library,
and the Eugene Municipal Courthouse.
April 17, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
ATTACHMENT B
Comparable Positions 2018 Base Salary 2019 Base Salary
Police Auditor 133,740$ 136,676$
Springfield Presiding Judge 116,771$ 116,771$
Salem Presiding Judge 117,092$ 117,092$
Beaverton Presiding Judge 143,038$ 143,038$
Oregon Trial Court Judge 142,136$ 142,136$
City of Eugene Division
Manager 2 (top of range)138,008$ 141,044$
Average of wages 131,798$ 132,793$
Notes:
Beaverton has a ‐7% geographic pay differential
Salem has a .4% geographic pay differential
Base salary is gross pay, most positions are eligible for benefits (health care,retirement, etc) in addition
Base Salary Comparisons
Judicial Salary Comparisons
April 17, 2019, Work Session - Item 2
April 17, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Work Session: Local Options for Inclusionary Zoning
Meeting Date: April 17, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 2
Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Stephanie Jennings
www.eugene‐or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541‐682‐5529
ISSUE STATEMENT
City Council requested a work session to discuss the local opportunities to support affordable
housing enacted through SB 1533 by the State of Oregon. In this session, staff will review the
state’s enabling legislation for inclusionary zoning, use of this tool in Oregon, and considerations
for use of this tool in Eugene.
BACKGROUND
Residents of communities throughout Oregon are experiencing housing challenges related to
affordability, quality and stability. In response to these challenges, the State of Oregon passed a
suite of legislative measures in 2016 including SB 1533.
Through SB 1533, the State of Oregon enabled two new tools for local jurisdictions to increase the
availability of affordable housing. The first tool is a limited form of inclusionary zoning, which
allows jurisdictions to require inclusion of affordable units in multifamily structures with 20 or
more units. The second tool is the ability to create local affordable housing trust funds through a
construction excise tax.
Council previously discussed inclusionary zoning on April 12, 2017. At that time, council directed
staff to gather community perspectives, analyze housing market conditions and come back for
discussion at a future date. This AIS describes the parameters of inclusionary zoning as permitted
by the State as well as related City policies and plans. A copy of the enabling legislation is provided
as Attachment A and a letter from the Intergovernmental Housing Policy Board is provided as
Attachment B. The City Council presentation will include the additional information requested by
council.
Inclusionary zoning is a policy typically implemented at the local level to incorporate units
affordable to low or moderate‐income households as a part of a market rate development. While
hundreds of inclusionary zoning policies have been adopted by local jurisdictions across the
country, they vary significantly in their scope, focus and impact. Given that the success of
inclusionary zoning programs is dependent on the actions of private developers, programs are
typically calibrated to local conditions for market rate development.
April 17, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
SB 1533 enabled Oregon jurisdictions to implement a limited form of inclusionary zoning in their
communities through adoption of a local ordinance. There are multiple limitations build into the
enabling legislation and the most significant restrictions are as follows:
Building Type – Applies only to multifamily structures that contain 20 or more units.
Affordability ‐ Local jurisdictions may require up to 20 percent of units in structures be
affordable to households earning 80 percent of Area Median Income and above.
Incentives – The local jurisdiction must offer incentives to partially offset the cost of
including affordable units. If a local jurisdiction adopts inclusionary zoning and a CET, a
portion of the CET revenue must be reserved for inclusionary zoning incentives.
Fee in Lieu – Developers must be offered the option to pay a fee in lieu of including units in
their development. These fees may be used to subsidize affordable housing development.
The City of Portland is the sole jurisdiction in Oregon that has adopted an inclusionary zoning
program. Portland’s inclusionary zoning program commenced in February 2017 following an
extensive analysis of market conditions and a lengthy community process. Over the past two
years, Portland has permitted 422 inclusionary housing units spread across 65 housing
developments.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL DIRECTION
April 12, 2017, Work Session
City Council received an introductory presentation on SB 1533 and directed staff to gather
information on policy options for Inclusionary Zoning.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
Council options are as follows:
1. Provide direction to staff for next steps for exploration of an inclusionary zoning program.
2. Take no further action.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
City Manager has no recommendation at this time.
SUGGESTED MOTION
No motion applicable.
ATTACHMENTS
A. SB 1533
B. Letter from the Intergovernmental Housing Policy Board
April 17, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Stephanie Jennings
Telephone: 541‐682‐5529
Staff E‐Mail: sjennings@eugene‐or.gov
78th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2016 Regular Session
Enrolled
Senate Bill 1533
Printed pursuant to Senate Interim Rule 213.28 by order of the President of the Senate in conform-
ance with presession filing rules, indicating neither advocacy nor opposition on the part of the
President (at the request of Senate Interim Committee on Workforce and General Government)
CHAPTER .................................................
AN ACT
Relating to affordable housing; creating new provisions; amending ORS 197.309, 320.170, 320.176 and
320.186 and section 1, chapter 829, Oregon Laws 2007; repealing section 9, chapter 829, Oregon
Laws 2007; and prescribing an effective date.
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
SECTION 1. ORS 197.309 is amended to read:
197.309. (1) As used in this section:
(a) “Affordable housing” means housing that is affordable to households with incomes
equal to or higher than 80 percent of the median family income for the county in which the
housing is built.
(b) “Multifamily structure” means a structure that contains three or more housing units
sharing at least one wall, floor or ceiling surface in common with another unit within the
same structure.
[(1)] (2) Except as provided in subsection [(2)] (3) of this section, a [city, county or] metropolitan
service district may not adopt a land use regulation or functional plan provision, or impose as a
condition for approving a permit under ORS 215.427 or 227.178[,] a requirement, that has the effect
of establishing the sales or rental price for a housing unit or residential building lot or parcel, or
that requires a housing unit or residential building lot or parcel to be designated for sale or rent
to [any] a particular class or group of purchasers or renters.
[(2)] (3) [This] The provisions of subsection (2) of this section [does] do not limit the authority
of a [city, county or] metropolitan service district to:
(a) Adopt or enforce a [land] use regulation,[functional plan]provision or [condition of
approval] requirement creating or implementing an incentive, contract commitment, density bonus
or other voluntary regulation, provision or [condition] requirement designed to increase the supply
of moderate or lower cost housing units; or
(b) Enter into an affordable housing covenant as provided in ORS 456.270 to 456.295.
(4) Notwithstanding ORS 91.225, a city or county may adopt a land use regulation or
functional plan provision, or impose as a condition for approving a permit under ORS 215.427
or 227.178 a requirement, that has the effect of establishing the sales or rental price for a
new multifamily structure, or that requires a new multifamily structure to be designated for
sale or rent as affordable housing.
(5) A regulation, provision or requirement adopted or imposed under subsection (4) of
this section:
Enrolled Senate Bill 1533 (SB 1533-B)Page 1
Attachment A
April 17, 2019, Work Session – Item 3
(a) May not require more than 20 percent of housing units within a multifamily structure
to be sold or rented as affordable housing;
(b) May apply only to multifamily structures containing at least 20 housing units;
(c) Must provide developers the option to pay an in-lieu fee, in an amount determined by
the city or county, in exchange for providing the requisite number of housing units within
the multifamily structure to be sold or rented at below-market rates; and
(d) Must require the city or county to offer a developer of multifamily structures, other
than a developer that elects to pay an in-lieu fee pursuant to paragraph (c) of this sub-
section, at least one of the following incentives:
(A) Whole or partial fee waivers or reductions.
(B) Whole or partial waivers of system development charges or impact fees set by the
city or county.
(C) Finance-based incentives.
(D) Full or partial exemption from ad valorem property taxes on the terms described in
this subparagraph. For purposes of any statute granting a full or partial exemption from ad
valorem property taxes that uses a definition of “low income” to mean income at or below
60 percent of the area median income and for which the multifamily structure is otherwise
eligible, the city or county shall allow the multifamily structure of the developer to qualify
using a definition of “low income” to mean income at or below 80 percent of the area median
income.
(6) A regulation, provision or requirement adopted or imposed under subsection (4) of
this section may offer developers one or more of the following incentives:
(a) Density adjustments.
(b) Expedited service for local permitting processes.
(c) Modification of height, floor area or other site-specific requirements.
(d) Other incentives as determined by the city or county.
(7) Subsection (4) of this section does not restrict the authority of a city or county to
offer developers voluntary incentives, including incentives to:
(a) Increase the number of affordable housing units in a development.
(b) Decrease the sale or rental price of affordable housing units in a development.
(c) Build affordable housing units that are affordable to households with incomes equal
to or lower than 80 percent of the median family income for the county in which the housing
is built.
(8)(a) A city or county that adopts or imposes a regulation, provision or requirement
described in subsection (4) of this section may not apply the regulation, provision or re-
quirement to any multifamily structure for which an application for a permit, as defined in
ORS 215.402 or 227.160, has been submitted as provided in ORS 215.416 or 227.178 (3), or, if
such a permit is not required, a building permit application has been submitted to the city
or county prior to the effective date of the regulation, provision or requirement.
(b) If a multifamily structure described in paragraph (a) of this subsection has not been
completed within the period required by the permit issued by the city or county, the devel-
oper of the multifamily structure shall resubmit an application for a permit, as defined in
ORS 215.402 or 227.160, as provided in ORS 215.416 or 227.178 (3), or, if such a permit is not
required, a building permit application under the regulation, provision or requirement
adopted by the city or county under subsection (4) of this section.
(9)(a) A city or county that adopts or imposes a regulation, provision or requirement
under subsection (4) of this section shall adopt and apply only clear and objective standards,
conditions and procedures regulating the development of affordable housing units within its
jurisdiction. The standards, conditions and procedures may not have the effect, either indi-
vidually or cumulatively, of discouraging development of affordable housing units through
unreasonable cost or delay.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this subsection does not apply to:
Enrolled Senate Bill 1533 (SB 1533-B)Page 2
April 17, 2019, Work Session – Item 3
(A) An application or permit for residential development in an area identified in a
formally adopted central city plan, or a regional center as defined by Metro, in a city with
a population of 500,000 or more.
(B) An application or permit for residential development in historic areas designated for
protection under a land use planning goal protecting historic areas.
(c) In addition to an approval process for affordable housing based on clear and objective
standards, conditions and procedures as provided in paragraph (a) of this subsection, a city
or county may adopt and apply an alternative approval process for applications and permits
for residential development based on approval criteria regulating, in whole or in part, ap-
pearance or aesthetics that are not clear and objective if:
(A) The developer retains the option of proceeding under the approval process that meets
the requirements of paragraph (a) of this subsection;
(B) The approval criteria for the alternative approval process comply with applicable
statewide land use planning goals and rules; and
(C) The approval criteria for the alternative approval process authorize a density at or
above the density level authorized in the zone under the approval process provided in para-
graph (a) of this subsection.
(10) If a regulation, provision or requirement adopted or imposed by a city or county
under subsection (4) of this section requires that a percentage of housing units in a new
multifamily structure be designated as affordable housing, any incentives offered under
subsection (5)(d) or (6) of this section shall be related in a manner determined by the city
or county to the required percentage of affordable housing units.
SECTION 2. ORS 320.170 is amended to read:
320.170. (1) [Construction taxes may be imposed by] A school district, as defined in ORS 330.005,
may impose a construction tax only in accordance with ORS 320.170 to 320.189.
(2) Construction taxes imposed by a school district must be collected, subject to ORS 320.179,
by a local government, local service district, special government body, state agency or state official
that issues a permit for structural improvements regulated by the state building code.
SECTION 3.Section 1, chapter 829, Oregon Laws 2007, is added to and made a part of
ORS 320.170 to 320.189.
SECTION 4. Section 1, chapter 829, Oregon Laws 2007, is amended to read:
Sec. 1. (1) A local government or local service district, as defined in ORS 174.116, or a special
government body, as defined in ORS 174.117, may not impose a tax on the privilege of constructing
improvements to real property except as provided in [sections 2 to 8 of this 2007 Act] ORS 320.170
to 320.189.
(2) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to:
(a) A tax that is in effect as of May 1, 2007, or to the extension or continuation of such a tax,
provided that the rate of tax does not increase from the rate in effect as of May 1, 2007;
(b) A tax on which a public hearing was held before May 1, 2007; or
(c) The amendment or increase of a tax adopted by a county for transportation purposes prior
to May 1, 2007, provided that the proceeds of such a tax continue to be used for those purposes.
(3) For purposes of [this section and sections 2 to 8 of this 2007 Act] ORS 320.170 to 320.189,
construction taxes are limited to privilege taxes imposed under [sections 2 to 8 of this 2007 Act] ORS
320.170 to 320.189 and do not include any other financial obligations such as building permit fees,
financial obligations that qualify as system development charges under ORS 223.297 to 223.314 or
financial obligations imposed on the basis of factors such as income.
SECTION 5. ORS 320.176 is amended to read:
320.176. (1) Construction taxes imposed [under ORS 320.170 to 320.189] by a school district
pursuant to ORS 320.170 may be imposed only on improvements to real property that result in a
new structure or additional square footage in an existing structure and may not exceed:
(a) $1 per square foot on structures or portions of structures intended for residential use, in-
cluding but not limited to single-unit or multiple-unit housing; and
Enrolled Senate Bill 1533 (SB 1533-B)Page 3
April 17, 2019, Work Session – Item 3
(b) $0.50 per square foot on structures or portions of structures intended for nonresidential use,
not including multiple-unit housing of any kind.
(2)In addition to the limitations under subsection (1) of this section, a construction tax imposed
on structures intended for nonresidential use may not exceed $25,000 per building permit or $25,000
per structure, whichever is less.
(3)(a) For years beginning on or after June 30, 2009, the limitations under subsections (1) and
(2) of this section shall be adjusted for changes in construction costs by multiplying the limitations
set forth in subsections (1) and (2) of this section by the ratio of the averaged monthly construction
cost index for the 12-month period ending June 30 of the preceding calendar year over the averaged
monthly construction cost index for the 12-month period ending June 30, 2008.
(b) The Department of Revenue shall determine the adjusted limitations under this section and
shall report those limitations to entities imposing construction taxes. The department shall round
the adjusted limitation under subsection (2) of this section to the nearest multiple of $100.
(c) As used in this subsection, “construction cost index” means the Engineering News-Record
Construction Cost Index, or a similar nationally recognized index of construction costs as identified
by the department by rule.
SECTION 6. ORS 320.186 is amended to read:
320.186. A school district may pledge construction taxes imposed pursuant to ORS 320.170 to
the payment of obligations issued to finance or refinance capital improvements as defined in ORS
320.183.
SECTION 7.Sections 8 and 9 of this 2016 Act are added to and made a part of ORS 320.170
to 320.189.
SECTION 8.(1) The governing body of a city or county may impose a construction tax
by adoption of an ordinance or resolution that conforms to the requirements of this section
and section 9 of this 2016 Act.
(2)(a) A tax may be imposed on improvements to residential real property that result in
a new residential structure or additional square footage in an existing residential structure,
including remodeling that adds living space.
(b)An ordinance or resolution imposing the tax described in paragraph (a) of this sub-
section must state the rate of the tax.The tax may not exceed one percent of the permit
valuation for residential construction permits issued by the city or county either directly or
through the Building Codes Division of the Department of Consumer and Business Services.
(3)(a) A tax may be imposed on improvements to commercial and industrial real property,
including the commercial and industrial portions of mixed-use property, that result in a new
structure or additional square footage in an existing structure, including remodeling that
adds living space.
(b) An ordinance or resolution imposing the tax described in paragraph (a) of this sub-
section must state the rate and base of the tax.
(4)Taxes imposed pursuant to this section shall be paid at the time specified in ORS
320.189 to the city or county that imposed the tax.
(5)(a) This section and section 9 of this 2016 Act do not apply to a tax described in section
1 (2), chapter 829, Oregon Laws 2007.
(b) Conformity of a tax imposed pursuant to this section by a city or county to the re-
quirements of this section and section 9 of this 2016 Act shall be determined without regard
to any tax described in section 1 (2), chapter 829, Oregon Laws 2007, that is imposed by the
city or county.
SECTION 9. (1) As soon as practicable after the end of each fiscal quarter, a city or
county that imposes a construction tax pursuant to section 8 of this 2016 Act shall deposit
the construction tax revenues collected in the fiscal quarter just ended in the general fund
of the city or county.
Enrolled Senate Bill 1533 (SB 1533-B)Page 4
April 17, 2019, Work Session – Item 3
(2) Of the revenues deposited pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, the city or
county may retain an amount not to exceed four percent as an administrative fee to recoup
the expenses of the city or county incurred in complying with this section.
(3) After deducting the administrative fee authorized under subsection (2) of this section
and paying any refunds, the city or county shall use the remaining revenues received under
section 8 (2) of this 2016 Act as follows:
(a) Fifty percent to fund developer incentives allowed or offered pursuant to ORS 197.309
(5)(c) and (d) and (7);
(b) Fifteen percent to be distributed to the Housing and Community Services Department
to fund home ownership programs that provide down payment assistance; and
(c) Thirty-five percent for programs and incentives of the city or county related to af-
fordable housing as defined by the city or county, respectively, for purposes of this section
and section 8 of this 2016 Act.
(4) After deducting the administrative fee authorized under subsection (2) of this section
and paying any refunds, the city or county shall use 50 percent of the remaining revenues
received under section 8 (3) of this 2016 Act to fund programs of the city or county related
to housing.
SECTION 10.Section 9, chapter 829, Oregon Laws 2007, is repealed.
SECTION 11. A city or county may not adopt a regulation, provision or requirement un-
der ORS 197.309, as amended by section 1 of this 2016 Act, until the 180th day after the ef-
fective date of this 2016 Act.
SECTION 12.This 2016 Act takes effect on the 91st day after the date on which the 2016
regular session of the Seventy-eighth Legislative Assembly adjourns sine die.
Passed by Senate February 26, 2016
..................................................................................
Lori L. Brocker, Secretary of Senate
..................................................................................
Peter Courtney, President of Senate
Passed by House March 3, 2016
..................................................................................
Tina Kotek, Speaker of House
Received by Governor:
........................M.,........................................................., 2016
Approved:
........................M.,........................................................., 2016
..................................................................................
Kate Brown, Governor
Filed in Office of Secretary of State:
........................M.,........................................................., 2016
..................................................................................
Jeanne P. Atkins, Secretary of State
Enrolled Senate Bill 1533 (SB 1533-B)Page 5
April 17, 2019, Work Session – Item 3
MEMO
Date: January 11, 2019
To: Eugene City Council
From: Intergovernmental Housing Policy Board
Subject: Inclusionary zoning
The Housing Policy Board spent some time last year studying inclusionary zoning. Here are
our findings.
The 2016 Oregon legislature adopted a new law allowing local governments to [1] adopt a
tax on new construction (called here a “CET”) for the purpose of “housing”, and [2] implement
inclusionary housing requirements (commonly called ‘inclusionary zoning’ or here “IZ”). This
memorandum discusses the latter of those.
The City can adopt an ordinance “that has the effect of establishing the sales or rental price
for a new multifamily structure, or that requires a new multifamily structure to be designated for
sale or rent as affordable housing.” The “sales or rental” phrase is intended to include not just
rental apartments, but also for example, condominiums. A “multifamily structure” is a single
structure containing at least twenty units. “Affordable housing” means housing that is
“affordable to households with incomes equal to or higher than 80 percent of the median family
income.”
There are numerous requirements:
1.No more than 20% of the units can be required to be affordable.
2.It applies only to multi-family structures of at least 20 units.
3.Developers must be allowed to pay an in-lieu fee.
4.The regulations must contain and “apply only clear and objective standards, conditions
and procedures regulating the development of affordable housing units” which “may not
have the effect, either individually or cumulatively, of discouraging development of
affordable housing units through unreasonable cost or delay.” This doesn’t not apply to
“historic areas.”
5.The City must provide at least one of the following incentives:
•whole or partial fee waivers or reductions
•whole or partial waivers of SDCs
•finance-based incentives
•full or partial exemption from property taxes
In addition, the City may offer any of the following incentives:
•density adjustments
•expedited service for the permitting process
•modification of height, for area, or other sited-specific requirements
Attachment B
April 17, 2019, Work Session – Item 3
•other incentives determined by the City
The City may also offer voluntary incentives:
•increase the number of affordable housing units in the development
•decrease the sale or rental price of the affordable units
•make units affordable to lower income families
While the statute does not require a jurisdiction to adopt a CET if it adopts IZ, it is
impractical not to do so, since the cost of the mandatory incentives would then have to come out
of general funds.
If the City chooses not to adopt a mandatory IZ ordinance, it can still adopt a voluntary IZ
ordinance. That is what Corvallis has done.
WHAT OTHERS HAVE DONE
While nine jurisdictions in Oregon have already adopted a CET, only Portland has adopted
IZ.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Housing Policy Board recommends that the City not adopt mandatory inclusionary
zoning. The reasons are as follows:
•It is unlikely to affect many developments, since most developments have fewer than 20
units in a single structure.
•It directs 50% of proceeds of the residential CET to incentivizing those properties. That
means a lot of CET money could be directed to not very many developments.
•It does nothing to assist families below 80% of AMI.
•While requiring set-asides to families at or above 80%, it does not require those units to
be rented or sold to families meeting that qualification, so families earning 200% of AMI can
rent or buy those units.
On the other hand, the Housing Policy Board suggests that the City explore voluntary
inclusionary zoning. This would allow a developer who is willing to include affordable housing
units in a development to negotiate incentives with the City. No incentives would be mandatory.
Corvallis has adopted voluntary inclusionary zoning but we are not aware yet how that is
working.
April 17, 2019, Work Session – Item 3