League of Oregon Cities Board of Directors Meeting AGENDA

League of Oregon Cities Board of Directors Meeting December 4, 2020 │ 10:00 am – 4:00 pm https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84791083698?pwd=MDVrblZwMk14V1JjWXNjTy9kWUFuQT09

Meeting ID: 847 9108 3698 Passcode: 959019 One tap mobile +14086380968,,84791083698#,,,,,,0#,,959019# US (San Jose) +16699006833,,84791083698#,,,,,,0#,,959019# US (San Jose)

AGENDA

1. Welcome (President Jake Boone) …………………………………………...... 2. Consent Calendar* (President Jake Boone) …………………………………………………………………...... a. Minutes of October 13, 2020 LOC Board Meeting...... 03 b. Financial Report...... 08 c. Legal Research Division & Litigation Update...... 15 d. Intergovernmental Division Report...... 25 e. Report on LOC Recognized Caucuses & Pending Applications ...... 39 f. Appointment of Kathryn Greiner to CIS Board of Directors,...... 40 g. Appointment to 2021 Budget Committee...... 42 h. Evaluations of 2020 Annual Conference...... 43 i. LOC Board Schedule and Locations for 2021...... 74 3. Executive Director Performance Review (Patty Mulvihill)...... 75 4. Executive Director Compensation (Patty Mulvihill)...... 77 5. CIS Update (Patrick Priestt)...... 6. Executive Directors Report (Mike Cully)...... 79 7. Committees  Reports and Action Items a) Bylaws Committee i) Request for Support of Constitutional Bylaws Amendments in 2021* (Patty 92 Mulvihill)...... b) Finance Committee i) Status Report and Update (Taneea Browning)...... c) Equity & Inclusion Committee i) Status Report and Update (Councilor Greg Evans & Commissioner Fritz)...... ii) Review & Adoption of Equity Lens* (Jayme Hafner)...... 96 8. Discussion of Audit Report for 2019/2020 (Jamie Johnson-Davis)...... 97 9. LOC Foundation Reports & Action Items a) Recommendation of President for the Foundation...... 98

1 b) Appointment of Members to the Foundation...... 10. City Dues Delinquency (Jamie Johnson-Davis)...... 100 11. FY 2022 City Dues Rates (Jamie Johnson-Davis)...... 101 a) LOC City Dues FY2021-2022 v3 Alpha 1%...... 104 b) LOC City Dues FY2021-2022 v3 Pop 1%...... 110 c) LOC City Dues FY2021-2022 v3 Pop 0%...... 116 12. Approval of 190 Agreements for Housing Money (Patty Mulvihill)...... 122 * Agenda items denoted with an asterisk indicate a motion is recommended. The sample motion will appear in the agenda item’s associated materials.

2 LOC Board of Directors October 13, 2020  9:03 am – 11:02-09 am 1201 NE Court Street, Suite 200, Salem, Oregon 97301 via Zoom

MINUTES

Voting Board Members: Drew Farmer, Director - Present Jake Boone, President - Present Amanda Fritz, Director - Present Keith Mays, Vice President - Present Peter Hall, Director - Present Taneea Browning, Treasurer – Present Dean Sawyer, Director - Present Greg Evans, Past President - Present Kevin Stine, Director - Present Steve Callaway, Director - Present Steve Uffelman, Director - Present Scott Derickson, Director - Present Ken Gibson, Director – Present

Non-Voting Board Member: Byron Smith, Director, Absent

Ex-Officio Past Presidents: Denny Doyle, John McArdle, Brad Nanke, Timm Slater and Peter Truax.

Staff: Executive Director, Mike Cully - Present

Mark Gharst – Not Required Julie Oke – Present Jayme Hafner – Present Scott Winkels – Present Jamie Johnson-Davis – Present Tracy Rutten – Not Required Jenna Jones – Present Kevin Toon - Present Jim McCauley – Present Lisa Trevino – Present Patty Mulvihill - Present Kelly Richardson - Present Ariel Nelson – Not Required

Other: Angie Lantner, OAMR President, Councilor Roland Herrera, Keizer, Paul Chalmers

A. Welcome 9:03 am

President Jake Boone called the meeting of October 13, 2020 to order at 9:03 am and welcomed everyone.

Page 1 of 5 LOC Board Meeting 10/13/2020 3 B. Zoom Protocols

President Boone went over the Zoom protocols for the meeting. Following the presentation Paul Chalmers, who had just that week resigned his position on the Pendleton City Council and thus the LOC Board of Directors, thanked everyone on the Board along with LOC staff.

C. Consent Calendar 9:08 am

Consisted of the following:

1. Minutes of the June 12, 2020 LOC Board of Directors Meeting 2. Minutes of the August 19, 2020 LOC Board of Directors Special Meeting 3. Current Financial Report 4. George Endicott appointment 5. Legal Research Division Report & Litigation Update 6. Communications & Marketing Division Report 7. Board Schedule and Locations for 2021 8. Executive Director Evaluation Process 9. Update on Housing Agreement with OHCS

All items in the consent calendar can be read in their entirety in the packet for the October Board packet. Treasurer Browning noted that the memo marked Item F should be with the financial report in the consent agenda.

It was moved by Vice President Mays and seconded by Immediate Past President Evans to approve the consent calendar with the exception noted by Treasurer Browning. The motion passed 12-0 (12 Yes [Boone, Browning, Farmer, Sawyer, Callaway, Evans, Stine, Mays, Fritz, Hall, Uffelman, Derickson,], 0- No, 0- Abstain,-Absent 0).

D. Executive Director Report 9:25 am

Executive Director Mike Cully presented the Board with an overview of his report and thanked all the staff members who had contributed to the report. The entire report can be read in its entirety in the packet of October 13, 2020.

E. LOC Equity Committee Update

Immediate Past President Greg Evans gave a brief overview of the Committee and following the Board discussion no action was taken. The entire report can be read in the attached packet of the October 13, 2020 packet.

Page 2 of 5 LOC Board Meeting 10/13/2020 4 F. Finance Committee Update 9:51 am

Treasurer Browning gave the Board a brief overview of the last two Committee meetings. Browning stated that the meetings were going well and were helpful. There was no action taken by the Board.

G. Proposed Bylaws Amendment (Regarding City Managers & Caucuses) 10:03 am

General Counsel Patty Mulvihill gave a brief overview of the proposed Bylaws changes recommended by the Bylaws Committee. The changes to the Bylaws can be read in their entirety in the October 13, 2020 meeting packet.

Before the vote was taken Director Hall asked staff to clarify who is a voting member of the board and who is not.

Vice President Mays also noted that the motion needed to show that it was only for the City Managers portion of the updates.

Record shows Immediate Past President Evans had left at 10:03 and did not return.

It was moved by Director Uffelman and seconded by Director Dean Sawyer to approve the Bylaws as proposed for the City Managers only as recommended by the Bylaws Committee. The motion passed 11-0 (11 Yes [Boone, Browning, Farmer, Sawyer, Callaway, Stine, Mays, Fritz, Hall, Uffelman, Derickson,], 0- No, 0- Abstain,-Absent Evans, Smith and Endicott).

The second part of this agenda item Bylaws recommendation regarding Caucuses was presented by Mulvihill and following the overview the Board had a brief discussion regarding logistics.

This motion was made at approximately 10:04 am and still showing Evans not returned.

It was moved by Director Stine and seconded by Director Amanda Fritz to approve the Bylaws as proposed for the Caucuses only as recommended by the Bylaws Committee. The motion passed 10-1 (10 Yes [Boone, Browning, Farmer, Sawyer, Callaway, Stine, Mays, Fritz, Hall, Derickson,], 1, Uffelman- No, - Abstain,-Absent Evans, Smith and Endicott).

H. Recognition of People of Color Caucus 10:35 am

Assistant Counsel Jayme Hafner gave a brief overview of the request for recognition of the People of Color Caucus. The entire report can be read in the October 13, 2020 packet. Following Hafner’s overview, Councilor Herrera from Keizer thanked everyone involved and affirmed everything in the

Page 3 of 5 LOC Board Meeting 10/13/2020 5 report. Director Uffelman left at approximately 10:28 am and returned approximately at 10:38 am missing the vote.

It was moved by Vice President Mays and seconded by Director Drew Farmer to approve and formally recognize the People of Color Caucus. The motion passed 10-0 (10 Yes [Boone, Browning, Farmer, Sawyer, Callaway, ,Stine, Mays, Fritz, Hall, Derickson,\], 0- No, 0- Abstain,- Absent Evans, Uffelman, Smith and Endicott). Taken at 10:35 a.m.

I. Status of Damascus General Counsel Mulvihill updated the Board regarding the issues surrounding the City of Damascus. The entire report can be read in the packet related to the October 13, 2020 packet.

It was moved by Vice President Mays and seconded by Director Derickson to approve and formally recognize that both the 190 Agreement and the Constitution governing the League of Oregon Cities require all LOC members to be cities in Oregon, and that on September 3, 2020, the Oregon Supreme Court found that Damascus is no longer an Oregon city, the Board of Directors hereby declares that Damascus no longer meets the eligibility requirements for membership in the League of Oregon Cities and directs staff to officially strike Damascus from the organization’s membership roll. The motion passed 10-0 (10 Yes [Boone, Browning, Farmer, Sawyer, Callaway, ,Stine, Mays, Fritz, Hall, Derickson,\], 0- No, 0- Abstain,-Absent Evans, Uffelman, Smith and Endicott). Motion taken at 10:38 a.m.

Director Derickson left at 10:40 a.m.

J. Amend Policy Priorities to Include Disaster Response/Recovery Legislative Director Jim McCauley presented the Board an update to the recently adopted 2021/2022 legislative priorities to include response to natural disasters due to the recent wildfires. The entire update can be read on page 104 of the October 2020 packet.

It was moved by Director Callaway and seconded by Director Sawyer to amend the Board’s Legislative Priorities for the 2021 and 2022 legislative session, adopted on August 19, 2020, to include Responding to Natural Disasters as described in this staff Memorandum. The motion passed 10-0 (10 Yes [Boone, Browning, Farmer, Sawyer, Callaway, ,Stine, Mays, Fritz, Hall, Uffelman,\], 0- No, 0- Abstain,-Absent Evans, Derickson, Smith and Endicott). Motion taken at 10:42 a.m.

Director Callaway left at 10:43 a.m. and returned at 10:46 a.m.

K. Strategic Plan Check-in 10:43 am Executive Director Mike Cully gave Board members an update on the 2020/2021 Strategic Plan: Because of exigent circumstances and the extreme need to pivot, the LOC has drastically altered operations and mission focus since mid-March of 2020. Our positioning as a trusted Page 4 of 5 LOC Board Meeting 10/13/2020

6 source and leader in the state has been cemented since the advent of the Coronavirus pandemic and further solidified as the corresponding crises unfolded almost sequentially this calendar year. Simultaneous to our repositioning and support to federal, state and local leaders and crisis recovery and coordinating agencies, the LOC has continued to focus on its core mission of advocacy and execution of the strategic plan which was adopted in December of 2019. The abridged version of this report shows that staff has made quantifiable and measurable progress towards fulfillment of many goals identified by the Board as focus areas for the organization. I list several topics as, “ongoing,” as these focus points extend beyond a finite completion time. The entire update starts on page 105 of the October 2020 packet. No action by the Board was taken. Cully’s report concluded at 10:58 a.m.

Director Derickson returned at 10:51 a.m.

G.Adjourn

President Jake Boone adjourned the October 13, 2020 Board meeting at 11:02 am. Discussion concluded at 11:09 a.m. and meeting ended for all.

APPROVED by the League of Oregon Cities Board of Directors on December 04, 2020.

ATTEST:

Mike Cully, Executive Director Jake Boone, President

Page 5 of 5 LOC Board Meeting 10/13/2020 7 MEMORANDUM To: Board of Directors From: Jamie Johnson-Davis, Finance Director Date: November 17, 2020 Re: Fiscal Year 2020-2021 October review

Attached please find the fiscal year 2020-2021 for the month of October and a narrative of the proposed budget versus actual with description listed below for discussion.

Revenue

22 4000 Membership Dues staff is working with 2 cities to be at 100% participation

22 4053 Associate Member Dues - participants in CIS benefits program, November collection of $10,500, bring year to date to $11,000

33 4700 Conference- Revenue will be significantly lower due to the pandemic, current our revenue collections is down 75% about $313,000 less than anticipated due to pandemic converting in person meeting to virtual meeting.

70 4820 Program revenue – is showing to be on track in all areas except Bond Program, at this time we do not anticipate any programs to create a revenue stream at this time.

Expense

23 5001 Payroll Salary and Benefit Expenses, for whole company- is tracking under budget due to several positions in process of being filled.

25 5000 Board - under budget due to the pandemic.

26 5000 Technology – We anticipate expenditures in the department will be 100% exhausted by year end.

32 5600 Training –Training budget will continue to be unused without in person trainings, LOC continues to research possible training opportunities and/or start our own online program.

33 5000 Conference- Expenses will be significantly lower due to the pandemic, current our expenses are down 90% about $303,000 due to pandemic. Staff is working on reconciling expenses and will have completed by November financial close.

8 League of Oregon Cities Budget vs. Actuals FY21 July - October, 2020 Total October Actual Fiscal % of Actual YTD Budget over Budget Budget Income 22 4000 Revenue 0.00 22 4050 Dues from Member Cities 253.05 1,566,462.86 1,909,000.00 -342,537.14 82.06% 22 4053 Dues/ Asso Subs Supporters 500.00 28,000.00 -27,500.00 1.79% 22 4054 Dues/ Asso Business Partners 600.00 37,500.00 -36,900.00 1.60% 22 4102 Affililiates OCCMA 6,437.49 6,437.49 35,000.00 -28,562.51 18.39% 22 4105 Affiliates OMA 6,000.00 6,000.00 25,000.00 -19,000.00 24.00% 22 4108 Affiliates OCAA 1,500.00 1,500.00 6,180.00 -4,680.00 24.27% 22 4111 Affiliates OCPDA 1,840.00 1,600.00 -1,600.00 0.00% 22 4114 Affliiates OMEU 750.00 3,500.00 -2,750.00 21.43% 22 4117 EBS Administration 22,765.20 25,500.00 -2,734.80 89.28% 22 4120 CIS Administration 1,113,252.92 1,104,000.00 9,252.92 100.84% 22 4255 Rent/Lease Space 9,000.00 -9,000.00 0.00% 22 4258 Miscellaneous Income 1,000.00 -1,000.00 0.00% 22 4261 Web/NL Ads/Subscriptions 8,180.00 20,000.00 -11,820.00 40.90% 22 4264 Publications 40.00 500.00 -460.00 8.00% 22 4267 American Legal Reviews 71.65 5,000.00 -4,928.35 1.43% 22 4290 Interest Income 3,999.85 17,439.71 70,000.00 -52,560.29 24.91% Total 22 4000 Revenue $ 20,030.39 $ 2,743,999.83 $ 3,280,780.00 -$ 536,780.17 83.64% 30 4400 Member Services 0.00 30 4411 Purchasing Partners 2,933.07 30,000.00 -27,066.93 9.78% 30 4416 CIS City Asst/Training 95,728.07 93,500.00 2,228.07 102.38% 30 4419 Web Services Program 2,000.00 -2,000.00 0.00% 30 4510 Classes 0.00 15,000.00 -15,000.00 0.00% Total 30 4400 Member Services $ 0.00 $ 98,661.14 $ 140,500.00 -$ 41,838.86 70.22% 33 4700 Conferences 0.00 33 4701 Registration Income 5,380.00 27,630.00 175,000.00 -147,370.00 15.79% 33 4702 Training Workshops (150.00) 2,175.00 35,000.00 -32,825.00 6.21% 33 4705 Exhibitors 3,150.00 50,000.00 -46,850.00 6.30% 33 4708 Affiliate Workshop 625.00 2,850.00 14,000.00 -11,150.00 20.36% 33 4711 Conference Sponsors 4,925.00 77,000.00 125,000.00 -48,000.00 61.60%

1 of 6 9 Budget vs. Actuals October 2020 League of Oregon Cities Budget vs. Actuals FY21 July - October, 2020 Total October Actual Fiscal % of Actual YTD Budget over Budget Budget 33 4714 Pop up Conference Rev 15,000.00 -15,000.00 0.00% 33 4716 City Day at the Capital 12,000.00 -12,000.00 0.00% Total 33 4700 Conferences $ 10,780.00 $ 112,805.00 $ 426,000.00 -$ 313,195.00 26.48% 70 4820 Program Revenue 0.00 31 4901 Uniform Traffic Citations Revenue 8,250.68 40,000.00 -31,749.32 20.63% 39 4109 OHCS IGA revenue 67,500.00 135,000.00 -67,500.00 50.00% 50 4700 Transportation Income 186,000.00 -186,000.00 0.00% 51 4751 Bond Program Income 20,000.00 -20,000.00 0.00% Total 70 4820 Program Revenue $ 0.00 $ 75,750.68 $ 381,000.00 -$ 305,249.32 19.88% Total Income $ 30,810.39 $ 3,031,216.65 $ 4,228,280.00 -$ 1,197,063.35 71.69% Gross Profit $ 30,810.39 $ 3,031,216.65 $ 4,228,280.00 -$ 1,197,063.35 71.69% Expenses 23 5000 Personnel and Benefits 0.00 23 5002 Member/Administration Services 57,418.56 190,326.63 757,700.00 -567,373.37 25.12% 23 5004 Communications and Marketing 30,831.12 96,829.69 279,500.00 -182,670.31 34.64% 23 5006 Intergovernmental Relations 82,750.40 262,507.56 711,000.00 -448,492.44 36.92% 23 5008 Legal/Research Personal Services 23,402.00 93,608.00 284,000.00 -190,392.00 32.96% 23 5010 Payroll Taxes 14,112.06 48,630.53 162,600.00 -113,969.47 29.91% 23 5011 PERS 54,545.38 179,558.24 610,000.00 -430,441.76 29.44% 23 5020 Workers Compensation 5,871.12 8,500.00 -2,628.88 69.07% 23 5030 Employee Benefits 19,965.86 79,863.44 245,000.00 -165,136.56 32.60% 23 5040 Cell Phones 1,600.00 6,000.00 19,200.00 -13,200.00 31.25% Total 23 5000 Personnel and Benefits $ 284,625.38 $ 963,195.21 $ 3,077,500.00 -$ 2,114,304.79 31.30% 24 5000 Administration 0.00 24 5510 Payroll Expense 24 41.25 3,298.51 7,000.00 -3,701.49 47.12% 24 5512 Staff Training 24 5512 740.00 6,000.00 -5,260.00 12.33% 24 5515 Membership/Dues 24 3,000.00 -3,000.00 0.00% 24 5519 Internal Recruiting 1,300.00 1,000.00 300.00 130.00% 24 5626 Small City Program 7,500.00 -7,500.00 0.00% 24 6106 Contract Services 24 2,600.00 3,800.00 6,500.00 -2,700.00 58.46% 24 6109 Temporary Services 14,283.09 14,283.09

2 of 6 10 Budget vs. Actuals October 2020 League of Oregon Cities Budget vs. Actuals FY21 July - October, 2020 Total October Actual Fiscal % of Actual YTD Budget over Budget Budget 24 6301 Conferences & Workshops 24 150.00 2,294.01 27,000.00 -24,705.99 8.50% 24 6304 Staff Travel/ In-State -60.03 20,000.00 -20,060.03 -0.30% 24 6405 Telephone 24 4,012.33 12,000.00 -7,987.67 33.44% 24 6406 NLC Membership 25,000.00 -25,000.00 0.00% 24 6409 Membership/Sponsor 6,750.00 15,000.00 -8,250.00 45.00% 24 6411 Conference Calls 24 360.46 2,000.00 -1,639.54 18.02% 24 6516 Maintenance - Local Gov Center 36,865.16 110,000.00 -73,134.84 33.51% 24 6519 Repair & Maintenance - Auto 212.80 2,000.00 -1,787.20 10.64% 24 6632 Audit 12,000.00 25,000.00 -13,000.00 48.00% 24 6635 Insurance 24 6,279.08 6,000.00 279.08 104.65% 24 6700 Miscellaneous 24 1,000.00 -1,000.00 0.00% 24 6910 Office Expense 24 0.00 24 6150 Bank Fees 24 1,717.92 3,000.00 -1,282.08 57.26% 24 6211 Postage 24 735.19 5,000.00 -4,264.81 14.70% 24 6216 Supplies 24 84.48 2,485.67 10,250.00 -7,764.33 24.25% 24 6225 Printing 24 175.70 1,835.26 10,000.00 -8,164.74 18.35% Total 24 6910 Office Expense 24 $ 260.18 $ 6,774.04 $ 28,250.00 -$ 21,475.96 23.98% Total 24 5000 Administration $ 3,051.43 $ 98,909.45 $ 304,250.00 -$ 205,340.55 32.51% 25 5000 Board 0.00 25 5620 Travel 25 689.60 689.60 15,000.00 -14,310.40 4.60% 25 5623 Board Meetings 231.00 20,000.00 -19,769.00 1.16% 25 5910 Conferences/Workshops 25 10,000.00 -10,000.00 0.00% 25 6700 Miscellaneous 25 442.96 1,000.00 -557.04 44.30% Total 25 5000 Board $ 689.60 $ 1,363.56 $ 46,000.00 -$ 44,636.44 2.96% 26 5000 Technology 0.00 26 6106 Contract Services 26 390.00 35,623.68 40,000.00 -4,376.32 89.06% 26 6808 Technology Services 2,126.57 7,500.00 -5,373.43 28.35% 26 7003 Technology/Information 7,177.50 7,177.50 26 8105 Computer Hardware 7,367.79 15,000.00 -7,632.21 49.12% 26 8108 Furniture Outlay 132.99 5,000.00 -4,867.01 2.66% 26 8115 Software & Services 663.22 5,274.87 20,000.00 -14,725.13 26.37%

3 of 6 11 Budget vs. Actuals October 2020 League of Oregon Cities Budget vs. Actuals FY21 July - October, 2020 Total October Actual Fiscal % of Actual YTD Budget over Budget Budget Total 26 5000 Technology $ 1,053.22 $ 57,703.40 $ 87,500.00 -$ 29,796.60 65.95% 32 5600 Training 0.00 32 5623 Meeting 32 3,000.00 -3,000.00 0.00% 32 5626 Training Contracts 365.23 15,000.00 -14,634.77 2.43% 32 5632 Elected Essentials/Regional -197.22 20,000.00 -20,197.22 -0.99% 32 6410 Training 230.00 -230.00 0.00% 32 6910 Office Expense 32 0.00 32 6211 Postage 32 300.00 -300.00 0.00% 32 6222 Printing 32 300.00 -300.00 0.00% 32 6408 Cell Phones 32 320.08 1,000.00 -679.92 32.01% Total 32 6910 Office Expense 32 $ 0.00 $ 320.08 $ 1,600.00 -$ 1,279.92 20.01% Total 32 5600 Training $ 0.00 $ 488.09 $ 39,830.00 -$ 39,341.91 1.23% 33 5000 Conference 0.00 33 5620 Travel 33 107.00 187.44 8,000.00 -7,812.56 2.34% 33 5629 Affiliate Workshop 13,500.00 -13,500.00 0.00% 33 5920 Hotel-Banquet 17,250.00 160,000.00 -142,750.00 10.78% 33 5923 Hotel-Lodging 15,000.00 -15,000.00 0.00% 33 5926 Speakers 8,750.00 20,000.00 -11,250.00 43.75% 33 5929 Decorator-Pipe & Drape 6,500.00 -6,500.00 0.00% 33 5932 Design/Special Printing 7,500.00 -7,500.00 0.00% 33 5935 Signage 4,000.00 -4,000.00 0.00% 33 5938 Awards 420.61 420.61 1,000.00 -579.39 42.06% 33 5946 AV Equipment 11,175.00 35,000.00 -23,825.00 31.93% 33 5948 AV Equipment-Hotel 7,500.00 -7,500.00 0.00% 33 6106 Contract Services 33 133.00 7,500.00 -7,367.00 1.77% 33 6150 Bank Fees 33 (10.50) -171.00 4,500.00 -4,671.00 -3.80% 33 6222 Printing 33 1,000.00 -1,000.00 0.00% 33 6714 Spring Conference 33 15,000.00 -15,000.00 0.00% 33 6716 City Day at the Capital Expense 30,000.00 -30,000.00 0.00% 33 6910 Office Expense 33 0.00 33 6211 Postage 33 1,000.00 -1,000.00 0.00%

4 of 6 12 Budget vs. Actuals October 2020 League of Oregon Cities Budget vs. Actuals FY21 July - October, 2020 Total October Actual Fiscal % of Actual YTD Budget over Budget Budget 33 6216 Supplies 33 39.07 2,500.00 -2,460.93 1.56% 33 6700 Miscellaneous 33 40.00 1,500.00 -1,460.00 2.67% Total 33 6910 Office Expense 33 $ 0.00 $ 79.07 $ 5,000.00 -$ 4,920.93 1.58% Total 33 5000 Conference $ 517.11 $ 37,824.12 $ 341,000.00 -$ 303,175.88 11.09% 34 5000 Communication & Marketing 0.00 34 5515 Membership/Dues 34 1,000.00 -1,000.00 0.00% 34 5910 Conferences/Workshops 34 10,000.00 -10,000.00 0.00% 34 6106 Contract Services 34 1,500.00 2,943.00 7,500.00 -4,557.00 39.24% 34 6211 Postage 34 7,500.00 -7,500.00 0.00% 34 6219 Books/Publications 34 23.99 1,514.88 2,500.00 -985.12 60.60% 34 6222 Printing 34 27.60 24,000.00 -23,972.40 0.12% 34 6412 Marketing 34 12,500.00 -12,500.00 0.00% 34 6700 Miscellaneous 34 32.41 1,000.00 -967.59 3.24% Total 34 5000 Communication & Marketing $ 1,523.99 $ 4,517.89 $ 66,000.00 -$ 61,482.11 6.85% 37 5000 Intergovernmental 0.00 37 5515 Membership/Dues 37 700.00 5,000.00 -4,300.00 14.00% 37 5623 Meeting 37 548.87 3,000.00 -2,451.13 18.30% 37 5910 Conferences/Workshops 37 200.00 18,000.00 -17,800.00 1.11% 37 6106 Contract Services 37 5,000.00 -5,000.00 0.00% 37 6162 Congressional Cities Conference 7,000.00 -7,000.00 0.00% 37 6166 Grass Roots Program 5,000.00 -5,000.00 0.00% 37 6910 Office Expense 37 0.00 37 6219 Books/Publications 37 197.10 1,000.00 -802.90 19.71% 37 6222 Printing 37 2,500.00 -2,500.00 0.00% 37 6700 Miscellaneous 500.00 -500.00 0.00% Total 37 6910 Office Expense 37 $ 0.00 $ 197.10 $ 4,000.00 -$ 3,802.90 4.93% Total 37 5000 Intergovernmental $ 0.00 $ 1,645.97 $ 47,000.00 -$ 45,354.03 3.50% 38 5000 Legal & Research 0.00 38 5515 Membership/Dues 38 427.50 2,000.00 -1,572.50 21.38% 38 5910 Conferences/Workshops 38 2,130.00 8,000.00 -5,870.00 26.63%

5 of 6 13 Budget vs. Actuals October 2020 League of Oregon Cities Budget vs. Actuals FY21 July - October, 2020 Total October Actual Fiscal % of Actual YTD Budget over Budget Budget 38 6218 Subscription Services 2,259.76 7,500.00 -5,240.24 30.13% 38 6219 Books/Publications 38 500.00 -500.00 0.00% Total 38 5000 Legal & Research $ 0.00 $ 4,817.26 $ 18,000.00 -$ 13,182.74 26.76% 39 5000 Project Expense 0.00 31 6901 Uniform Traffic Citation Expense 7,890.67 38,000.00 -30,109.33 20.76% Total 39 5000 Project Expense $ 0.00 $ 7,890.67 $ 38,000.00 -$ 30,109.33 20.76% 39 5105 39 5105 LD Contract Services 0.00 39 6105 39 6105 LD expenditures 1,157.36 1,157.36

39 6107 Contract Services - Limited Duration 8,485.78 33,943.12 120,000.00 -86,056.88 28.29% Total 39 5105 39 5105 LD Contract Services $ 8,485.78 $ 35,100.48 $ 120,000.00 -$ 84,899.52 29.25%

39 6108 NLC Membership Small Cities <$25K 25,000.00 -25,000.00 0.00% 39 6806 Contract Services 39 4,230.00 47,615.25 120,000.00 -72,384.75 39.68% Total 39 7100 LGPI Expenses $ 4,230.00 $ 47,615.25 $ 145,000.00 -$ 97,384.75 32.84% 39 6809 OHCS IGA Expense 25,000.00 135,000.00 -110,000.00 18.52% 39 7100 LGPI Expenses 0.00 39 6611 LGPI Expenditures 10.95 10.95 15,000.00 -14,989.05 0.07% Total 39 7100 LGPI Expenses $ 10.95 $ 10.95 $ 15,000.00 -$ 14,989.05 0.07% Total 39 5000 Project Expense $ 12,726.73 $ 115,617.35 $ 453,000.00 -$ 337,382.65 25.52% 60 7000 Building & Equipment 0.00 60 7004 Technology Capital Projects 50,000.00 -50,000.00 0.00% Total 60 7000 Building & Equipment $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 50,000.00 -$ 50,000.00 0.00% Total Expenses $ 304,187.46 $ 1,286,082.30 $ 4,530,080.00 -$ 3,243,997.70 28.39% Net Operating Income -$ 273,377.07 $ 1,745,134.35 -$ 301,800.00 $ 2,046,934.35 -578.24% Net Income -$ 273,377.07 $ 1,745,134.35 -$ 301,800.00 $ 2,046,934.35 -578.24%

14 6 of 6 Budget vs. Actuals October 2020 MEMORANDUM To: LOC Board of Directors From: Patty Mulvihill, General Counsel Date: December 17, 2020 Re: Legal Research Division Report – Litigation Update Attached

This Memo provides a brief overview of what has transpired in the Legal Research Division (LRD) since the Board’s October meeting. The Memo is not meant to be an exhaustive analysis of the Division’s activities, but rather a highlight of major accomplishments and/or projects.

Litigation

Since the June Board meeting, there has been three developments in LOC’s litigation efforts. Full details of each development can be reviewed in the attached Litigation Update.

1. City of Seattle v. FCC (LOC’s litigation against a 2018 FCC Order). On August 12th a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals released its decision. The decision upheld portions of the FCC’s Order and found other provisions invalid. On September 28, LOC, along with its litigation partners, asked for an en banc review by the full 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

On October 22, 2020, a divided Ninth Circuit denied the request for rehearing and en banc review. This denial marks the end of any litigation regarding this case in the 9th Circuit. Any additional appeals would necessitate an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court would not be due until March 22, 2021.

The attorneys involved in the coalition to challenge the case are continuing to discuss potential next steps, risks and rewards of filing a request for U.S. Supreme Court review and developing options to give to us and other interested parties. For now, the decision does have practical implications for Oregon cities. The order will impact existing agreements with providers, as well as ongoing negotiations for future agreements.

2. Ortega v. Martin; McCormick (LOC participated as amicus in support of the State’s assertion that it is entitled to recreational immunity even if the public use doctrine requires the state to allow access to its land – thereby presumably not having made a discretionary decision). The Oregon Supreme Court concluded that the government can directly or indirectly permit someone to access its land and that immunity applies even if the government land in question is protected by the public use doctrine. The case has been remanded back to the Court of Appeals for further review based on the guidance provided by the Supreme Court. LOC’s participation is not needed in the remand proceedings.

3. Multnomah County v. Multnomah County Deputy Officers Association. This is a new case in which the LOC is participating as amicus. In June 2018, Multnomah County Sheriff’s

15 Office issued a Memorandum regarding staff assaults in the County jails, which suggested assaults may have increased over time.

In July 2018, Multnomah County Corrections Deputy Association (Association) sent an email to the County demanding to bargain over safety issues. The County responded and stated in part: “After reviewing it, I don’t see a change to policy or other actions that would constitute a unilateral change in working conditions. As such, I don’t believe this is a mandatory subject of bargaining at this time. With that said, we have a mutual interest in ensuring the safety of corrections staff, and we want to meet with you and hear the Association’s ideas for improving safety.”

The Association did not identify a “change to policy or other actions” that would constitute a unilateral change in working conditions.

On January 18, 2019, the Association filed a Complaint with the Employment Relations Board alleging that the County violated ORS 243.672(1)(e) by, in part, refusing to bargain in good faith with the Association regarding mandatory safety issues after there had been an increase in staff assaults. The Board dismissed the Complaint, ruling that the County did not flatly refuse to bargain over the safety concerns, expressed willingness to meet to discuss the union concerns, and did so meet.

However, even though the Board unanimously found that the County had not committed an unfair labor practice, it went on to hold that an employer is obligated to engage in midterm bargaining (bargaining during the term of a contract) upon a union demand over a matter of employment relations not covered by a contract provision and over which the employer did not propose a change.

The County is asking the Court of Appeals to uphold the Board’s decision, but to overturn the reasoning used by the Board. LOC, along with AOC and the Oregon Public Employer Labor Relations Association, has filed an amicus brief in support of Multnomah County. The brief was written by two attorneys with the City of Portland’s Legal Department.

LOC’s amicus brief argues that the Board’s ruling will be unworkable and contrary to policies behind Oregon’s labor laws. Specifically, the brief suggests: (1) the Board’s decision could require public employers to bargain over the impact of state legislation that requires no local government action to implement (the 2019 PERS legislation for example); (2) the timeframes noted in the Board’s decision could result in local governments bargaining under statute for 90 days over the impact of policies they implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic while then simultaneously having to bargain for 150 days if the union then demanded to bargain over other COVID-19 safety concerns (even if the employer proposed no change); and (3) the Board’s ruling subjects public employers to a state of continuous bargaining during the life of a collective bargaining agreement.

Trainings

The LOC General Counsel provided an in-person training to the city of Shaniko on October 5.

On November 13, the General Counsel and Assistant General Counsel spent the day at Allied Studios prerecording several sessions that will be utilized during the 2020 virtual Elected

16 Essentials program. The Elected Essential program will occur on December 1, December 2, December 3, December 11, December 14 and December 15.

The cities of Echo and Lakeview have tentatively scheduled trainings to occur during the third week of January with the General Counsel. Also, the Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments has asked for the LOC to provide Elected Essentials training directly to those cities impacted by the Santiam Canyon Fires – discussions with the Council of Governments are ongoing, but LOC has committed to providing whatever trainings the cities need.

Pilot Legal Program

The General Counsel and Assistant General Counsel continue to provide legal advice to cities in eastern Oregon who are participants in the Pilot Legal Program. Attorneys have reviewed multiple contracts, assisted in right-of-way vacations, drafted several ordinances, and provided general legal interpretation on various legal matters. During the first meeting of 2021, the LOC General Counsel hopes to have an evaluation of the program to-date so that the Board can begin discussing what it wants to do with the program when it concludes on June 30, 2021.

Member Inquiries

Between January 1 and September 17, LRD attorneys fielded 243 member inquiries which required 105 hours of staff time. The actual number of member inquiries fielded by LRD attorneys has decreased by about 11% from the same time period last year.

2017 2018 2019 2020 Number of Inquiries 197 132 247 243 Received Length of Time Spent 67 Hours 48 Hours 129 Hours 105 Hours Responding to Inquiries

Publications

In calendar year 2020, LRD attorneys began the long process of comprehensively reviewing, updating and expanding the LOC Handbook. As of the date of this Memorandum, 7 chapters have been published on the LOC website. Two more chapters are expected to be published before the end of this calendar year.

Also, LRD attorneys created four new standalone publications in 2020. Those publications include: • FAQ on Single Use Plastic Bags & Straws; • Home Rule 101 One-Pager; • Model Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax Ordinance; and • A Guide entitled “So You Want to Run for Public Office. The Department also worked with a consultant to translate three of its existing publications from English to Spanish.

17 MEMORANDUM To: LOC Board of Directors From: Patty Mulvihill, General Counsel Date: November 17, 2020 Re: Litigation Update

This is an informational staff report to inform the Board of the status of the LOC’s legal advocacy efforts. The last report provided to the Board was October 13, 2020.

City of Seattle, City of Tacoma, King County, League of Oregon Cities, League of California Cities and League of Arizona Cities & Towns v. U.S. Government and the Federal Communications Commission

League’s Status: Plaintiff Current Venue: U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Attorney: The Telecomm Law Firm (California) General Topic: The lawsuit asks the court to review the FCC’s order captioned In the Matter of Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order released September 27, 2018. While the FCC’s order purports to further the FCC’s goal of accelerating the deployment of 5G small cell technology, it will limit or eliminate municipalities’ traditional local regulatory authority over zoning and right-of-way management and municipalities’ proprietary rights over whether and on what terms they may allow communications providers rights to access, occupy and use government-owned real and personal property. Current Status: 9th Circuit denied en banc review. Coalition discussing options.

On September 27, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released its Third report and Order which: clarified the scope and meaning of the effective prohibition standard set forth in Sections 253 and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act as they apply to state and local regulation of wireless infrastructure deployment; limited state and local governments to charging fees that are no greater than a reasonable approximation of their costs for processing applications and for managing deployments in the rights-of-way; identified specific fee levels for small wireless facility deployments that presumably comply with the relevant standard; provided guidance on certain state and local non-fee requirements, including aesthetic and undergrounding requirements; established two new shot clocks for small wireless facilities (60 days for collocation on preexisting structures and 90 days for new builds) and codified the existing 90 and 150 day shot clocks for non-small wireless facility deployments that were established in the 2009 Declaratory Ruling; made clear that all state and local government authorizations necessary for the deployment of personal wireless service infrastructure are subject to those shot clocks; and concluded that a failure to act within the new small wireless facility shot clock constitutes a presumptive prohibition on the provision of services. This Order was published in the Federal Register on October 15, 2018.

18 During the September 26, 2018, Board meeting, the Board directed LOC staff to participate in any joint actions being taken against the FCC and the implementation of this Order, up to and including initiating suit against the FCC.

On October 25, 2018, LOC joined the city of Seattle, city of Tacoma, King County, Washington, the League of California Cities and the League of Arizona Cities and Towns in filing suit against the FCC in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging the legality of the FCC’s Order. In challenging the FCC’s order, LOC and its partners assert that the order: is arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.; violates federal law, including, but not limited to, the Constitution of the United States, the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and the Commission’s regulations promulgated thereunder; and is otherwise contrary to law.

All cases filed regarding the FCC Order have been consolidated into once case being heard by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

On August 12th a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals released its decision. The decision upheld portions of the FCC’s Order and found other provisions invalid. Below are key highlights:

1. Aesthetics. The FCC’s Order called for all design standards to meet four criteria: be reasonable; no more burdensome than those applied to other types of infrastructure deployments; objective; and published in advance. The Court vacated the criteria that aesthetics must be no more burdensome than applied to other types of infrastructures and that design standards must be objective. The Court explained that the “no more burdensome” criterium was stricter than the statutory standard which only holds that regulations cannot “unreasonably discriminate” amongst other types of infrastructure deployments. The requirement that local design standards be “objective” was found to preempt too broadly.

2. Fees. The FCC’s Order prescribed reasonably presumptive safe harbor fees. The Court upheld these safe harbor fees, by a 2-1 vote. The majority of the court opined that cities still had the ability to charge cost-based fees and they were not expressly preempted from doing so under the FCC’s Order.

3. Shot Clocks. The FCC Order applied 60, 90 and 150-day shot clocks to different types of applications and decisions. Many of these shot clocks were more restrictive than previous telecommunications shot clocks. The Order also extended these shot clocks to non-zoning permits. The court upheld the application of shot clocks to non-zoning permits, such as building and construction permits. In past orders the burden has been on applicants to get an injunction if local governments do not meet shot clocks. That standard still remains, and the court explained, “if permit applicants seek an injunction to force a faster decision, local officials can show that additional time is necessary under the circumstances.”

4. Proprietary Versus Regulatory Authority. The FCC Order unilaterally decided that municipalities never act in a proprietary capacity with respect to management or control over access to the right-of-way or government-owned infrastructure in the right-of-way. Unfortunately, the three-judge panel agreed with the FCC.

During the Board’s Special Meeting on August 19, the LOC General Counsel advised that the Board may have the option to appeal the above ruling in one of two ways, either via an en banc

19 review to the entire 9th Circuit Court or by seeking review from the U.S. Supreme Court. The Board advised the General Counsel and Executive Director they had authority, upon advice of LOC’s telecommunications attorney, to file an appeal if they deemed doing so appropriate.

On September 28, LOC, along with its litigation partners, asked for an en banc review by the full 9th Circuit. In seeking en banc review, LOC and its litigation partners are making three arguments:

1. The three-judge panel erred in upholding the FCC’s effective prohibition interpretation because the FCC’s interpretation (which categorizes any inconvenience to deployment as an effective prohibition) is inconsistent with the Ninth Circuit’s precedent in Sprint v. San Diego County (which holds that a mere possibility of prohibition is not enough for an effective prohibition). [

2. The three-judge panel erred on applying the FCC’s effective prohibition standard to uphold limitations on fees. This is the issue discussed in the dissent.

3. The three-judge panel erred in upholding the FCC’s finding that state and local governments always act in a regulatory capacity with respect to management and control of the ROW and government-owned infrastructure in the ROW. This is technically a separate issue from the first two, but still closely related in how it affects municipal interests. This also allows us to bring in Tenth Amendment issues, and also bring in potential Fifth Amendment issues.

The attorneys involved in the coalition to challenge the case are continuing to discuss potential next steps, risks and rewards of filing a request for U.S. Supreme Court review and developing options to give to us and other interested parties. For now, the decision does have practical implications for Oregon cities. The order will impact existing agreements with providers as well as ongoing negotiations for future agreements.

Ortega v. Martin; McCormick v. State of Oregon

League’s Status: Amicus Current Venue: Oregon Supreme Court Attorney: Washington County Counsel General Topic: Whether recreational immunity under ORS 105.682 is available to a public body that owns land but lacks the authority to make a volitional decision whether or not to allow recreational use on the land. Current Status: Decision Rendered, Remanded to Court of Appeals.

Ortega and McCormick each raise an identical issue regarding the scope of the recreational immunity statute, ORS 105.682. Under that statute, an owner of land (whether public or private) is entitled to immunity from liability for injuries arising out of the recreational use of the land “when the owner of land either directly or indirectly permits any person to use the land for recreational purposes, woodcutting or the harvest of special forest products.” ORS 105.682(1) (emphasis added). The question in Ortega and McCormick is what the legislature meant when it

20 used the word “permits.” In each case, the plaintiff argued that the owner of land (in each case, the state) was not entitled to recreational immunity because the land on which the plaintiff was injured was held in trust for the public, meaning that the state lacked the authority to restrict the public from using the land for recreation. Thus, lacking the authority to restrict recreational use of the land, the state did not “permit” recreational uses of the land and is not entitled to recreational immunity.

In each case, the Court of Appeals agreed with the plaintiff and held that “to be entitled to recreational immunity, an owner of an interest in land must have made a volitional decision to open the land to the public for recreational use. That means, necessarily, that, to be entitled to recreational immunity, an owner must have the authority to make a volitional decision whether or not to allow recreational use on the land in question.” Ortega, 293 Or App at 193.

The state sought review of the McCormick decision in the Oregon Supreme Court and asked a number of other public entities to file an amicus brief in support of the state’s petition for review. The Washington County Counsel’s Office took the lead on drafting the brief for LOC, the Association of Oregon Counties, and the Special Districts Association of Oregon. The city of Portland and the Bend Parks and Recreation District also filed amicus briefs. All parties await action from the court.

The Oregon Supreme Court concluded that the government can directly or indirectly permit someone to access its land and that immunity applies even if the government land in question is protected by the public use doctrine. The case has been remanded back to the Court of Appeals for further review based on the guidance provided by the Supreme Court. LOC’s participation is not needed in the remand proceedings.

City of Portland v. Bartlett

League’s Status: Amicus Current Venue: Oregon Court of Appeals Attorney: LOC’s Legal Research Division General Topic: Are documents protected by the attorney-client privilege permanently exempt from public disclosure or are they subject to disclosure under Oregon law after the expiration of 25 years? Current Status: Decision issued against city of Portland – appeal to Oregon Supreme Court filed.

This case involves a declaratory judgment action filed by the city of Portland in response to a request for production of documents covered by the attorney-client privilege under ORS 192.502(9) and ORS 40.225. The requested documents are more than 25 years old. The individual seeking the documents asserted that because the documents at issue are more than 25 years old, ORS 192.495 requires their disclosure notwithstanding any exemption that may have previously applied.

The city argued that legal opinions from the city attorney are protected by the attorney-client privilege, and the Legislature could not unilaterally remove that legal protection. LOC further argued that because home rule cities are not created by the Legislature, the Legislature cannot waive privilege for home rule entities, and any attempt to do so is invalid under Article XI, section 2, of the Oregon Constitution. The trial court issued a ruling in favor of Portland, ultimately

21 concluding that the Legislature did not intend to remove the city’s attorney-client privilege, and thus did not decide whether the city’s attorney-client privilege was protected by the city’s home rule authority.

In a non-unanimous decision, the Court of Appeals ruled that the Public Meetings Law requires the city to disclose its records protected by attorney-client privilege after twenty-five years, the Court found that the public records statute itself overrides the city’s ability to retain its attorney- client privilege. The city of Portland has asked the Oregon Supreme Court to review and reverse the decision. LOC has filed an amicus brief in support of Portland. LOC’s amicus brief continues to argue that the state has no authority to waive a home rule city’s attorney-client privilege.

Galina Burley v. Clackamas County

League’s Status: Amicus Current Venue: Oregon Court of Appeals Attorney: LOC’s Legal Research Department General Topic: Applicability of damages limits under ORS 30.272 to certain types of claims. Current Status: Awaiting court decision.

The plaintiff brought claims for damages against defendant Clackamas County under whistleblower and anti-retaliation statutes. The case went to a trial and the jury found that defendant was liable to plaintiff for approximately $390,000 in damages. Plaintiff moved for attorney fees and the trial court found that plaintiff incurred approximately $700,000 in attorney fees. Defendant then moved to reduce the amount of plaintiff’s total award (damages, attorney fees, and statutory interest) to the cap set out in ORS 30.272.1 That statute limits the liability of

1 ORS 30.272(2) The liability of a local public body, and the liability of the public body’s officers, employees and agents acting within the scope of their employment or duties, to any single claimant for claims described in subsection (1) of this section may not exceed: • $500,000, for causes of action arising on or after July 1, 2009, and before July 1, 2010. • $533,300, for causes of action arising on or after July 1, 2010, and before July 1, 2011. • $566,700, for causes of action arising on or after July 1, 2011, and before July 1, 2012. • $600,000, for causes of action arising on or after July 1, 2012, and before July 1, 2013. • $633,300, for causes of action arising on or after July 1, 2013, and before July 1, 2014. • $666,700, for causes of action arising on or after July 1, 2014, and before July 1, 2015. • The adjusted limitation provided by subsection (4) of this section, for causes of action arising on or after July 1, 2015. Subsection 4 requires that beginning “in 2015, and every year thereafter, the State Court Administrator shall determine the percentage increase or decrease in the cost of living for the previous calendar year, based on changes in the Portland-Salem, OR-WA Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers for All Items as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor … The adjustment may not exceed three percent for any year. The State Court Administrator shall round the adjusted limitation amount to the nearest $100, but the unrounded amount shall be used to calculate the adjustments to the limitations in subsequent calendar years. The adjusted limitation becomes effective on July 1 of the year in which the adjustment is made and applies to all causes of action arising on or after July 1 of that year and before July 1 of the subsequent year.

22 public bodies when, among other things, the claim for damages “[a]rise[s] out of a single accident or occurrence.” ORS 30.272(1)(c). The trial court agreed with the county that the limit on liability (commonly called the “tort cap”) applied and thus reduced the award of plaintiff’s attorney fees.

Plaintiff now appeals the trial court’s decision to reduce her award of attorney fees to the difference between the damages found by the jury and the statutory limit on liability. She argues that because her claims involved whistleblowing and retaliation that took place at distinct and successive times, the trial court erred in applying the damages cap at all. In other words, plaintiff argues that her claims against the county involved distinct factual events that happened at different times, and thus her claims did not arise out of a single accident or occurrence, meaning that the limit on liability should not apply at all. Plaintiff is arguing that only some causes of action are subject to the tort limit, while others are not.

All parties have filed briefs and are awaiting a decision from the court.

Multnomah County v. Multnomah County Deputy Officers Association

League’s Status: Amicus Current Venue: Oregon Court of Appeals Attorney: City of Portland General Topic: Obligation to engage in midterm bargaining upon a union’s demand over a matter of employment relations not covered by a contract provision and over which the employer did not propose a change Current Status: Awaiting court decision.

In June 2018, Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office issued a Memorandum regarding staff assaults in the County jails, which suggested assaults may have increased over time.

The Association did not identify a “change to policy or other actions” that would constitute a unilateral change in working conditions.

However, even though the Board unanimously found that the County had not committed an unfair labor practice, it went on to hold that an employer is obligated to engage in midterm bargaining

23 (bargaining during the term of a contract) upon a union demand over a matter of employment relations not covered by a contract provision and over which the employer did not propose a change.

Briefs have been filed and we are awaiting a decision from the Court of Appeals.

24 Intergovernmental Relations Report – Jim McCauley

The state legislature, statewide elected positions and our congressional delegation outcomes are now in place as a result of the November election. Oregon hit an all-time high for voter turnout with 81.77 percent. I have included a detailed summary of election outcomes including local measures, charter amendments, and local elections. Given the backdrop of a global pandemic and the economic challenges, local governments had success with more than 70% of local measures passing including a high number of revenue generating measures including bonds, gas taxes, marijuana tax, and levies.

In Oregon’s state legislative races, the Democrats retained super majorities in both chambers, but fell short of a walk-out proof 2/3 quorum standard. In Oregon, two-thirds of the Senate and House must be present to hold votes on the floor and, if you recall, the republican senate and house members walked out during the 2019 and 2020 sessions to prevent a vote on “cap and trade” legislation. In the Senate, the democrats retained a 18-12 majority with each party flipping a Senate seat. In the House, republicans had a net gain of one seat after flipping two seats, while democrats flipped one seat. Overall, there will be 17 new state legislators ready for session, starting on January 19. In addition, one senate seat, filled by Senator Shamia Fagan, will be up for appointment as Fagan won the statewide election for Secretary of State.

2021 Session Priorities The LOC Board unanimously adopted seven legislative priorities for cities for the 2021 session.

1) Mental Health Service Delivery 2) COVID-19 Economic Recovery Investments 3) Comprehensive Infrastructure Package 4) Property Tax Reform 5) Housing and Services Investment 6) Water Utility Rate Assistance 7) Natural Disaster Response

In addition to the seven legislative priorities, the LOC board also adopted an Organizational Policy that will urge the state to better partner with local governments and avoid legislation that could further exasperate capacity, budgetary and revenue challenges that cities across the state are experiencing.. The LOC will communicate with the legislature on the critical importance of:

• Avoiding unfunded mandates. • Preserving local decision-making and problem-solving authority. • Preserving local revenue streams. • Serving in a supportive role to provide local tools and resources. • Avoiding shifting of additional costs onto local government partners.

Pre-2021 Session Legislative Work

City Day at the Capitol The Intergovernmental Relations Department (IGR) is in the midst of planning its biennial event, City Day at the Capitol. City Day is scheduled for January 28 beginning at 1 p.m. This event has been moved online due to COVID-19 restrictions but will be a free half-day training on LOC 2021 priorities and grassroot advocacy techniques for the upcoming legislative session. We are inviting the Governor, Senate President, Senate Republican Leader, Speaker of the House, House Republican Leader and members of a potential local government caucus to speak on their priorities for the session and how cities can partner with them. Once the training portion of event has concluded, LOC will be hosting an open networking event between city officials and legislators starting at 5 p.m. All 90 members of the Legislature will be invited to attend. Any questions on City Day at the Capitol should be directed to Jenna Jones at [email protected].

25 Local Government Caucus LOC and AOC have been meeting and discussing the formation of a local government caucus. The purpose of which is to identify legislators with a background in city or county local government (elected and/or staff) and encourage them to help advocate on local government issues. In addition, we will want to use the caucus as a sounding board and communication link to leadership within both chambers. We are hoping to have a caucus named before the start of the 2021 session in January.

System Development Charges – Working Group LOC, along with AOC and SDAO, are working with our city lobby to provide education and advocacy on a work group set up by Rep. Lively (D-Springfield). The motivation for the work group surrounds affordable housing and concerns about the overall cost of SDCs. Thus far there have been three meetings with opportunities to provide excellent background on SDC methodology, respond to some of the criticism, and expand upon the knowledge and overall understanding of SDCs for legislators and members of the work group. At this time, we don’t have specific proposals that are being considered by the workgroup, but we anticipate there could be some legislation in 2021 that would attempt to reduce flexibility and use of SDCs.

Housing Assistance for Coastal Communities Pilot and IGA LOC continues to work with a project team made up of AOC, DLCD and OHCS to pilot housing technical assistance to communities on the Oregon Coast. On 8/20 the LOC executed an IGA with Coos County providing Coos and Curry County with a grant of $25,000 to be used in their effort to recruit and retain a housing coordinator to assist in the implementation of the region’s housing studies to further its goals for developing needed housing on the South Coast. On 9/18 LOC also posted an application making $40,000 available to coastal cities to hire a land use planner to assist in reviewing and updating local land development codes and associated comprehensive plan updates. The project team selected 4 grant recipients announced on 11/3: Coos County ($14,000), City of Reedsport ($7,000), City of Toledo ($5,000), and City of Wheeler ($14,000). Funds will be issued through intergovernmental agreements, pending LOC Board approval. LOC is working with the project team and Regional Solutions to issue a survey application for the remaining $70,000 to contract consultants to provide direct technical assistance to cities and counties on the Central and North Coast to identify available land, attract developers, and provide general technical support for needed housing development projects.

Project Turnkey LOC is an active member in the Project Turnkey, a partnership including AOC, the Oregon Restaurant and Lodging Association, Oregon Community Foundation, Harbor of Hope, and other housing nonprofits. The partnership has been focused on helping communities stand up hotel/motels to provide essential non-congregate shelter during the COVID-19 pandemic. Most recently, Project Turnkey has been advocating for state funding to acquire hotels, a cost-effective alternative to leasing that would bring much needed winter shelter to Oregon communities that could be converted to permanent housing in the long term. On Friday, October 23 the Legislative Emergency Board approved $30M to fund the work of Project Turnkey and purchase motels for use as non-congregate shelter in communities impacted by wildfires, and on Monday, November 9, the Legislative Emergency Board approved an additional $35 million for the balance of state. The Oregon Community Foundation will be administering this new funding, with oversight from Oregon Housing and Community Services, and OCF will run an expedited RFA process to award funds for acquisition and initial operations to local partners. Who owns and operates the facility will be up to the local community, but it could be a local housing provider, county, city, tribal organization, or some combination. City leaders are a key partner to help decide which hotels are purchased and where, to ensure alignment with local siting and zoning, and help identify ongoing operations funding. These motel purchases are intended to be long-term housing assets for communities, with the opportunity to convert them to permanent supportive housing or other affordable housing to meet local needs over time. Project Turnkey will support local partnerships between cities, counties and providers to provide technical assistance and help identify resources for ongoing operations.

26 November 3, 2020 Election 8QR৽FLDO5HVXOWV Summary of City Measures Types of City Measures Results of City Measures 2% Bonds 2% 8% Annexation Other 4% 31% 29% Marijuana Charter Failed Amendments 71% Passed 29% Bonds 2% 5% Fees Gas Tax All Local Government Measures 1% Regional 14% RFPD/Fire 37% Districts Cities 14% Other Special Districts

16% School 18% Districts Counties

27 All Measures by Local Governments Local Government Type Number of Measures Passed Failed Cities 38 71% 29% Counties 19 53% 47% School Districts/Community 17 82% 18% Colleges RFPD/Fire Districts 15 73% 27% Other Special Districts 14 71% 29% Regional 1 0% 100%

Bond Measures by Local Governments Local Government Type Number of Bond Measures Passed Failed Cities 1 100% 0% Counties 1 100% 0% School Districts/Community 14 86% 14% Colleges RFPD/Fire Districts 1 100% 0% Other Special Districts 2 100% 0% Regional 0 N/A N/A

Levy Measures by Local Governments Local Government Type Number of Levy Measures Passed Failed Cities 11 64% 36% Counties 2 0% 100% School Districts/Community 3 100% 0% Colleges RFPD/Fire Districts 8 75% 25% Other Special Districts 8 75% 25% Regional 0 N/A N/A

28 Details of City Measures

Banks Annexation Annexes 1.03 acres of continuous land to the City of Banks. Pass Yes No 585 67% 282 33%

Bend Bond $190 Million; For traffic flow, East-West connections, neighborhood safety improvements.

Pass Yes No 33,154 58% 23,847 42%

Charter Charter Coquille Cove Amendment Amendment

Amends charter to allow nomination of Adopts new charter for Cove city candidates by paying a fee as an government. alternative to a petition.

Fail Pass Yes No Yes No 388 20% 1,569 80% 261 65% 141 35%

29 Charter Charter Gaston Grants Pass Amendment Amendment Amends charter to streamline existing Amends charter to change special meeting provisions, eliminate repetitive and requirements and removes Mayor's de outdated sections and ensure conformity facto veto power for City Manager with state law. appointment.

Pass Fail Yes No Yes No 209 71% 87 29% 9,116 50% 9,294 50%

Charter Charter Keizer Lyons Amendment Amendment Amends charter to streamline existing Amends charter to be more readable and provisions, eliminate repetitive and modernized. outdated sections and ensure conformity with state law. Pass Pass Yes No Yes No 9,674 67% 4,794 33% 458 67% 226 33%

Charter Charter Philomath Portland Amendment Amendment

Amends charter to limit elected officers Amends charter to allow Water Fund to to three four-year terms, staggers Council finance incidental public uses of certain terms and extends residency requirement. Water Bureau lands.

Pass Fail Yes No Yes No 2,110 75% 717 25% 163,248 48% 178,327 52%

30 Charter Charter Portland Shady Cove Amendment Amendment

Amends charter to revise term of the Mayor; clarifies procedure for appointed Amends charter to authorize a new police council members; adds quasi-judicial oversight board. authority; and makes conforming amendments to align with other local laws.

Pass Fail Yes No Yes No 296,205 82% 66,575 18% 661 39% 1,055 61%

Charter Charter Troutdale Union Amendment Amendment

Amends charter to require all candidates Adopts revisions to the charter for the to run against all other candidates in Union city government. group.

Pass Fail Yes No Yes No 4,396 58% 3,183 42% 567 45% 707 55%

Cascade Locks Fee Sets services fees for self-sustaining city cemetery operations. Pass Yes No 379 58% 276 42%

31 Hines Gas Tax North Plains Gas Tax $0.01 per gallon; For preservation of city $0.03 per gallon; Motor vehicle fuel streets, maintenance, repair, and business license tax. reconstruction. Pass Pass Yes No Yes No 551 61% 358 39% 973 55% 786 45%

Eugene Levy Grants Pass Levy

Five years, $0.15 per $1,000; To maintain Three years, $1.89 per $1,000; For current level of library services. continued police and fire services.

Pass Fail Yes No Yes No 70,300 77% 21,332 23% 8,600 47% 9,888 53%

Lexington Levy Lexington Levy Five years, $1.00 per $1,000; For fire Five years, $1.00 per $1,000; For general department operations. operations.

Pass Pass Yes No Yes No 122 80% 30 20% 94 61% 59 39%

32 Oakridge Levy Portland Levy Five years, $0.80 per $1,000; To protect, Five years, $2.73 per $1,000; For public preserve and restore park and natural area safety services. health. Fail Pass Yes No Yes No 513 34% 996 66% 231,106 64% 130,303 36%

Shaniko Levy Springfield Levy Five years, $1.50 per $1,000; For fire Five years, $0.38 per $1,000; For fire and protection. life safety services.

Fail Pass Yes No Yes No 11 48% 12 52% 16,250 55% 13,127 45%

Stayton Levy Sweet Home Levy Five years, $0.65 per $1,000; To continue Five years, $1.17 per $1,000; To maintain funding of parks, library, and swimming current level of library services. pool programs. Fail Pass Yes No Yes No 1,809 50% 1,812 50% 3,408 73% 1,271 27%

Sweet Home Levy

Five years, $7.85 per $1,000; To maintain current level of police services.

Pass Yes No 3,482 74% 1,208 26%

33 Chiloquin Marijuana Joseph Marijuana Imposes 3% tax on marijuana sales. Imposes 3% tax on marijuana sales. Pass Pass Yes No Yes No 146 64% 82 36% 572 74% 203 26%

Myrtle Point Marijuana Reedsport Marijuana Imposes 3% tax on licensed recreational Imposes tax on marijuana sales. marijuana sales. Pass Pass Yes No Yes No 793 61% 499 39% 1,275 55% 1,037 45%

Sherwood Marijuana Winston Marijuana Repeals prohibition on recreational marijuana facilities and imposes a 3% tax Imposes 3% tax on marijuana sales. on marijuana sales.

Pass Pass Yes No Yes No 5,586 54% 4,792 46% 1,802 64% 1,010 36%

Winston Marijuana Amends city code to allow marijuana retailers in additional locations. Fail Yes No 1,280 45% 1,536 55%

34 Lakeside Other Lakeside Other Continues authorizing Ordinance 20-293 Amends ordinance 20-293 to authorize that allows ATV access route to Spinreel ATV access on all city streets. Dunes. Fail Pass Yes No Yes No 567 45% 698 55% 772 62% 470 38%

Oregon City Other Authorize placement of underground wastewater facility in Jon Storm Park. Pass Yes No 9,360 73% 3,484 27%

35 State Legislature Results Oregon State Senate

District Number Incumbent Name Republican Candidate Democrat Candidate Winner 1 Dallas Heard Dallas Heard Kat Stone Dallas Heard 2 Herman Baertschiger Jr. Art Robinson Jerry Allen Art Robinson 3 Jeff Golden Key 4 Floyd Prozanski No Candidate Filed/Term Not Expired 5 Arnie Roblan Dick Anderson Melissa Cribbins Dick Anderson Democrat Candidate Had No Primary Challengers 6 Lee Beyer Democrat Candidate Had Primary Challengers 7 James Manning Jr. Republican Candidate Had No Primary Challengers 8 Sara Gelser Republican Candidate Had Primary Challengers 9 Fred Girod Fred Girod Jim Hinsvark Fred Girod 10 Denyc Boles Denyc Boles Deb Patterson Deb Patterson 11 Peter Courtney 12 Brian Boquist Brian Boquist Ross Swartzendruber Brian Boquist 13 Kim Thatcher 14 Mark Hass Harmony Mulkey Kate Lieber Kate Lieber 15 Chuck Riley 16 Betsy Johnson 17 Elizabeth Steiner Hayward 18 Ginny Burdick Ginny Burdick Ginny Burdick 19 Rob Wagner 20 Alan Olsen 21 Kathleen Taylor Kathleen Taylor Kathleen Taylor 22 Lew Frederick Lew Frederick Lew Frederick 23 Michael Dembrow Michael Dembrow Michael Dembrow 24 Shemia Fagan Open Seat 25 Laurie Monnes Anderson Justin Hwang Chris Gorsek Chris Gorsek 26 Chuck Thomsen 27 Tim Knopp Tim Knopp Eileen Kiely Tim Knopp 28 Dennis Linthicum Dennis Linthicum Hugh Palcic Dennis Linthicum 29 Bill Hansell Bill Hansell Mildred O'Callaghan Bill Hansell 30 Lynn Findley Lynn Findley Carina Miller Lynn Findley

2018 Nov. Election 2020 Nov. Election Difference Republicans 12 12 0 Democrats 18 18 0

36 Oregon State House of Representatives

District Incumbent Name Democrat Candidate Republican Candidate Winner Number 1 David Brock Smith Calla Felicity David Brock Smith David Brock Smith 2 Gary Leif Charles Lee Gary Leif Gary Leif 3 Carl Wilson Jerry Morgan Lily Morgan Lily Morgan Key 4 Duane Stark Mary Middleton Duane Stark Duane Stark No Candidate Filed 5 Pam Marsh Pam Marsh Sandra Abercrombie Pam Marsh Democrat Candidate Had No Primary Challengers 6 Kim Wallan Alberto Enriquez Kim Wallan Kim Wallan Democrat Candidate Had Primary Challengers 7 Cedric Hayden Jerry Samamiego Cedric Hayden Cedric Hayden Republican Candidate Had No Primary Challengers 8 Paul Holvey Paul Holvey Timothy Aldal Paul Holvey Republican Candidate Had Primary Challengers 9 Caddy McKeown Cal Mukumoto Boomer Wright Boomer Wright 10 David Gomberg David Gomberg Max Sherman David Gomberg 11 Marty Wilde Marty Wilde Katie Boshart Glaser Marty Wilde 12 John Lively John Lively Ruth Linoz John Lively 13 Nancy Nathanson Nancy Nathanson David J Smith Nancy Nathanson 14 Julie Fahey Julie Fahey Rich Cunningham Julie Fahey 15 Shelly Boshart Davis Mariam Cummins Shelly Boshart Davis Shelly Boshart Davis 16 Dan Rayfield Dan Rayfield Jason Hughes Dan Rayfield 17 Sherrie Sprenger Page Hook Jami Cate Jami Cate 18 Rick Lewis Jamie Morrison Rick Lewis Rick Lewis 19 Raquel Moore-Green Jackie Leung Raquel Moore Green Raquel Moore-Green 20 Paul Evans Paul Evans Selma Pierce Paul Evans 21 Brian Clem Brian Clem Jack Esp Brian Clem 22 Teresa Alonso Leon Teresa Alonso Leon Anna Kasachev Teresa Alonso Leon 23 Mike Nearman Sean Scorvo Mike Nearman Mike Nearman 24 Ron Noble Lynette Shaw Ron Noble Ron Noble 25 Bill Post Ramiro Navarro Jr Bill Post Bill Post 26 Courtney Neron Courtney Neron Peggy Stevens Courtney Neron 27 Sheri Schouten Sheri Schouten Sandra Nelson Sheri Schouten 28 Jeff Barker Wlnsvey Campos Daniel Martin Wlnsvey Campos 29 Susan McLain Susan McLain Dale Fishback Susan McLain 30 Janeen Sollman Janeen Sollman Darrell Gulstrom Janeen Sollman 31 Brad Witt Brad Witt Brian Stout Brad Witt 32 Tiffiny Mitchell Debbie Boothe-Schmidt Suzanne Weber Suzanne Weber 33 Mitch Greenlick Maxine Dexter Dick Courter Maxine Dexter 34 Ken Helm Ken Helm Ken Helm

37373737 35 Margaret Doherty Darcia Grayber Bob Niemeyer Darcia Grayber 36 Akasha Lawrence Spence Lisa Reynolds James Ball Lisa Reynolds 37 Rachel Prusak Rachel Prusak Kelly Sloop Rachel Prusak 38 Andrea Salinas Andrea Salinas Patrick Castles Andrea Salinas 39 Christine Drazan Tessah Danel Christine Drazan Christine Drazan 40 Mark Meek Mark Meek Josh Howard Mark Meek 41 Karin Power Karin Power Michael Newgard Karin Power 42 Rob Nosse Rob Nosse Rob Nosse 43 Tawna Sanchez Tawna Sanchez Tawna Sanchez 44 Tina Kotek Tina Kotek Margo Logan Tina Kotek 45 Barbara Smith Warner Barbara Smith Warner Barbara Smith Warner 46 Alissa Keny-Guyer Khanh Pham Khanh Pham 47 Diego Hernandez Diego Hernandez Ryan Gardner Diego Hernandez 48 Jeff Reardon Jeff Reardon Jeff Reardon 49 Chris Gorsek Zach Hudson Joe Demers Zach Hudson 50 Carla Piluso Ricki Ruiz Amelia Salvador Ricki Ruiz 51 Janelle Bynum Janelle Bynum Jane Hayes Janelle Bynum 52 Anna Williams Anna Williams Jeff Helfrich Anna Williams 53 Jack Zika Emerson Levy Jack Zika Jack Zika 54 Cheri Helt Jason Kropf Cheri Helt Jason Kropf 55 Vikki Breese-Iverson Barbara Fontaine Vikki Breese Iverson Vikki Breese-Iverson 56 E. Werner Reschke Faith Leith E. Werner Reschke E. Werner Reschke 57 Greg Smith Roland Ruhe Greg Smith Greg Smith 58 Greg Barreto Nolan Bylenga Bobby Levy Bobby Levy 59 Daniel Bonham Arlene Burns Daniel Bonham Daniel Bonham 60 Mark Owens Beth Spell Mark Owens Mark Owens

2018 Nov. Election 2020 Nov. Election Difference Republicans 22 23 +1 Democrats 38 37 -1

38 MEMORANDUM To: LOC Board of Directors From: Patty Mulvihill, LOC General Counsel Date: November 17, 2020 Re: Report on Recognized Caucuses & Pending Applications

The Board amended the LOC Bylaws during its October 2020 meeting to allow for the recognition of caucuses. During the discussion of this Bylaws amendment, staff was directed to, at all future Board meetings, provide the Board with a report on all recognized caucuses and any pending applications for other caucuses to be potentially recognized. This report is intended to fulfill that Board directive.

As of today, the Board has only recognized one caucus, the Local Government People of Color Caucus (Caucus). Since the October Board meeting, at her request, Mike Cully has assigned LOC Legislative Analyst Jenna Jones as the staff liaison to the Caucus. Ms. Jones is in the process of coordinating her first meeting with the Caucus wherein she hopes to be able to help the Caucus facilitate an election process so that the executive committee described in the Caucus’s bylaws can be established. Once the Caucus convenes, Ms. Jones will ask which of its members the Caucus wants President Boone to appoint to the LOC Bylaws Committee, Diversity & Equity Committee and Finance Committee. As the LOC Budget Committee, Conference Planning Committee and Nominating Committee do not convene until 2021, Ms. Jones will work with the 2021 Board President, Mayor Keith Mays, to make any needed appointments.

To date, LOC staff has not received any requests from other caucuses to be recognized by the Board. Staff is aware that discussions regarding the creation of both a LGBTQ Caucus and Women’s Caucus are occurring, but thus far, no applications for recognition have been received.

39 MEMORANDUM

To: LOC Board of Directors From: Mike Cully, Executive Director Date: November 19, 2020 Re: LOC Appointment to the CIS Board of Advisors

As articulated in the 190 agreement between the League of Oregon Cities (LOC) and CityCounty Insurance Services (CIS), the responsibility of appointing city representation to the CIS board falls to the board of directors of LOC.

There have been retirements and term expirations over the course of 2020 which have required recommendations and appointments from this body in order to fill these naturally-occurring vacancies. In this case, the board deferred an appointment earlier in the year to let the incumbent City Manager, Fred Warner of Baker City, OR, to acknowledge his many years of service and dedication and to retire from the CIS board at the end of the calendar year.

After a thorough search and vetting of potential candidates to fill the role being vacated by M. Warner, I respectfully submit the following nominee for consideration of appointment to the CIS board of advisors, effective January of 2021:

Kathryn Greiner has been the City Administrator for Condon Oregon for 16 years. An Oregon native, she grew up on a ranch in Lake County.

Condon is the county seat for Gilliam County, but it is a small community. Like over a third of CIS member cities, Kathryn Greiner has been the City Administrator for Condon Oregon for 16 years. An Oregon native, she grew up on a ranch in Lake County.

Condon is the county seat for Gilliam County, but it is a small community. Like over a third of CIS member cities, Condon has fewer than 1,000 citizens. The city places all of its property, casualty and employee benefits coverages with CIS and relies on CIS programs and services to supplement its small staff.

Ms. Greiner would appreciate an opportunity to serve on the CIS Board to influence the programs, insurance coverage and services that are vital to her community. Given her small staff, she has thoughtfully considered the time commitment before expressing interest. CIS appreciates that she represents those similar cities that rely on CIS but may not have the time to get involved.

Ms. Greiner also appreciates that she would represent LOC on CIS’ Board. She says that LOC’s elected official trainings, such as Elected Essentials Workshops, and regional meetings that LOC coordinates are also key to staying on top of the issues impacting her community.

40 Condon has fewer than 1,000 citizens. The city places all of its property, casualty and employee benefits coverages with CIS and relies on CIS programs and services to supplement its small staff.

Given this level of interest, her background and knowledge, I, in conjunction with my colleague at CIS, Mr. Patrick Priest, believe that Ms. Greiner is uniquely qualified to fill the position being vacated by Mr. Fred Warner.

To that end, we respectfully request that the LOC board of directors does hereby appoint Mr. Katherine Greiner to serve as a director on the CIS board of advisors beginning January of calendar year 2021.

###

41 To: LOC Board of Directors From: Jamie Johnson-Davis, Finance Director Date: November 17, 2020 Re: Appointments to 2021 Budget Committee

Preparations for the Fiscal Year 2021 – 2022 Budget have now begun. As staff is finalizing the internal budgeting calendar, it is requesting that the Budget Committee hold the following date and time:

Wednesday, May 12, 2021│ 1:00 pm – 5:00 pm │ Budget Committee Meeting

The LOC Budget Committee consists of the following individuals for this next year: • 2021 President – Keith Mays • 2021 Vice-President – Taneea Browning • 2021 Treasurer – Steve Calloway (serves as Chair of the Budget Committee) • 2021 Past-President – Jake Boone • 2021 Senior City Manager – Scott Derickson • City Finance Director – Don Hudson, Tualatin • LOC Executive Director – Mike Cully

Section 4(9) of the LOC Bylaws allows the LOC President to appoint a city finance director to the committee. President Jake Boone has appointed Don Hudson of Tualatin to serve on the Budget Committee for next year.

42 To: LOC Board of Directors From: Lisa Trevino, Program Manager Date: November 17, 2020 Subject: Evaluations and Budget of 2020 Annual Conference

This memo provides a brief overview of the 2020 Annual Conference.

Registration Numbers Cities with Population Under 1,000 19 Cities with Population 1,001 - 7,500 103 Cities with Population Over 7,501 209 Scholarship Registration 25 LOC Business Partners/Associate Members 10 Councilors Workshop 87 Mayors Workshop 41 Managers Workshop 74 Sponsor Registrations 110 Speaker Registrations 97 Comped Registrations 25 TOTAL 598

Registrations by Title Mayors 61 Councilors 123 City Managers/Administrators 83 City Recorders 26

Total Number of Cities Represented 134

The evaluation results and conference budget are attached for your review and consideration. Please note that these numbers are not final and may change once final receipts come in.

43 Event Budget for 2020 LOC Conference Income - Account 001-300- TOTAL INCOME* Budgeted Actual *Based on total dollars due to LOC. Not all monies due have $74,350.00 $112,805.00 been collected. Registration Fees (33-4700) Estimated Actual Budgeted Actual 15 18 Member Early - pop 1-1,000 $ 35.00 $ 525.00 $ 630.00 104 103 Member Early - pop 1,001-7,500 $ 60.00 $ 6,240.00 $ 6,180.00 162 208 Member Early - pop 7,501 or more $ 85.00 $ 13,770.00 $ 17,680.00 10 0 Member Late $ 25.00 $ 250.00 $ - 1 2 Non-Member Government Early $ 170.00 $ 170.00 $ 340.00 1 0 Non-Member Government Late $ 195.00 $ 195.00 $ - 1 0 Non-Member Corportate Early $ 800.00 $ 800.00 $ - 0 0 Non-Member Corporate Late $ 825.00 $ - $ - 5 10 Business Partner/Associate Member $ 150.00 $ 750.00 $ 1,535.00 MEMBER TOTAL $ - $ - 5 3 Guest $ 30.00 $ 150.00 $ 90.00 5 0 Scholarships $ - $ 2,500.00 $ 1,175.00 Total 344 $ 25,350.00 $ 27,630.00

Affiliate Workshops (33-4708) Estimated Actual Budgeted Actual 85 73 OCCMA Workshop $ 25.00 $ 2,125.00 $ 1,825.00 80 41 OMA Workshop $ 25.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 1,025.00 Total 114 $ 4,125.00 $ 2,850.00

Training Workshops (33-4702) Estimated Actual Budgeted Actual 75 87 Councilors Workshop $25.00 $1,875.00 $2,175.00 Total $1,875.00 $2,175.00

Exhibitors (33-4705) Estimated Actual Budgeted Actual 10 9 Standard $ 350.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,150.00 Total 9 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,150.00

Sponsors (33-4711) Estimated Actual Budgeted Actual 1 5 Presenting $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 30,000.00 2 1 Sustaining $ 4,500.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 4,500.00 8 14 Signature $ 2,500.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 35,000.00 6 10 Supporting $ 750.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 7,500.00 Total $ 39,500.00 $ 77,000.00

Reimbursements Estimated Actual Budgeted Actual 1 1 LOC Board - AV $ - $ -

44 INCOME Page 1 of 2 11/17/2020 1 1 LOC Board - Lodging $ - $ 700.00 $ 689.60 1 1 OCCMA - AV $ - $ 350.00 $ 350.00 1 1 OMA - AV $ - $ 350.00 $ 350.00 1 1 OCPDA - AV $ - Total $ 1,400.00 $ 1,389.60

INCOME Page 2 of 2 11/17/2020 Event Budget for 2020 LOC Conference Expenses - Account 33 TOTAL EXPENSES* Budgeted Actual

*Includes all expenses paid to date. Additional expenses $41,900.00 $41,812.61 may be added but are not expected to be significant.

Workshops Budgeted Actual Hotel, Lodging Budgeted Actual OMA Workshop $1,500.00 $1,025.00 Jake Boone hotel $600.00 $562.60 OCCMA Workshop $2,000.00 $1,825.00 Mike Cully Hotel $800.00 $790.00 Total -5629 $3,500.00 $2,850.00 Mike & Jake Meals $800.00 $214.00 Meals - LOC Staff $500.00 $280.00 Total -5923 $2,700.00 $1,846.60 Design/Printing Budgeted Actual Printing - 6222 $1,000.00 $0.00 Speakers Budgeted Actual Other - 6700 $0.00 $0.00 Speaker Fee - Keynote $10,000.00 $5,000.00 Total -5932 $1,000.00 $0.00 Speaker Fee - Sean Palmer $1,250.00 Speaker Fee - Leon Andrews $2,500.00 Contract Services Budgeted Actual Total -5926 $10,000.00 $8,750.00 ASCAP License Fee - Conference$150.00 $133.00 $0.00 $0.00 Awards Budgeted Actual Total -6106 $150.00 $133.00 Awards $550.00 $441.61 Total -5938 $550.00 $441.61 AV Equipment Budgeted Actual Allied - LOC $8,000.00 $11,175.00 Credit Card Budgeted Actual Pathable $15,500.00 $16,550.00 Credit Card Fees $1,000.00 $756.00 Pathable - OMA $350.00 $350.00 $0.00 Pathable - OCCMA $350.00 $350.00 Total - 66150 $1,000.00 $756.00 Total -5946 &5948 $24,200.00 $28,425.00

Other/Riembursements Budgeted Actual LOC Board - Lodging -$500.00 -$689.60 OCCMA - AV -$350.00 -$350.00 OMA - AV -$350.00 -$350.00

Total -$1,200.00 -$1,389.60

2020 LOC Proposed Conference Budget - updated Page 1 of 1 11/17/2020 Event Budget for 2020 LOC Conference Profit - Loss Summary

Budgeted Actual TOTAL PROFIT TOTAL INCOME $74,350.00 $112,805.00 $120,000.00

TOTAL EXPENSES $41,900.00 $41,812.61

TOTAL PROFIT $32,450.00 $70,992.39 $100,000.00

BUDGETED

$80,000.00

TOTAL INCOME

TOTAL EXPENSES $60,000.00

$40,000.00 ACTUAL

$20,000.00 TOTAL INCOME

TOTAL EXPENSES

$0.00 Budgeted1 Actual2 TOTAL INCOME TOTAL EXPENSES

DASHBOARD 1 11/17/2020 95th Annual Conference – Post Conference Survey October 14-15, 2020 – Virtual

Please evaluate the following statements about the conference

This conference was held at a convenient time of year.

Strongly agree 46

Somewhat agree 33

Neither agree nor disagree 11

Somewhat disagree 2

Strongly disagree 6

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

48 95th Annual Conference – Post Conference Survey October 14-15, 2020 – Virtual

This conference provided useful and timely information.

Strongly agree 66

Somewhat agree 25

Neither agree nor disagree 3

Somewhat disagree 2

Strongly disagree 1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

This conference provided networking opportunities.

Strongly agree 10

Somewhat agree 37

Neither agree nor disagree 18

Somewhat disagree 22

Strongly disagree 10

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

49 95th Annual Conference – Post Conference Survey October 14-15, 2020 – Virtual

The presenters were very knowledgeable about their subject areas.

Strongly agree 79

Somewhat agree 16

Neither agree nor disagree 1

Somewhat disagree 1

Strongly disagree 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

The conference platform was easy to use.

Strongly agree 55

Somewhat agree 26

Neither agree nor disagree 6

Somewhat disagree 8

Strongly disagree 1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

50 95th Annual Conference – Post Conference Survey October 14-15, 2020 – Virtual

It was easy to participate in the sessions and join a session at my convenience.

Strongly agree 62

Somewhat agree 18

Neither agree nor disagree 4

Somewhat disagree 8

Strongly disagree 4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Overall, this conference was well worth the cost.

Strongly agree 68

Somewhat agree 15

Neither agree nor disagree 6

Somewhat disagree 3

Strongly disagree 3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

51 95th Annual Conference – Post Conference Survey October 14-15, 2020 – Virtual

Overall, this conference was well worth my time.

Strongly agree 62

Somewhat agree 22

Neither agree nor disagree 5

Somewhat disagree 2

Strongly disagree 4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

52 95th Annual Conference – Post Conference Survey October 14-15, 2020 – Virtual

How would you rate Wednesday's Opening Keynote speaker, Walidah Imarisha?

Didn't attend 12

Poor 6

Below average 5

Average 9

Above average 21

Excellent 38

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Comments (optional)

• After having lived in Los Angeles for 26 years, lived through two civil riots (now three) caused by social inequality because of the colour of your skin and witnessing HOW government socially pits one culture/ race/ ethnicity against each other based on the politically correct issue of the time, are issue discussions that I would just as soon not take part in because Justice is to be colour blind. De-programming racism, stereo-typing prejudices and using brute force to solve issues is not going to happen during this generation. This de-programming needs to start in grade school and there will be back-lash from this current generation because of their prejudices. • I had heard much of Oregon's racist history in other trainings AND I still learned and so appreciated her perspective. • I learned more in an hour than I have in my lifetime. It was challenging. It was packed with applicable information.

53 95th Annual Conference – Post Conference Survey October 14-15, 2020 – Virtual

• I realize race is a very important topic, but much of her presentation was very one sided. I do not see her presentation representative of Oregon as a whole, but more so Portland. She made a few small references to other cities in the state, but the focus was on Portland. She presented a lot of opinions and tried to pass much of it as fact, but also does not know the life of people outside of Portland. • Ms Imarisha not only gave us very practical and factual information she presented it in a historical nonconfrontive context. I'm looking forward to sharing the video with others and finding the reference material she cited. This should definitely be posted as a standalone on the LOC website and fb page along with the links mentioned. • Not inspiring. Keynotes usually invigorate. I learned things. But didn't walk away feeling very good. I suppose that is because I am white privileged [insert sarcasm]. • One of the references she recommended had false and derogatory information on my city. • She opened my eyes and I'm sure others to some things we never realized & should be more aware of. • She seems like a nice person, but her facts of history were skewed. She had severe misinformation (Black Panters). She seemed to be a radical activist with an agenda, rather than a fair and balances history teacher. Have black members in my family, her use of a white supremacy utopia was offensive. I did learn some facts, but question their validity. • subject surprised me but is an important one. Knew a lot of this but was good to review and expand knowledge • Thanks for including such a strong voice about matters of race. • Thanks to the planning committee for taking up such a critical and timely topic! • The speaker tried to convince me that the blacks were victims, but did not present solutions. • This was a wow moment in a very long career. Having been to League and related professional conferences for some 40 years, I canâ€™t remember a more impactful, educational and timely presentation by someone that thoroughly knows and believes in her subject area expertise. Bravo for the bravery in showcasing Walidah • very timely and excellent content • Without a doubt the most reverse-racist, white-guilt inducing, woke piece of garbage I have heard in the last year. She had some good educational points pointing out past law, but she lost all credibility for her argument and presentation when she praised the Black Panther Party becuase they had a food program. Reminds me of Sen. Patty Murray's praise of Osama Bin Laden following 9/11 for doing similar "community good works." You almost lost me for the rest of the conference because of her. Take these white-guilt inducing "though provoking, self analysis" garbage and give us a keynote that is uplifting and praises what our history has provided and not tear us down with a rehash of the 1619 project. This was so disgusting in so many ways.

54 95th Annual Conference – Post Conference Survey October 14-15, 2020 – Virtual

How would you rate Thursday's Closing Keynote speaker, Clarence Anthony?

Didn't attend 45

Poor 1

Below average 0

Average 17

Above average 18

Excellent 16

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Comments (optional)

• Annual meeting went long so I took a break instead of listening • felt like it was reduced due to the smaller time window available because the nominations and election went long. • Had to leave early because another commitment to my own City at 4pm. • His time was cut way short and late due to voting, not his fault! • The actual business took a bit too long. • Too much time waiting. At that point was kind of done zooming ESP with the debacle of the business meeting.

55 95th Annual Conference – Post Conference Survey October 14-15, 2020 – Virtual

Did you attend any of the Affinity Networking Groups (if so, please tell us which group you attended)?

Didn't attend 81

Women 9

People of Color 5

LGBTQ 3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

If you attended an Affinity Networking Group, how would you rate the experience?

Poor 0

Below average 0

Above average 11

Excellent 7

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

56 95th Annual Conference – Post Conference Survey October 14-15, 2020 – Virtual

Comments (optional)

• Made me feel like a lot just played the victim and we have to band together to feel safe and make progress. Kind of eye-rolly. • There was an opportunity missed. Attendees were looking forward to connecting and two people who I'm not sure identified as people of colored dominated the Q&A with questions about how to hire more POC. In my experience, this is not what affinity groups are for.

57 95th Annual Conference – Post Conference Survey October 14-15, 2020 – Virtual

Did you visit the Virtual Trade Show?

No 74

Yes 24

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

If you visited the Virtual Trade Show, did you find it was helpful?

No 16

Yes 10

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

58 95th Annual Conference – Post Conference Survey October 14-15, 2020 – Virtual

Comments (optional)

• Every time I logged in the vendors where not there. Only one vendor was there when I logged in. • I appreciated the hours of availability so i knew when I could engage and reach out • I did not find anyone in the virtual trade booths • I TRIED a number of times but no one home! • I was afraid to click on the 'start session/conversation' tab because I didn't want to be trapped in an awkward video conversation. For me the venders lose out on me not having free time and lingering in a shared physical space. Having sponsers present for 15-30 seconds at the introduction to a presentation is a good idea as an ice breaker. • I would have liked to see more downloadable data • Not particularly since I am in an encore career • nothing I was looking for • Vendor not present • While you could go to the Trade Show throughout much of the day, I found the times were mostly during other sessions. It was difficult to visit with vendors. The Trade Show is usually a highlight of the conference for me, but I just was not able to attend it. It would be helpful if there was a way to better see when vendors are available. I am thinking like a camera over the Trade Show floor during normal times, obviously that is not possible this year, but something like that would be very helpful

59 95th Annual Conference – Post Conference Survey October 14-15, 2020 – Virtual

Did you attend either the Mayors, Councilors, or City Managers Workshop on Wednesday?

Councilors 28

Mayors (OMA) 20

City Managers (OCCMA) 28

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Overall, how would you rate the Mayors, Councilors, or Managers Workshop if you attended:

Poor 1

Below average 4

Above average 39

Excellent 27

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

60 95th Annual Conference – Post Conference Survey October 14-15, 2020 – Virtual

Comments (optional)

• Again, very eye opening. (Councilors) • Always good to get together with my fellow mayors (Mayors) • I really appreciated the presentation from the two mayors. I wish we could have had more time with them. I did not really like the break out room portion, more Q & A time would have been better. (Mayors) • love the time with fellow mayors. It's always time well spent (Mayors) • My city allowed me to attend as a Council candidate. As a candidate, I didn't feel it was appropriate to attend the workshop. • Surprise subject but important (Councilors) • Very enlightening & informative (Councilors) • Based on the agenda, I was not expecting to enjoy it as much. It was much better than my expectations. (Mayors) • Great presentations by Mayors Williams and Gibson. (Mayors) • it was all difficult with being virtual. LOC did the best they could (Mayors) • Outstanding presentation by Oregon's only two black mayors. (Mayors) • Really appreciated the opportunity to hear and learn from Mayors Williams and Gibson (Mayors) • Spontaneity was limited. It was more like a lecture and less of an open dialog. (Councilors) • The presenter was amazing. (Councilors) • There should be an Average option. Topic title was very misleading - it was on race, not communication. It was a good introduction to racial equity but should have been titled as such. Not enough time for breakout group discussions. (Councilors) • This one was better then the 2019 Councilor Workshop. (Councilors)

61 95th Annual Conference – Post Conference Survey October 14-15, 2020 – Virtual

Please evaluate Wednesday's concurrent sessions 50

45 43 41 40 37

35 29 30

25 19 20

15 13 11 11 10 10 7 8 7 5 5 3 3 2 2 0 1 1 0 2021 Legislative Landscape Bridging the Urban/Rural Divide First Amendment (and more!) Social Media for Elected Officials

Excellent Above average Average Below average Poor Didn't attend

62 95th Annual Conference – Post Conference Survey October 14-15, 2020 – Virtual

Please evaluate Thursday's concurrent sessions 45 40 40 38 36 34 35 29 30 24 25

20 16 16 15 13 11 10 9 10 6 6 5 5 4 5 5 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Legal Obligations to the Lessons Learned from a Better Talk About Race Insights from Economic Valuing & Utilizing Your What Cities Need to Know About Homeless after Martin v. City of Pandemic Development Leaders Volunteers Police Collective Bargaining Boise Changes

Excellent Above average Average Below average Poor Didn't attend

Please evaluate Thursday's concurrent sessions continued 45 42 40 35 35 29 29 29 30 27 25 18 20 16 17 14 15 15 10 10 10 7 5 5 6 5 2 3 3 3 3 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 City Strategies for Shelter and How to Engage Diverse Leaders Moving Forward After a Fire The Digitally Connected Word: Community Infrastructure How Small Cities are Housing Development in Communities Everything from Broadband to Funding: How to Proceed During Approaching Equity and Inclusion Digital Equity Economic Uncertainty 63 Excellent Above average Average Below average Poor Didn't attend 95th Annual Conference – Post Conference Survey October 14-15, 2020 – Virtual

This is what I liked best about this year's conference and why:

• The morning chat with Senator Wyden because it allowed for direct communication with the Senator and for up to date info on the happenings in Congress. I also got a lot of value out of the session on Martin V. City of Boise and homeless legal issues. It was very interesting. My city really does not have any services for homeless, so an extremely small homeless population. But it is interesting to see how the laws are changing and how my city needs to adapt. • Sessions were recorded, so I can watch them after the fact. I get to see things I would not have been able to attend at a normal in-person meeting. and could jump from session to session during breakouts. • very impressed with how LOC pivoted to go online. Great job planning and preparing by staff! • I liked the sessions, they were really informative and I am glad to be able to watch them later. • I was glad we were able to meet at all. LoC did the best they could given the circumstances. This was my first virtual conference and it was exhausting, though mo fault of the LOC. • The video interface was good. It just so happened that I had unscheduled work come up and an ongoing medical issue. I might not have attended the in-person event, even though it was scheduled and paid-for. • The presentation by the two black mayors should be something everyone can see not just mayors. • attending in sweatpants! • Women's Affinity group - the only extended participation option. Focus on racial equity. Effort made to have women and people of color as presenters and facilitators. • I did like the convenience of attending sessions on my timeline and not paying for lodging, gas & meals, etc. With that being said, I really like doing this conference in person. • I think it was a good shot at providing useful information in a very constrained environment (COVIC). • Presentations where the presenter was live and we could interact on the fly were much better than pre-recorded sessions with Q&A after. I also appreciated the affinity group time, and would like to see more opportunities like this, preferably with different times available--I am both a woman and LGBTQ and would have liked to participate in both. • 1:The fact that I can replay the video or attend more than one session by virtue of viewing videos post conference. 2:I was able to attend on my time. • I really appreciated the strong focus on racial and social justice matters in our communities. It was very helpful to hear from great speakers as well as what the cities around Oregon are working on these issues.

64 95th Annual Conference – Post Conference Survey October 14-15, 2020 – Virtual

• I am a copious note taker so the post - recorded conference topics was/is awesome for me because of all the Topics of Discussion - If I had a "Time- Turner" I would have no problem. And and the grand scale the topics re-enforced past lessons learned from my past life as community advocate legal researcher living in Los Angeles and sticking to my guns even if it means controversy and having to wear the Scarlet Letter. Large groups of people make me nervous because of the unpredictability of crowd mob mentality - not that that would occur at a LOC Conference, but you never know. • Lots of good things. I really like this format - much better than traveling several hundred miles, staying in an expensive motel, hustling around to different rooms, etc. I think the virtual conference could be improved and expanded and I would hope this would become the norm in the future. • I liked the ease of getting around from session to session but did miss the personal face to face contact. • Honestly I didn’t like it. The format was ok but the content was terrible. I didn’t learn anything and it was a waste of time. • That is was VIRTUAL! • The ability to view taped sessions at my convenience. The reasonable cost due to its virtual nature. • Realize that we had to do. But kissed the networking and in person attendance. Much more efficient. • Wed Keynote speaker. Excellent and pertinent to understanding equity issues in Oregon. You have to know the history to create the future. I need the video!!! • Not much • I liked the zoom format. But I also didn’t like it. Thought LOC went above and beyond to make this happen. • A really remarkable effort by LOC to adapt an entire conference to new social distancing and internet-based meeting reality. Great to connect as always (attend every year), even if this was now via internet. Ironically, was very economical of time and money to attend remotely this year...i.e. no driving, no overnight, and could work between sessions. Good range of very relevant topics...about subjects that right now cannot be ignored! • Women’s affinity group, small enough that we could all contribute and not restricted to a specific topic. • It challenged me! The theme of racial justice was progressive and pushed us all to KEEP FIGHTING! It was inspiring to know other cities have the same struggles. I LOVED the moderators in the councilor session. Especially the stories from CM. Thank you! • The platform was amazing. • I like the convenience of a virtual meeting. No travel, time-efficient! Let's do more of these! • A good alternative with the COVID-19 issues. No travel. • I liked that I was able to attend more break out sessions. It's always hard to choose one when so many great topics are offered at the same time. I was really glad I was able to view others. Also being from a small city and watching the budget closely I was glad that we were able to save the cost on travel and hotel. It was a great savings for our City and to still get the knowledge and interaction. • The online program was great and easy to use. I really liked the keynotes!

65 95th Annual Conference – Post Conference Survey October 14-15, 2020 – Virtual

• Easy to attend with no driving needed!! • The convenience! • Ease of getting in and out of sessions • Easy to access depending on time availability. • focus on diversity because it is a significant topic in our country today. • I enjoyed the flexibility offered by being able to attend from home. • Was incredibly convenient to jump in from my home office. Content is always worthwhile. • The digital platform worked well. • Speakers were excellent and relevant. • I am not a city official, but I loved how there were enough panels of diverse content to be applicable to both city managers/mayors, but also community partners or people from other government groups. • Very high-quality speakers about race, providing useful understanding and ideas at an important time. • The digital environment worked acceptably well, but it's nothing compared to an in-person conference. • Good involvement from a lot of cities. • Ease of access to pre-recorded workshops. • The honesty and truth about what is happening today in our nation and cities. The frank and courageous conversations. Best conference I have attended in a long time! • no commuting, low cost - I liked the virtual option thank you! • Despite the virtual format, the conference had some timely topics. The CM workshop hit home. • The platform worked well but the time of year was busy so I couldn't fully engage. • It came across seamless to me. Good job. It seems that if the conference can be recorded virtually now, does the League still need to put on a Spring Conference? Maybe need to revisit this decision? What's the most cost-effective? • Focus on equity • The focus on Diversity and inclusion was well doe a greatly needed. • Easy to get to sessions. Valuable information. • The cost and time savings! • I really appreciated the intentional consideration of race and equity as factors city leaders must address and grapple with regarding inclusion and visibility. Thank you for your efforts to bring this conversation in.

66 95th Annual Conference – Post Conference Survey October 14-15, 2020 – Virtual

• This virtual conference was new for all of us, and I think it was well done. Some glitches, but we all will get better at virtual networking. Mike Cully, LOC staff, panelists, and speakers overall did a very fine job. I did not participate in the vendor show like I normally do, but I will next time. I was impressed with the new elected officials coming into leadership. Thank you for the 2020 LOC Annual Conference! • Relevant material and presenters • I liked that I can access the other concurrent sessions I couldn't go to and watch them later! This would be great if we could have recordings of the in-person conference sessions that we could view later as well.

67 95th Annual Conference – Post Conference Survey October 14-15, 2020 – Virtual

This is what I would like to see improved or changed about LOC's Conferences:

• Agenda's should include the Moderator 2. Panelists need to introduce themselves by name if the Moderator does not. 3. The Legal Review of Martin v City of Boise really lacked substance given this was a 9th Court Decision - legal discussion could have included other 9th Circuit Decisions dealing with Homelessness, Due Process of Notice of a crime before arresting (sleeping on sidewalks). Could have tied in Health Care, Social Welfare, housing (SRO's) and sensitivity training as take-ways - basically the whole Environmental Justice Elizabethan Mindset and punishing homeless as a crime. Point in fact: If the State and Federal No Eviction Edict had not been issued pretty much everybody that lost a job would be homeless, now add to that all those people that lost their homes - yes these and those persons are going to have 'mental health issues: being with no home, lost family members, shock, PTSD, , , 4. I couldn't find the post-recording to Broadband to Digital Equity or the Closing Keynote Speaker's Address • 1: While it was a good idea to pre record the speaker presentation portions, I had difficulty getting to the prerecorded portions when linking into each session. Seems like there were some glitches. 2: While it's nice to be able to watch at my convenience, it's hard to attend with the same amount of attention that is natural when I'm away from home with my time dedicated to conference attendance. • A bit more information about navigating • As soon as we can, let's get back to an in-person conference. The networking opportunities just can't be replaced with a virtual conference. • better video quality ( some may have been my internet speed, equipment. etc ) More break-out sessions • Budget more time for business meeting. I know it couldn't have been predicted or helped, but it was a challenge to have nominations from the floor stall our closing speaker's address. • Don’t use the same topic in breakout and keynote • Elections format was awful, boring and time consuming. • Equity workshops wrt city governance needs to have better and in-depth topic coverage. Less "This is what we do" and more "Here are the issues to overcome". • First timer in unique circumstances. Given the fact we weren't in person. perhaps could have compressed the down time (that Is normally one of the real values of meetings like this). I'm not sure the business meeting could have been done differently, but it was frustratingly slow. • Greater effort to tie in the work of LOC's policy committees with the workshop offerings. Many of the issues those committees address are complex but important for electeds and CM's to understand, and it's the perfect opportunity to educate LOC members. But I see no sign that the LOC planning process pays any attention to the work of those policy committees. • I hope we can do it in person. I miss the comradery of meeting in person. • I know pre-recorded sessions are helpful to coordinate less day of but it feel less connected - we already are meeting virtually so this felt like even more of a lack of connection. The digital equity session was VERY specific to the point where I couldn't follow along because there was so much lingo. I think it's okay to have those but maybe a warning that it's more technical.

68 95th Annual Conference – Post Conference Survey October 14-15, 2020 – Virtual

• I really like the LOC annual and I missed not being there in person with the LOC staff and my colleagues. • I really missed the visits with State Agency Directors. That time in invaluable for all elected officials but especially for those from small cities. To be able to have a one-on-one with the Director of ODOT for example about a funding issue. I would think it could have been done this year virtually as well, difficult, but possible. I also think the virtual trade show was not a success. These are the two highlights each year, but this year were the low lights. Hopefully next year it can get back to having these two in a more productive and accessible format. • I want to commend staff for how they adjusted to the nominations from the chatroom...errr...the floor! • In person! • In spite of the hard work that went into organizing the conference, it was just not the same. Virtual conferences may not be worth the effort. • It feels like the LOC has sold out to the left and abandoned the rural cities. • It's just a bummer to not be able to gather in person - nothing you can do about that! • Less political agenda and more actual training. The racial and political agenda was loud and clear. More importantly, it was useless information for government workers who are trying to actually do their job. Give us real training, please. • Less presentation time, more discussion time at sessions. More Affinity Group sessions, and longer. Improve the platform! It was very difficult to participate by phone. Dial-in option did not pop up when connecting to the meeting, had to be searched for. • Meeting in person! • Although a very important topic, the keynote was a lecture. I want to be inspired by a keynote speaker and come away with a positive experience so I can translate it to providing better service to my community. The recorded v live sessions was clunky. • More networking opportunities. • Networking online sounds like an oxymoron. I admit I didn't attend a network session, but that's because I haven't seen a good online networking format emerge yet. • Obviously the networking and closing conference were difficult due to virtual environment. I believe LOC did the best it could. • Post COVID - I'd love to see the conferences still be online. • Quality, relevant trends. • Relevant topics. Interviews of key state legislators. More research based presentations • The business meeting was a little clunky over Zoom. May need to address if we're here again in 2021. • The business meeting was awful. I do t even know what to say. Also, felt disappointed and uninspired from keynote. • The business meeting was painful. I was never able to vote. I am curious as to why the voting platform used in the OMA Board Meeting was not utilized. • The business meeting’s voting process for board members!

69 95th Annual Conference – Post Conference Survey October 14-15, 2020 – Virtual

• The Nominating Committee was not well organized and they were often confused. The members did not understand the process or procedures ahead of time. Changes were made on the fly as to how many questions would be asked each candidate and not in accordance with Roberts Rules of Order. The optics on this were less than flattering. The sequence of interviews for candidates was not clear. Even committee members were confused. A list of names was sent out ahead of time, but was not followed. Did that list indicate the sequence in which applications were received (who cares?) or were to be interviewed? Instead, the sequence was random. So if a candidate was not online from the beginning, they could have been left out. The questions for the application and the interview are redundant. Why waste time repeating oneself when there is a limited time to present? The question about committing to 5 meetings is superfluous. It should be acknowledg on the form not as part of the presentation. The questions for the interview, if any, should be substantive in nature and not repeats of how one has served LOC, but why that service was meaningful or beneficial. The application did not indicate that attachments could be made. Some did and at length. Others confined themselves to what fit in the interactive form box. Not exactly an equity approach. I must say though that the process followed for the nominations from the floor was excellent given the difficult circumstances of online communications, presentations and voting. Though lengthy and a bit frustrating, Jake and the staff did a great job! The Nominating Committee ... not so much! • The pre-taped sessions - and then the transition to the live groups was difficult and a lot of people got lost or didn't end up there. I like the live sessions because it feels more personal. I understand the difficulty this year though. I think I have been to 25 years of Teacher Conferences and these sessions provided more information in two days then in all the years of the teacher conferences! Thank you for being so creative and BOLD with the messaging. This conference makes us all better leaders and continues to hammer home the urgency with which we need to support each other and move forward together. • The virtual platform was excellent and easy to use! • This Conference was held during the peak of the campaign season, the few days right before the ballots were sent out. I had to be out campaigning, so was very much constrained in my participation this year (I have attended the last 20 Conferences in a row). • This is my first LOC conference- and I loved it! I really enjoyed the virtual format. I will say I felt like I would be the only person in the tradeshow booths, so I was less incentivized to attend. I also felt like I didn't have specific questions for vendors/participants. But I don't think that section was really for me because I am not a city official. • Use a better platform with a downloadable app. • Vet the speakers on DEI to be action oriented and focused on what cities and communities can do. Getting people to complain or try to make themselves the only champions is self serving. Easier for networking and be sure it is not recorded. We are in enough gotcha spaces and donâ€™t need to be vulnerable for another one. • Voting during the business meeting was a mess. I joined 8 minutes late. If there were instruction on how to vote, they must have been before I was able to join, and instructions were not repeated for those of us who had to be late. There were no good, easy to find contacts with which to try and resolve problems. The only evident contact on the conference page was for Trevino. Email to her just got me a prepackaged response

70 95th Annual Conference – Post Conference Survey October 14-15, 2020 – Virtual

something like âœI am away for the conference and will pick up my emails later. Not a very good protocol for the one supposed contact to use during the conference. • Wider content options. Seems like a lot of the same stuff. Honestly the way LOC is going Iâ€™m surprised they didnâ€™t have a session on â€œHow to properly defund you police Department â€œ. LOC is feeling one sided. More far Left than anything. • Will be great when conference can again be in person, but frankly, offering an internet alternative to attend is really good as well, regardless. I'm sure this flexibility and choices would maximize attendance...some of us would choose to attend in person one day, remotely the next. • With this being a first time teleconference, I really don't know what I would recommend. I was able to navigate through the conference quite easily. I attended the sessions without any issues. I really don't know if I have suggestions at this time. Thank you for the Conference. I've appreciated every one I have attended. Job well done on this one as with all the others.

71 95th Annual Conference – Post Conference Survey October 14-15, 2020 – Virtual

Will you attend the 2021 LOC Conference at the Riverhouse Convention Center in Bend on October 14-16?

No 11

Yes 71

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Comments (optional)

• ... if my work approves it, given the travel involved and budgets. • Assuming I am re-elected. If not, then likely not. It is a tough year as dissenting forces are at play in elections all across rural Oregon. Not sure where that will lead us. • COVID permitting • Don’t know. How will Covid-19 be then? • Facilities not customer friendly, hotel inadequate to house all attendees • God, I hope we get to go back! • Hope it can be in person, but also hope LOC can offer remote attendance option via internet as well • I am not running for re-election and will not be in office at next years convention. Hopefully the new mayor will attend.

72 95th Annual Conference – Post Conference Survey October 14-15, 2020 – Virtual

• I hope, hope, hope we can go back to an in-person conference next year. • I like the virtual conference format! • I may but it is expensive for me so we will see. • I would buy in leaving council. This event is very valuable and I recommend it • I would love to join a committee or help with the planning of this conference! • If I'm elected into office, I will plan to go! • It depends on whether the hotel options have improved or not since 2019. If no, i may drive over a for a day. • It's unlikely; was able to attend this year because it was virtual; it also depends on COVID • Large crowd phobia. I like focusing on the panelists, hearing, understanding, and taking notes for future reference. • Likely to attend. • Never miss! • Would like to but will depend on schedule and topics. • Yes, provided the pandemic has abated.

73 Memorandum To: LOC Board of Directors From: Kelly Richardson, Project Coordinator-Affiliates Date: November 18, 2020 Subject: Board Schedule and Locations for 2021

The following dates, times and locations have been identified for the LOC Board of Directors meetings in 2021. All meetings will be made accessible to some form of remote participation.

Wednesday, February 17th 9:00 am – 4:00 pm Salem - Zoom Friday, April 2nd 9:00 am – 4:00 pm Seaside Convention Center- Spring Conference Friday, June 18th 9:00 am – 4:00 pm Sherwood Location TBD Wednesday, October 20th 9:00 am – 2:00 pm Riverhouse, on Deschutes, Bend – Annual LOC Conference. . Friday, December 10th 9:00 am – 4:00 pm TBD

As staff works to build the calendar for the LOC Board of Directors for 2021, it needs to know the Board’s thoughts to ensure staff abides by their wishes. The Board’s guidance and direction is appreciated.

74 MEMORANDUM To: LOC Board of Directors From: Patty Mulvihill, LOC General Counsel Date: November 17, 2020 Re: Executive Director Performance Review

The Board’s process for evaluating the performance of the LOC Executive Director has four components: (1) Board members, on an individual basis, complete an electronic Annual Performance & Development Appraisal; (2) LOC staff members, on an individual basis, complete an electronic Annual Performance & Development Appraisal; (3) the Executive Director completes a written assessment of his own performance for the year; and (4) the Board meets in Executive Session with the Executive Director to discuss the results of the first three components and engage in a dialogue wherein the Executive Director’s performance during the preceding year is discussed.

The Annual Performance and Development Appraisal forms (this year’s forms were distributed via Survey Monkey) were submitted to both the Board and LOC staff on November 11, 2020. Three reminders were sent to Board members and staff asking them to please complete the forms, those reminders were sent on November 10th, November 15th and November 18th.

On November 19th, the first three components will be collated and combined into a report which will be submitted to all Board members and the Executive Director via email. The Board will hold its executive session on December 4, 2020.

Typically, in addition to reviewing the Executive Director’s performance, the Board also sets goals for the Executive Director to meet in the upcoming fiscal year. Last year, the Board asked the Executive Committee, based on feedback it heard from Board members during the evaluation process, to meet and develop recommended performance metrics for the Executive Director in the upcoming year. The recommendations from the Executive Committee were submitted to the Board during its first meeting of 2020; the Board subsequently adopted the Executive Committee’s recommendations.

As staff takes no position on the action the Board should take regarding this particular agenda item, it has instead provided several potential motions the Board may consider using should it see fit to do so. If the Board does not like or find any of the suggested motions appropriate, staff is happy to assist the Board create a more appropriate motion during the December Board meeting.

75 1. After conducting an annual performance evaluation of the Executive Director, the Board finds the Executive Director’s performance to {select one: be exceptional, exceed expectations, meet expectations, need improvement or be unsatisfactory}.

2. After conducting an annual performance evaluation of the Executive Director, the Board finds the Executive Director’s performance to {select one: be exceptional, exceed expectations, meet expectations, need improvement or be unsatisfactory} and establishes the following goals and performance metrics for the Executive Director to achieve during calendar year 2021 {list the specific goals and/or performance metrics}.

3. After conducting an annual performance evaluation of the Executive Director, the Board finds the Executive Director’s performance to {select one: be exceptional, exceed expectations, meet expectations, need improvement or be unsatisfactory} and directs the Executive Committee to convene prior to the February 17, 2021 Board of Directors meeting for the purpose of developing recommended goals and performance metrics for the Executive Director to achieve during calendar year 2021. The Executive Committee will present its recommendations to the full Board of Directors during its regularly scheduled meeting on February 17, 2021.

76 MEMORANDUM To: LOC Board of Directors From: Patty Mulvihill, LOC General Counsel Date: November 17, 2020 Re: Executive Director Compensation

The Board has an established Executive Director Compensation Policy, attached herein for ease of reference. This policy requires the Board to review and set the Executive Director’s compensation annually in coordination with the Executive Director’s annual performance review. The policy provides that there are four philosophical principles to be considered in deciding the Executive Director’s compensation: (1) individual equity (performance); (2) external equity (market competition); (3) internal equity (organizational hierarchy); and (4) fiscal equity (ability to pay).

Currently, the Executive Director receives a monthly salary of $17,385, or $208,620 annually. He is also provided a $100 per month cell phone stipend, the same as other LOC employees.

The Executive Director advised me that he does not wish to receive a pay increase for the upcoming year. He noted that given the impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had on local economies and municipal budgets across the state, he does not feel it is appropriate to seek additional compensation this year. Additionally, as of the date of this Memorandum, the Executive Director has advised that he does not plan on seeking a dues increase from the membership, meaning LOC staff would not receive a merit raise or COLA – further solidifying his belief that he himself should not receive additional compensation in the upcoming year. As a result of this direction from the Executive Director, staff has not prepared any compensation analysis documents for the Board’s review.

If the Board wishes to see compensation analysis for the Executive Director, staff respectfully requests it be permitted to utilize the services (as outlined in the Executive Director Compensation Policy) of a compensation specialist to assist in the project. LOC staff is not trained in compensation analysis. Additionally, staff would ask that it be given time to work with such a specialist and provide the needed analysis to the Board of Directors during its February 17, 2021 regularly scheduled meeting

As staff takes no position on the action the Board should take regarding the Executive Director’s compensation, it has instead proposed the following potential motions:

77 1. After conducting an annual performance evaluation of the Executive Director, and in accordance with the Executive Director Compensation Policy, the Board awards the Executive Director with a {insert amount} percent merit-based increase to his annual salary.

2. After conducting an annual performance evaluation of the Executive Director, and in accordance with the Executive Director Compensation Policy, the Board directs the LOC General Counsel to acquire the services of a compensation specialist to provide the Board with a compensation analysis report compliant with the Executive Director Compensation Policy. The General Counsel is to provide the report to the Board of Directors at its February 17, 2021 regularly scheduled meeting.

3. After conducting an annual performance evaluation of the Executive Director and hearing the Executive Director’s request to not receive a pay increase, the Board, in accordance with the Executive Director Compensation Policy, does not increase the Executive Director’s salary for the upcoming year.

78 Executive Director Report Quarter 2, FY 2020- 2021 November 17, 2020

Contents:

1. Executive Summary 2. Internal Operation a. Operations update b. Personnel update 3. External Activities a. LOC positioning b. State and Federal Leadership Roles

Executive Summary

The LOC is pushing hard, establishing itself as a leader in the state and a resource for the administration and state agencies as well as being regarded as an authority and go-to source for all 241 cities. As a team, we continue to have a presence on all critical councils, committees and task forces related to the coronavirus, wildfire and economic recovery efforts.

Staff has excelled at working remotely and we continue to leverage technology to enhance our communications and outreach efforts. Our volume of inquires (external) has increased significantly since March 2020, and we remain committed to an internal turnaround time to queries within 24-hours. Our management team meets regularly employing structured agendas to maintain seamless operations. Internal communication is notable, with all department leads keeping staff informed and up to date on decisions made as a collective leadership team. The staff is deeply committed, motivated and driven to make a difference during this time.

Our focus remains on connecting and excellent communication with our stakeholders: the board of directors, our members, our external stakeholders and our internal stakeholders. Our weekly statewide leadership and update calls are referenced as a high point in the LOC’s outreach efforts. Our regional calls led by President Jake Boone have become another important connection point, on a more intimate level, with all 241 cities in the state. In addition, we have begun adding special interest ZOOM meetings – all of which have drawn attendees in the hundreds – to our repertoire. We have covered topics important to cities like CARES act funding and distributions; housing and homelessness issues and recently, COVID “freeze” orders.

79 Financially we are keeping a close eye on our budget and the newly formed budget committee has provided a welcome forum for open discussion of strategies and tactics related to our budget, our reserves and our future in general While we have consistently presented a deficit budget, we have made great strides towards the creation of a zero-based, balanced budget. This has been a process, and considering the changing dynamics of running a business, we continue to be aware and transparent regarding our unfolding revenue and expense picture. In our efforts to fulfill the boards’ vision of becoming an, “employer of choice,” we have gone through an extensive process to acknowledge and address pay equity issues, benefits deficiencies and general corporate culture. In my eyes, this is an ongoing process and one to which we can point to as being successful at this juncture.

Looking forward I have begun work internally on my own roadmap for the LOC moving forward. “Vision 2021” is designed as a raw and realistic look at revenue opportunities and business modeling to encourage discussion and progress as we work in this new normal. Realistically I see the LOC’s approach to the traditional workspace changing dramatically, with telecommuting becoming more of the norm and the physical office being a hub and checkpoint. I anticipate modified and 100% remote work through the first half of calendar year 2021. As we begin to recover and restore some normalcy, I continue to view the fallout of this pandemic as an opportunity for the organization to realistically regionalize operations to be more representative of all our constituents.

I need to acknowledge the work of staff once again through this trying year. They have all, unequivocally, been remarkable and absolutely appreciated. Our internal social committee has developed some creative ways for all of us to come together in a virtual, but meaningful way, including a remote annual holiday celebration. These individuals who comprise the LOC team have worked tirelessly and in the face of uncertainty and adversity nearly the whole year, and their efforts need to be recognized.

Internal Operations

. Coordinated return to the office: There is not currently any joint effort underway to plan for a universal return to the local government center. The LOC, AOC and OSBA were initially looking at a unified plan to return to the building safely, but those plans remain on hold for an indeterminate time. It is important to know that we have enhanced protocols in place for accessing the LGC building and the LOC offices. There is a mandate now that no one is to access the office without express permission and unless absolutely necessary. We will have a check-in to determine where we stand in the process on March 1, 2021.

80 . Open positions: By the time you have received this we will have tendered an offer of employment to a key member of our internal leadership team: the Director of Operations and Member Engagement. This position has been described as being a “unicorn,” as it encompasses many different critical elements. By design, this role is meant to act as a balance to my external work, but will also have a member-relations component built in as well This is a strong, operations-minded role and will be filled by a team player who espouses the LOC’s efforts to be a model employer and a welcoming and inclusive workspace. This focus was not lost on our interview efforts, and I credit Patty Mulvihill, almost exclusively, for her efforts in creating a recruitment portfolio that really addressed everything the board asked. For more detail on that, I have included Patty’s report on recruitment efforts herein for your edification.

I can assure you, while I am unable to formally introduce you to the new director in this report, the process worked extremely well and the overall quality and caliber of the candidates far exceeded our expectations. Translation: it was a very difficult decision. As commentary I would add that this speaks highly of the LOC’s reputation and positioning as an employer of choice. This would be a good indicator that people very much desire to be a part of this team.

. Audit: The audit for the 2019-2020 fiscal year is complete and we will have Brad Bingenheimer from Bolt, Carisle and Smith and will have the results of this for the board at the January board meeting. We previously thought this may have made the December board meeting but their delay in receiving the audit from the Local Government Center (LGC) of which we are a part, stymied this effort. Finance Director Jamie Johnson-Davis made vast improvements over past years, which made this exercise very smooth and because of all the systems and processes she implemented, we were able to complete our portion in record time. In my conversation with the auditors they were increasingly impressed with the controls and automation we have put into place now and continue to implement as we improve efficiencies.

. Personnel Update With the new operations director in place we can now take a deeper dive into staffing and the necessity to add or modify existing positions. Initially our new director will spend much of their time getting to know existing staff and learning LOC systems and protocols and during that process our director will have the ability to assess what is working from their perspective and what is not, and suggest a path forward.

While this new hire is a part of the management/leadership team, they understand that while this is a strategic position, this is also a hands-on, working role. Anticipated

81 outcomes from this new hire include an overhaul of our existing training program, collaboration to build more effective bridges and connections to our members and enhancement of existing programs.

Timing on the start date for the new employee is set for late January, early February to afford a smooth transition from their city.

. Technology stipend: In light of putting staff in the position of having to work exclusively from home, the management team recognized the demands of having access to enhanced internet capabilities, printing applications and overall increased system demands for remote working. In response, the team elected to create a stipend allowance/technology reimbursement in the amount of $50 per month, per employee, retroactively instated to March 2020. The overall impact of this adjustment retroactively is $6800.

. Committees

 Finance Committee o The finance committee has held two meetings as of this writing and both have proven that this group is a refreshing addition to the LOC’s efforts to be strategic and thoughtful in its business plan. The group has already made some salient financial recommendations and for us, as staff, it continues to build on the transparency that we espouse to provide the board.  Diversity, Equity and Inclusion o As noted with the most recent recruitment efforts, the LOC is working to be the model of these efforts amongst employers and in the state. We are deeply committed to incorporating these principles into our workplace and into our leadership. This committee has made great strides towards the creation of an equity lens and has recently gone through the process of forming its first advisory caucus.  Executive Committee o In all organizations I have run prior I have always incorporated the Executive committee of the board as a means of enhancing communication to the board as a whole. The purpose of this committee is to act as a sounding board for issues that affect the overall positioning, image or reputation of the organization. By strict definition, executive committee duties are based on providing organizational

82 direction on behalf of the board and advising the board on decisions and business matters ranging from strategy planning, policy, investment and risk. The team has landed on meeting once per month.

External Operations

Elected Essentials

. This program provides newly elected officials, experienced elected officials, and city staff with free training on the basics of municipal governance in Oregon. Each Elected Essentials workshop will start with an overview of these core municipal concepts:Council Responsibilities; Oregon’s Ethics Law; Oregon’s Public Meetings Law; and Oregon’s Public Records Law. In addition, significant time will be devoted to a facilitated discussion of how to best achieve and maintain a high-functioning governing body. . Several board members have stepped-up to spread the word, (thank you!) in their respective regions and the results are evident. We are early in the registration process but here are the latest numbers, keeping in mind that regions 9 – 12 are still a month away: o Region 1 & 5 - 60 o Region 6 & 7 - 51 o Region 3 & 4 – 81 o Region 2 & 8 - 57 o Region 9 & 10 - 11 o Region 11& 12 – 18

Oregon Turnkey Partnership

. The LOC in conjunction with my colleague at the AOC has been leading the effort to address housing and homelessness in Oregon. The wildfires exacerbated an already bad situation, but the OTC already had the wheels in motion to address this. For those of you not familiar with our work: This group is working to develop a platform to develop and support public/private/civic partnerships. They want to be advocates to remove barriers and develop protocols that ensure accountability and trustworthiness as well as effectively integrate leadership and resources from all sectors to address community needs. It really is a powerful example of how cross-sector partnership can work together to address urgent needs.

83 Most recently the legislative e-board awarded this effort $65M in funds to continue its work. The effort received $30M in the first round of funding targeted at addressing those displaced by wildfires, and a subsequent $35M to help with the rest of the state. Thanks in large part to the tenacity and hard work of the LOC’s Ariel Nelson this effort took on its own life and is set to make a difference in Oregon.

Statewide Marketing Collaboration

. Recently the LOC was invited to collaborate with the Governor regarding the development of appropriate and impactful messaging related to the COVID-19 pandemic. briefing to discuss recent public opinion research on Oregonians' views and behaviors to mitigate the risks of COVID and to share information about a multi- million-dollar public health awareness campaign being launched by Weiden and Kennedy, Lara Media and Brink Communications. The goal of the public awareness campaign is to inspire/motivate Oregonians to continue to do their part to help contain the spread so that we can begin to rebuild our economy and protect public health.

The LOC is also working with Comcast to develop – using Mayors from around the state – a public service announcement (PSA) that will run at no charge in Comcast markets around the state. The goal is to reinforce mask-wearing amongst Oregonians.

Finally, our relationships with other external agencies like OHA, OEM, ODF, OSFM, CISA, FEMA, USDA and many other state and federal organizations have created a mesh network essential for response to future crisis which might transpire here in the state of Oregon. We are well positioned to aggregate resources and provide a one-stop for cities seeking relevant information both in times of crisis and otherwise.

As we move forward as an organization the onus is going to continue to be on this organization to lead and innovate. We have established a solid reputation amongst our members and other leadership organizations in the state, and it is up to us to continue to push to find new, creative ways to positively effect governance at the local level.

###

84 MEMORANDUM To: LOC Board of Directors From: Patty Mulvihill, LOC General Counsel Date: November 19, 2020 Re: Supplement to Executive Director’s Report – Open Employee Positions

Presently, LOC has three openings amongst its staff, two full-time positions and one part-time position. The positions include: (1) Operations & Member Engagement Director; (2) Accounting Specialist; and (3) Administrative Specialist – part-time position. This Memorandum is intended to update the Board on the status of these open positions.

Operations & Member Engagement Director

The Operations & Member Engagement Director position is a management level position that will oversee the Member & Administrative Services Division. This position is intended to have three main components. First, the Director will be responsible for developing strategic plans and overseeing employees in the development of major member service features of the LOC, including: two major conferences; the training program; affiliate management; and external engagement with Oregon cities and their representatives. Second, the Operations & Member Engagement Director will be responsible for all internal LOC operations, with the exception of finance. This includes responsibility for LOC’s IT needs, facilities management, and other duties that ensure the organization is effectively managed. Third, the Director will serve as the LOC’s diversity coordinator – a role which has responsibility for working with the LOC Board, staff and membership to create, implement and sustain programming through an equity lens that reflects the mission and vision of the LOC.

Prior to opening the recruitment for this position several internal steps occurred. First, the job description and a position analysis questionnaire were developed and completed by me (acting in my capacity as the LOC human resources administrator) and the Executive Director. Both of these documents were submitted to an outside consultant who specializes in ensuring compliance with Oregon’s Pay Equity law. The report from the consultant indicated that this position is to be classified as a Grade 20 on the Grade & Step Scale (max grade on the Scale is 22). Based on LOC’s Pay Systems and Administration Policy, the person hired to fill the position can come in anywhere between a Step 1 to a Step 4 ($121,152 - $132,732), depending on their qualifications. • Step 1 if the selected candidate has 5 years of relevant experience; • Step 2 if the selected candidate has 6 years of relevant experience; • Step 3 if the selected candidate has 7 years of relevant experience; or • Step 4 if the selected candidate has 8 or more years of relevant experience.

While the consultant was reviewing the job description and position analysis questionnaire, I spent considerable time communicating with recruiters and human resources administrators who have considerable experience in recruitment efforts. Based on the suggestions received by those experts, I read additional white papers and reports they had suggested on topics related to inclusive

85 and equitable recruitment processes. As a result of these communications and research, the overall hiring process for the Operations & Member Engagement Director was modified from previous hiring processes utilized by the LOC. Specifically, four major changes were instituted. First, the job description and recruitment profile were reviewed to eliminate words or phrases that have a historically masculine connotation (all LOC job descriptions were also simultaneously reviewed and updated). Second, along with a cover letter and resume, all applicants were asked to submit written responses to three supplemental questions focused on the three main components of the job duties associated with the position. Third, any candidate who met the minimum qualifications for the position would be given a 30-minute initial Zoom interview. Fourth, interview panels would be built to try and include diversity in panelists.

The position was posted on Friday, September 25. Postings occurred in the following locations: • LOC website; • National League of Cities website; • International City County Management website; • National Forum of Black Public Administrators website; • Governmentjobs.com website; and • Local Government Hispanic Network.

When the position closed on Friday, October 30, LOC had received 17 applications. Three applicants were from other states: Hawaii, Washington and Colorado. Of the 17 applicants, 10 were men and seven were female. One veteran applied and asked for Veterans Preference – the required preference points were added at each phase of the recruitment process in accordance with Oregon law.

The applicants’ answers to the written supplemental questions were reviewed and scored according to an objective matrix created specifically for each question. The three questions the applicants were required to answer were, generally:

1. Review the program books and website pages for the 2019 Spring and Annual LOC Conferences and identify at least three ways you would expand upon their offerings and programming for the upcoming 2021 Spring and Annual LOC Conference.

2. Explain any experience you have in reimagining internal office operations, while also providing steps you would take to review LOC’s current internal operations and plan for their modernization.

3. Share with us what diversity, equity and inclusion means to you, why they are important to you, and provide concrete examples of how you have demonstrated your commitment to diversity and inclusion in your prior professional roles.

Each of the 17 applicants met the minimum qualifications of the job description; as such, all applicants were asked to participate in an initial 30-minute Zoom interview. These interviews were conducted by three LOC representatives: • Greg Evans – Eugene Councilor / LOC Immediate Past President / Member of People of Color Caucus; • Lisa Trevino – LOC Program Manager; and • Patty Mulvihill – General Counsel (acting in her capacity as LOC’s human resources administrator).

86 Interviews were conducted on November 5, November 6, November 9 and November 10. One of the 17 candidates did not appear for their interview, the candidate from Hawaii. Each candidate was asked the same five questions. All questions came with objective metrics indicating the types of information that should be contained in an applicant’s answer to receive a particular score (ranging from 1 to 5). The five questions posed were:

1. Although we have reviewed your resume and have been briefed on your qualifications, would you please tell us more about yourself and your professional background?

2. What is your ideal job and how does your current, or your most recent job, fail to live up to that ideal?

3. What attracted you to the Operations & Member Engagement Director position and the LOC?

4. What aspect of working in local government is most important to you?

5. Describe your experience in working with people from various ethnic, cultural and political backgrounds? What approaches have you used to ensure adequate attention is given to the varying needs of these groups?

The top seven candidates from the first phases of the recruitment process, described above, were asked to participate in second-round interviews on November 18. Of the top seven candidates, four were men and three were women.

The second round of interviews were comprised of four separate panels. Each panel was designed, as much as possible, to include a mix of elected and appointed city officials from around the state, have diversity in terms of gender and race, include LOC employees, and reflect the differences in Oregon’s cities. It should be noted that originally LOC had intended to have six persons on three of the four panels (the fourth panel was comprised only of the Executive Director and myself), but due to unforeseen circumstances, three of the panelists had to pull out of the process. Panelists included: • Jim McCauley – LOC Legislative Director; • Lisa Trevino – LOC Program Manager; • Taneea Browning – Central Point Councilor / LOC Treasurer; • Olivia Alcaire – Hillsboro Councilor / Member of People of Color Caucus; • Spencer Nebel – Newport City Manager / President of OCCMA; • Kevin Toon – LOC Communications & Business Development Director; • Debi Higgins – LOC Administrative Assistant; • Ken Gibson – King City Mayor / LOC Board Member; • Susie Marston – Gervais City Manager; • Henry Balensifer – Warrenton Mayor; • Jamie Johnson-Davis – LOC Finance Director; • Kelly Richardson – LOC Project Coordinator – Affiliates; • Jake Boone – Cottage Grove Councilor / LOC President; • Daniel Nguyen – Lake Oswego Councilor / Member of People of Color Caucus; • CM Hall – Newport Councilor / Member of LOC Equity & Inclusion Committee; • Mike Cully – LOC Executive Director; and

87 • Patty Mulvihill – LOC General Counsel.

Each panel asked six questions of the candidates, for a total of 24 questions. All questions came with objective metrics indicating the types of information that should be contained in an applicant’s answer to receive a particular score (ranging from 1 to 5). If time allowed, all applicants were asked to pose questions they themselves had to the various panels. The 24 questions included:

1. The Operations & Member Engagement Director is not just a manager of people, the person who fills the position will also be expected to complete considerable projects on their own. Please describe how you will handle the dual roles expected of this position?

2. The Operations & Member Engagement Director will ideally be capable themselves of acting as a lead trainer or presenter at LOC member functions. What experience do you have in training city officials and in what issue areas facing city officials do you feel comfortable acting as the lead trainer?

3. In a divided political climate, how would you advocate for diversity, equity and inclusion with LOC members or employees who do not understand its importance?

4. What is one example of a project you oversaw that involved multiple teams? How did you manage the situation, and what was the result of the project?

5. Like many municipal leagues, LOC represents what at times seems like very diverse and conflicting interests from members across the state. The concept of and concern surrounding the urban-rural divide is one that is seemingly increasing in Oregon and impacting the LOC. What skills do you have that will allow you to successfully navigate this divide and build a bridge between all members of the LOC so that the divide lessens or disappears?

6. In what ways do you feel it is appropriate to incorporate topics related to diversity, equity and inclusion into the LOC curriculum it provides during its training programs? How would you do this?

7. The LOC works with several affiliate organizations, including the Oregon Mayors Association and the Oregon City County Managers Association. The Operations & Member Engagement Director will play a key role in managing LOC’s relationships with these affiliate organizations. What in your experience makes you the right person to work with both of these affiliate organizations?

8. By 2021, LOC expects to have an adopted equity lens from the LOC Board of Directors. The Operations & Member Engagement Director will be tasked with ensuring that this lens is fully integrated into both internal LOC operations and external engagement efforts. What experience, if any, do you have in implementing and/or managing an equity lens and how would you approach the implementation?

9. What is your approach to executing a Strategic Plan implemented by a governing body and how successful have you been in helping an organization achieve the goals outlined in such a plan?

88 10. Oregon is a unique state, and its cities are each uniquely different. What differences do you imagine exist between our cities, how do you believe those differences may impact the work required of the Operations & Member Engagement Director, and what qualities do you possess that you believe will make you qualified to maneuver these differences?

11. What is your vision of diversity in the LOC, both internally as an employer and externally as the convener and organizer of medium to small-sized community events?

12. Change is often hard for people to accept. If you were selected as the Operations & Member Engagement Director and identified a substantive change that you felt needed to be made for the good of the LOC, its employees or its members, and ran into resistance about making the change, what steps would you take to gain consensus for the change?

13. The Operations and Member Engagement Director will manage a team of employees. As a manager, the position requires the person to not only evaluate several LOC employees, but may on occasion, require the manager to hire new employees. What steps will you take to eliminate any bias, conscious or unconscious, from your evaluation and hiring processes?

14. One of the main reasons the LOC is considered the go-to resource for Oregon cities is because the cities, and their employees and elected officials, trust the LOC and its staff. While you may have relationships with several local government officials in Oregon, it’s likely there are many you don’t yet know. If you are selected as the Operations & Member Engagement Director, what steps will you take to make sure the membership learns to trust you in the position?

15. The Operations & Member Engagement Director is not responsible for overall LOC fiscal management; but, the Director will be responsible for the Division with the largest overall budget. What is your experience with creating a division budget, managing that budget, and identifying ways to spend money efficiently and responsibly? How do you see your role as a division head with responsibility for a large budget as it relates to the Finance Director and her responsibility for overall LOC fiscal affairs?

16. Have you ever realized you had said or done something that may have been offensive to a colleague? How did you respond to that realization, and what was the outcome?

17. LOC has created a Foundation whose purpose is to help officials from cities to acquire knowledge, sharpen skills and develop professionally. One of the Executive Director’s stated goals is to enhance the Foundation’s presence and increase its revenue stream. As the Operations & Member Engagement Director, how would you work to increase the Foundation’s presence and increase donations?

18. What approach do you take to evaluating programs, events and contracts to determine their success, how they could have been improved, their return on

89 investment, and the pluses and minuses of continuing the program, event and contract.

19. Can you please describe a time when you were working with or supervising a person who was not contributing 100%. How did you deal with the lack of commitment and what was the outcome?

20. What do you see as the most beneficial aspect of diversity, equity, and inclusion to the LOC, both internally and externally, and to your own work?

21. LOC’s conferences and training programs are primarily managed by the Program Manager. The Operations & Member Engagement Director is responsible for the strategic vision of the conferences and training programs. How would you work with the Program Manager to ensure conferences and trainings are successful?

22. The LOC Board of Directors and Executive Director have been highly focused on developing a workplace culture and benefits that allow LOC to be an employer of choice. How would you describe the work culture you have developed as a manager in your previous or current places of employment?

23. With the COVID-19 pandemic, LOC does not anticipate reopening its physical offices anytime soon. Currently the organization is in a mandatory telecommuting status. How would you, if selected as the Operations & Member Engagement Director, begin taking over internal LOC operations from a remote setting?

24. How do you like to be managed as an employee and what is your preferred communication style and preferences between yourself and your supervisor?

The top two candidates, both women, from the entirety of the process were asked to participate in a final interview with the Executive Director and his management team on Friday, November 20. Due to this Memorandum being submitted prior to November 20, the names of the two finalists and the questions posed to them during the interview are purposefully being withheld. By the actual Board meeting, the Executive Director should be able to announce if he has selected the next Operations & Member Engagement Director.

Accounting Specialist

The Accounting Specialist acts as the administrative assistant staffing the Finance Director, with primary responsibility for bookkeeping tasks which may include reconciling deposits, creating invoices, generating billings, and handling collections. The position is also heavily involved with LOC procurement projects related to LOC’s contract with National Purchasing Partners.

To date, the job description and position analysis questionnaire have been developed by the Finance Director and Executive Director. Both documents were submitted to an outside consultant who specializes in ensuring compliance with Oregon’s Pay Equity Law. The report form the consultant indicated that this position is to be classified as a Grade 5 on the Grade & Step Scale (max grade on the Scale is 22). Based on LOC’s Pay Systems and Administration Policy, the person hired can come in anywhere between a Step 1 to a Step 4 ($47,632 - $51,158), depending on their qualifications. • Step 1 if the selected candidate has 2 – 5 years of relevant experience;

90 • Step 2 if the selected candidate has 6 years of relevant experience; • Step 3 if the selected candidate has 7 years of relevant experience; or • Step 4 if the selected candidate has 8 or more years of relevant experience.

This position has been and is continuing to be filled by a temporary employee. The Finance Director and I have met to discuss the recruitment process for filling this position permanently. Ideally, the position will be posted in January. I will be meeting with the Finance Director in December to establish a recruitment timeline and create an overall hiring process for the position.

Administrative Specialist

The Administrative Specialist is a newly created part-time position (provided for in the current fiscal year budget) that will assist both the Program Manager and Operations & Member Engagement Director in planning, managing, coordinating and facilitating a wide range of events. This position will also provide general administrative support to the LOC and help with database management.

To date, the job description and position analysis questionnaire have been developed by the Program Manager and Executive Director. Both documents were submitted to an outside consultant who specializes in ensuring compliance with Oregon’s Pay Equity Law. The report form the consultant indicated that this position is to be classified as a Grade 5 on the Grade & Step Scale (max grade on the Scale is 22). Based on LOC’s Pay Systems and Administration Policy, the person hired can come in anywhere between a Step 1 to a Step 4 ($47,632 - $51,158), depending on their qualifications. • Step 1 if the selected candidate has 2 – 5 years of relevant experience; • Step 2 if the selected candidate has 6 years of relevant experience; • Step 3 if the selected candidate has 7 years of relevant experience; or • Step 4 if the selected candidate has 8 or more years of relevant experience.

This position will remain open until the new Operations & Member Engagement Director joins the LOC. Once the new Director is in place, I will meet with the person to identify their preferred recruitment timelines and coordinate a hiring a process.

91 MEMORANDUM To: LOC Board of Directors From: Patty Mulvihill, LOC General Counsel Date: November 17, 2020 Re: Request for Support of Constitutional/Bylaws Amendments in 2021

During the latter part of 2018 and into first five months of 2020, the LOC Bylaws Committee met several times as it comprehensively reviewed the existing LOC Bylaws. During its review of the LOC Bylaws, the Committee considered and studied the governing documents of several other municipal leagues. The first of the Committee’s proposed changes were brought before, and adopted by, the Board of Directors during the June 2020 Board meeting.

This Memorandum is intended to summarize the second type of changes proposed by the Committee. This second round of proposed changes will dramatically change the governing structure and the voting process for the annual business meeting, which is why they were not presented with the first round of amendments during the June 2020 meeting.

The Committee is proposing three substantive changes, two of which impact the Constitution and one of which only impacts the Bylaws but is considered a dramatic enough change that bringing it forward with other major changes was deemed the appropriate and responsible course of action by the Committee.

1. Conduct of Meetings. Currently the Constitution allows the Board to meet in-person or via phone conference (most attorneys believe that given the workings of Zoom, it qualifies as a phone conference medium). Because technology has emerged, and will no doubt continue to emerge and change, limiting Board meetings to in-person or phone conference seems inherently limiting. To that end, the Committee recommends that both the Constitution and Bylaws be amended, in relevant part, to read as follows:

“The Board may hold any meeting by, or through the use of, any means of communication allowing all participants to simultaneously hear and speak to one another.”

2. Governing Structure. Currently the governing structure of the Board is such that the Treasurer is elected by the membership at large and serves a one-year term. The Treasurer then automatically ascends to the position of Vice-President serving a one-year term. The Vice-President automatically ascends to the position of President serving a one-year term. The President automatically becomes the Immediate Past-President serving a one-year term. In each position held, the person occupying it must be an elected official of a member city.

92 Some members of the Committee expressed concerns that the current structure requires too long of a time commitment and the length of time could be a detriment to many members who may otherwise wish to serve in a leadership role. Other members expressed a concern that the Treasurer position may be better served as a stand-alone two-year position that could be held by both elected and appointed city officials. This could allow a stronger role in overseeing LOC finances, while also recognizing that those persons interested in finance may have no interest in serving as President and vice-versa. Staff notes that while their was consensus among the Committee for this change, there was not unanimous agreement.

Recognizing that any change to the leadership structure of the Board of Directors would be significant, the Committee directed staff to create and distribute a survey, referred to herein as the Governing Structure survey, to the LOC membership to get a sense for what the membership would like to see in LOC’s leadership structure. After reviewing the results of the Governing Structure survey, the Committee directed staff to prepare an amendment wherein the structure looks like this:

• Vice-President elected by the membership during the annual business meeting and serves one-year term. Vice-President automatically assumes the position of President, serving a one-year term. President automatically becomes Immediate Past-President, serving a one-year term. Vice-President, President, and Immediate Past-President must hold elected office with a member city.

• Treasurer elected by the membership during the annual business meeting and serves two-year term. Treasurer must hold either an elected or appointed position with a member city.

3. Plurality Voting. The LOC 190 Agreement requires the Annual Membership Meeting to follow and adhere to Roberts Rules of Procedures. These procedures note that plurality voting, without a majority, is not generally permitted without being expressly adopted in an organization’s bylaws. To ensure that the LOC can move towards a plurality voting scheme during the Annual Membership Meeting when there are three or more candidates for one open Board seat, the Bylaws must be amended to so allow. And while this change does not require a Constitutional or 190 Agreement change, because moving to this style of voting would be a significant departure from current practice, the Committee is recommending it be considered in calendar year 2021. The proposed language, to be included in Section 16 of the Bylaws, is as follows:

B. Affirmative Vote of Majority. With the exception of Section (16)(D) below, an affirmative vote of the majority of the members voting is necessary to decide an action before the members.

D. Plurality Vote for Board Elections. While a plurality that is not a majority generally never elects a person to office under Roberts Rules of Procedure, pursuant to those rules of procedure, the Board of Directors specifically prescribes for such an occurrence in these Bylaws when it comes to the election of Board members during the Annual Meeting.

1. Vice-President, Treasurer and Open Director Position Reserved for Appointed Officials. When there are three or more candidates for the position

93 of Vice-President, Treasurer or the open Director position reserved for appointed officials on the LOC Board of Directors during the Annual Meeting, the candidate for each position who receives the largest number of votes cast, regardless of whether that candidate receives an affirmative vote of the majority of the members voting, shall be the candidate elected to the open position.

2. Open Director Positions Reserved for Elected Officials. When there are more candidates then there are open Director positions for elected officials on the LOC Board of Directors during the Annual Meeting, the candidates who receive the largest number of votes cast, regardless of whether those candidates individually receive an affirmative vote of the majority of the members voting, shall be the candidates elected to the open positions. For example, there are three open Director positions reserved for elected officials and four candidates for those positions, the three candidates with the highest number of votes cast in their favor are the candidates elected to the three open positions (100 votes cast: Candidate A = 40 votes; Candidate B = 35 votes; Candidate C = 20 votes; and Candidate D = 5 votes. Candidates A, B and C are elected to the three open Director positions).

It is important to note that these proposed changes will not only require an amendment to the Bylaws; but, will also require an amendment to the LOC Constitution. The Board cannot amend the Constitution, it only has the authority to amend the Bylaws. Amending the Constitution must occur at the annual business meeting, or at a special meeting called for the purpose of amending the Constitution. It takes the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the voting delegates present to amend the Constitution. The next regularly scheduled annual business meeting is scheduled to occur on Saturday, October 23, 2021 – in coordination with the LOC Annual Conference in Bend.

The Committee is asking for two things from the Board. First, the Committee would like the Board to support its recommended changes to both the Constitution and the Bylaws, as described in this Memorandum. Second, the Committee would like the Board’s input and direction on how the Committee and LOC staff should advise the membership of the coming changes throughout calendar year 2021 so that members arriving at the annual membership meeting are not seeing these proposed changes for the first time.

For the first request from the Board (supporting the Committee’s recommended changes), staff provides the following proposed motion:

The Board of Directors supports the amendments to the LOC Constitution and Bylaws as proposed by the Bylaws Committee and described in this Memorandum. It directs the Committee to work with LOC staff to advise the membership of the proposed changes during calendar year 2021 and to place the proposed amendments on the agenda for the October 23, 2021 annual business meeting.

94 Staff does not have a proposed motion for the Committee’s second request of the Board (input and direction on how to advise the membership of the proposed changes in advance of the annual business meeting).

95 Memorandum

To: LOC Board of Directors From: Jayme Hafner, Assistant General Counsel Date: November 19, 2020 Subject: LOC Equity Lens Framework

Due to continued work related to this agenda item between now and the December 4th Board meeting, an updated memo and completed documents are forthcoming and will be provided prior to the meeting.

96 MEMORANDUM

To: LOC Board of Directors From: Jamie Johnson-Davis, Finance Director Date: November 17, 2020 Re: FY 19-20 Audit

Our contracted auditing firm, Bold Carlisle+Smith, recently conducted a review of LOC financial for the 2019-2020 fiscal year. We will be presenting at our next meeting pertinent information also relies on the year-end financials from the Local Government Center (LGC) trust, which is wrapping up their audit this week and will be providing LOC with the Owners’ Equity statement, a key component of assets to complete their review and file with the Secretary of State prior to December 31, 2020.

Executive Director, Mike Cully conducted a wrap up meeting and has been advised the audit returned an unqualified opinion indicating no material findings.

97 To: LOC Board of Directors From: Kelly Richardson, Project Coordinator-Affiliates Date: November 17, 2020 Re: Recommendation of President for LOC Foundation Board of Directors

The League of Oregon Cities Foundation (Foundation) exists to support the LOC. This is accomplished primarily through the provision of scholarships for city officials to attend various training opportunities provided by the LOC throughout the year. Typically, this includes scholarships to attend the Oregon Mayors Association (OMA) Summer Conference and the LOC Annual Conference.

In addition, the LOC Foundation established the Phillip & Kathy Houk Endowment Fund through the Oregon Community Foundation. The initial endowment was for $25,000 – funds raised to create a perpetual scholarship fund to support elected officials.

The Foundation is composed of the following members: • President – John McArdle, Mayor, Independence (term on the Board expires 12/2020) • Director – Jake Boone, Councilor, Cottage Grove (term on the Board expires 12/2021) • Director – Ken Gibson, Mayor, King City (term on the Board expires 12/2020) • Director – Sherilyn Lombos, City Manager, Tualatin (term on the Board expires 12/2021) • Director, Brad Nanke, Councilor, Salem (term on the Board expires 12/2021) • Director, Pete Truax, Mayor, Forest Grove (term on the Board expires 12/2020) • Director, Cathy Clark, Mayor, Keizer (term on the Board expires 12/2020).

This year there are three Board vacancies to fill, in addition to the President’s position. The Foundation’s Bylaws call for the President’s term to last only one year, with reappointments being made in December of each calendar year. The LOC Board of Directors is to make a recommendation as to who should serve as President, with the Foundation’s own Board of Directors appointing the President. The Bylaws also state that the Board of Directors will appoint or reappoint vacancies as terms end.

The current Foundation President, Mayor John McArdle, has indicated a willingness to continue serving as the Foundation’s President. Additionally, staff has reached out to Mayor Clark, Mayor Truax and Mayor Gibson to see if they are all willing to continue.

98 Motion: I move to recommend Mayor John McArdle of Independence to serve as the President of the LOC Foundation and to reappoint Mayor Clark, Mayor Truax and Mayor Gibson to serve, should they so choose, until 2022.

99 MEMO: To: LOC Board of Directors From: Jamie Johnson-Davis, Finance Director Date: November 20, 2020 Re: Notice of Dues Arrearages

The Board has requested at our December meeting to advise any cities that are in arrears. LOC staff asks the Board for guidance on how to handle arrearages. The Board established the following basic policy:  Invoice cities at the beginning of each fiscal year;  Send a second invoice/request for payment when the payment is 30 days past due;  Send a third invoice/request for payment when the payment is 60 days past due; and  Provide a list of all cities who remain delinquent after the third notice to the LOC Board of Directors during their December business meeting. The Board will then identify the next steps to be taken.

The purpose of this Memo is to advise the Board that there are multiple cities who have failed to pay their required dues. At the Board’s direction, I am advising the Board of the relevant delinquencies and seeking guidance on how to proceed.

The General Counsel has advised that the LOC Constitution, in Article II, Section 4, states that if a member fails to pay its dues, “it may be stricken from the membership roll by the Board.” Additionally, the LOC Bylaws, in Section 21, states that to achieve full membership in the LOC, a city must pay its membership dues for the year.

Below are details on the specific delinquencies and the actions take by LOC staff to date. Direction on how to proceed from the Board is required.

Fiscal Year 21

The list of cities who have not yet paid their dues, and the dues amount owed, are noted below. In each case, the original invoice was mailed to the city in June 2020. A second request for payment of dues was sent to each city in August 2020. A third request for payment of dues was followed up by staff via email and/or phone in October 2020. As of the date of this memo, payment has not been received.

 Portland $242,271.00 - Confirmed payment forthcoming 11/19/2020  Eugene $104,692.60 - Confirmed payment forthcoming 11/19/2020  Greenhorn $115.00 - Confirmed payment forthcoming 11/19/2020

100 To: Board of Directors

From: Jamie Johnson‐Davis, Finance Director

Date: November 20, 2020

Re: 2021‐22 Fiscal Year Dues Budget

The League’s Constitution requires that the Board of Directors set dues for the upcoming 2021‐22 fiscal year (July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022) no later than January 1, 2021. The dues rate history in past years has been as follows:

2012‐13 1.11% increase 2013‐14 1% increase 2014‐15 No increase 2015‐16 1% increase 2016‐17 2.5% increase 2017‐18 3% increase 2018‐19 3% increase 2019‐20 3% increase

The average dues rate increase during this period was 1.82%. Historically, we have seen an increase in dues revenue from population growth, in addition to any change in rates. In recent years the population rate of growth has been around 1%. *We will not have certified population numbers from PSU for the 2021‐22 dues calculations until December 15, however, a 1% population growth is a reasonable estimated assumption at this point. (*Estimate PSU number for July 2020 used in draft dues report)

The major impact in the 2021‐22 budget is personnel costs. Total increase to personnel costs, including PERS rate and benefits increase is currently estimated around $35,000 including a cost of living adjustment of 1%. Since dues are the largest single revenue source, for each 1% in dues rate increase generates approximately $20,000 in additional revenue, as does each approximately 1% increase in population. The budget development for the 2021‐22 budget would be to maintain anticipated cost of living increases to staff.

In preparing for the 2021‐22 budget, all funds are in good shape and Fund Balance exceeds the minimum balance prescribed by the policy and has sufficient funding to support policy initiatives and/or litigation in Special Projects.

Proposed change would be to increase Base and Per Capita rate by 1%, resulting in an approximately $35,000 in additional dues revenue.

101 Current Dues Rate Schedule for 2020‐21 Population Base Per Capita Dues Calculation

Under 100 115 Base

100 < 270 237 Base

271 < 5,000 0.881 Rate x Population

5,000 < 100,000 3,990 0.735 Base + (Rate x Population over 5,000)

>100,000 71,936 0.46 Base + (Rate x Population over 100,000)

>500,000 179,431 0.400 Base + (Rate x Population over 500,000)

Proposed Dues Rate Schedule for 2021‐22 Population Base Per Capita Dues Calculation

Under 100 115 Base

100 < 499 237 Base

500 < 5,000 0.89 Rate x Population

5,000 < 100,000 3,990 0.740 Base + (Rate x Population over 5,000)

>100,000 71,936 0.460 Base + (Rate x Population over 100,000)

>500,000 179,431 0.400 Base + (Rate x Population over 500,000)

The requested Board action is a motion to: Staff is recommending an anticipated 1.82% rate increase for the base and per capita rate, supporting a 1% cost of living adjustment for employees for fiscal year 2021‐22.

102 Background Information –% of dues income received by city population

FY20‐21 Dues Distributed by $ and % Small 2% (86)

1K‐5K 10% (85) Small 2% (86) 1K‐5K 5K‐15K 10% (85) 18% (41) Largest 30K + 5K‐15K 18% (41) 51% (12) 15K‐30K 19% (17) Largest 30K + 15K‐30K 51% (12) 19% (17)

FY21‐22 Proposed Dues Distributed by $ and %

Small 2% (86) 1K‐5K 10% (85)

Small 2% (86) 1K‐5K 10% (85) 5K‐15K Largest 30K + 18% (40) 5K‐15K 18% (40) 51% (12) 15K‐30K 19% (18) Largest 30K + 51% (12)

15K‐30K 19% (18)

103103 Rate Per Base Dues Calculation Capita 115 0‐99 237 100‐299 0.88 Rate X Population 300‐4999 3,990 0.74 Base + Rate X Pop over 5,000 LOC Membership Dues 71,936 0.46 Base + Rate X Pop over 100,000 FY2021-22 179,431 0.40 Base + Rate X Pop over 500,000 *Sorted Alphabetically 1% base and per capita increase *STAFF RECOMMENDATION Prior year 2021‐22 2021‐2022 2021-2022 Rate Per Total Dues City dues per Capita Capita Rate 2021-22 Population Base FY20-21 Adair Village 1,105 $0 $0.89 983.45$ 983.45 $ 792.90 Adams 375 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 330.38 Adrian 190 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 Albany 54,935 $4,030 $0.74 36,951.90$ 40,981.90 $ 40,093.20 Amity 1,705 $0 $0.89 1,517.45$ 1,517.45 $ 1,471.27 Antelope 50 $116 $0.00 0.00$ 116.00 $ 115.00 Arlington 615 $0 $0.89 547.35$ 547.35 $ 541.82 Ashland 21,105 $4,030 $0.74 11,917.70$ 15,947.70 $ 15,720.60 Astoria 9,675 $4,030 $0.74 3,459.50$ 7,489.50 $ 7,437.15 Athena 1,170 $0 $0.89 1,041.30$ 1,041.30 $ 1,030.77 Aumsville 4,215 $0 $0.89 3,751.35$ 3,751.35 $ 3,638.53 Aurora 985 $0 $0.89 876.65$ 876.65 $ 867.79 Baker City 10,010 $4,030 $0.74 3,707.40$ 7,737.40 $ 7,639.28 Bandon 3,225 $0 $0.89 2,870.25$ 2,870.25 $ 2,836.82 Banks 1,980 $0 $0.89 1,762.20$ 1,762.20 $ 1,643.07 Barlow 135 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 Bay City 1,355 $0 $0.89 1,205.95$ 1,205.95 $ 1,189.35 Beaverton 99,225 $4,030 $0.74 69,726.50$ 73,756.50 $ 72,532.43 Bend 92,840 $4,030 $0.74 65,001.60$ 69,031.60 $ 67,482.98 Boardman 4,580 $0 $0.89 4,076.20$ 4,076.20 $ 3,968.91 Bonanza 455 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 400.86 Brookings 6,670 $4,030 $0.74 1,235.80$ 5,265.80 $ 5,199.08 Brownsville 1,730 $0 $0.89 1,539.70$ 1,539.70 $ 1,515.32 Burns 2,835 $0 $0.89 2,523.15$ 2,523.15 $ 2,497.64 Butte Falls 460 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 405.26 Canby 17,210 $4,030 $0.74 9,035.40$ 13,065.40 $ 12,773.25 Cannon Beach 1,740 $0 $0.89 1,548.60$ 1,548.60 $ 1,524.13 Canyon City 705 $0 $0.89 627.45$ 627.45 $ 621.11 Canyonville 1,985 $0 $0.89 1,766.65$ 1,766.65 $ 1,739.98 Carlton 2,290 $0 $0.89 2,038.10$ 2,038.10 $ 1,999.87 Cascade Locks 1,420 $0 $0.89 1,263.80$ 1,263.80 $ 1,211.38 Cave Junction 1,975 $0 $0.89 1,757.75$ 1,757.75 $ 1,739.98 Central Point 18,755 $4,030 $0.74 10,178.70$ 14,208.70 $ 13,813.28 Chiloquin 740 $0 $0.89 658.60$ 658.60 $ 651.94

Alpha 1% Base Per Capita increase ‐ FY2021‐22 Dues increase 1 of 6 104 Clatskanie 1,795 $0 $0.89 1,597.55$ 1,597.55 $ 1,563.78 Coburg 1,375 $0 $0.89 1,223.75$ 1,223.75 $ 1,140.90 Columbia City 1,980 $0 $0.89 1,762.20$ 1,762.20 $ 1,748.79 Condon 685 $0 $0.89 609.65$ 609.65 $ 607.89 Coos Bay 16,810 $4,030 $0.74 8,739.40$ 12,769.40 $ 12,589.50 Coquille 3,920 $0 $0.89 3,488.80$ 3,488.80 $ 3,453.52 Cornelius 12,635 $4,030 $0.74 5,649.90$ 9,679.90 $ 9,300.38 Corvallis 59,730 $4,030 $0.74 40,500.20$ 44,530.20 $ 43,595.48 Cottage Grove 10,155 $4,030 $0.74 3,814.70$ 7,844.70 $ 7,767.90 Cove 555 $0 $0.89 493.95$ 493.95 $ 484.55 Creswell 5,585 $4,030 $0.74 432.90$ 4,462.90 $ 4,364.85 Culver 1,570 $0 $0.89 1,397.30$ 1,397.30 $ 1,374.36 Dallas 16,555 $4,030 $0.74 8,550.70$ 12,580.70 $ 12,266.10 Dayton 2,745 $0 $0.89 2,443.05$ 2,443.05 $ 2,413.94 Dayville 155 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 Depoe Bay 1,450 $0 $0.89 1,290.50$ 1,290.50 $ 1,273.05 Detroit 205 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 Donald 995 $0 $0.89 885.55$ 885.55 $ 872.19 Drain 1,165 $0 $0.89 1,036.85$ 1,036.85 $ 1,026.37 Dufur 625 $0 $0.89 556.25$ 556.25 $ 550.63 Dundee 3,285 $0 $0.89 2,923.65$ 2,923.65 $ 2,850.04 Dunes City 1,365 $0 $0.89 1,214.85$ 1,214.85 $ 1,184.95 Durham 1,885 $0 $0.89 1,677.65$ 1,677.65 $ 1,660.69 Eagle Point 9,375 $4,030 $0.74 3,237.50$ 7,267.50 $ 7,121.10 Echo 720 $0 $0.89 640.80$ 640.80 $ 625.51 Elgin 1,730 $0 $0.89 1,539.70$ 1,539.70 $ 1,524.13 Elkton 205 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 Enterprise 1,995 $0 $0.89 1,775.55$ 1,775.55 $ 1,748.79 Estacada 4,035 $0 $0.89 3,591.15$ 3,591.15 $ 3,281.73 Eugene 173,620 $72,655 $0.46 33,865.20$ 106,520.20 $ 104,692.60 Fairview 9,440 $4,030 $0.74 3,285.60$ 7,315.60 $ 6,933.68 Falls City 1,000 $0 $0.89 890.00$ 890.00 $ 863.38 Florence 8,925 $4,030 $0.74 2,904.50$ 6,934.50 $ 6,819.75 Forest Grove 25,435 $4,030 $0.74 15,121.90$ 19,151.90 $ 18,822.30 Fossil 475 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 418.48 Garibaldi 830 $0 $0.89 738.70$ 738.70 $ 731.23 Gaston 655 $0 $0.89 582.95$ 582.95 $ 577.06 Gates 540 $0 $0.89 480.60$ 480.60 $ 427.29 Gearhart 1,545 $0 $0.89 1,375.05$ 1,375.05 $ 1,343.53 Gervais 2,620 $0 $0.89 2,331.80$ 2,331.80 $ 2,303.82 Gladstone 11,945 $4,030 $0.74 5,139.30$ 9,169.30 $ 9,065.18 Glendale 860 $0 $0.89 765.40$ 765.40 $ 757.66 Gold Beach 2,310 $0 $0.89 2,055.90$ 2,055.90 $ 2,017.49 Gold Hill 1,240 $0 $0.89 1,103.60$ 1,103.60 $ 1,074.82 Granite 40 $116 $0.00 0.00$ 116.00 $ 115.00 Grants Pass 37,725 $4,030 $0.74 24,216.50$ 28,246.50 $ 27,866.48 Grass Valley 165 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00

Alpha 1% Base Per Capita increase ‐ FY2021‐22 Dues increase 2 of 6 105 Greenhorn 2 $116 $0.00 0.00$ 116.00 $ 115.00 Gresham 112,660 $72,655 $0.46 5,823.60$ 78,478.60 $ 77,368.60 Haines 415 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 365.62 Halfway 300 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 259.90 Halsey 945 $0 $0.89 841.05$ 841.05 $ 828.14 Happy Valley 22,400 $4,030 $0.74 12,876.00$ 16,906.00 $ 16,264.50 Harrisburg 3,695 $0 $0.89 3,288.55$ 3,288.55 $ 3,242.08 Helix 200 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 Heppner 1,295 $0 $0.89 1,152.55$ 1,152.55 $ 1,140.90 Hermiston 18,775 $4,030 $0.74 10,193.50$ 14,223.50 $ 13,850.03 Hillsboro 104,670 $72,655 $0.46 2,148.20$ 74,803.20 $ 73,477.00 Hines 1,565 $0 $0.89 1,392.85$ 1,392.85 $ 1,378.77 Hood River 8,565 $4,030 $0.74 2,638.10$ 6,668.10 $ 6,419.18 Hubbard 3,315 $0 $0.89 2,950.35$ 2,950.35 $ 2,911.71 Huntington 445 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 392.05 Idanha 155 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 Imbler 305 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 268.71 Independence 9,675 $4,030 $0.74 3,459.50$ 7,489.50 $ 7,319.55 Ione 330 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 290.73 Irrigon 2,040 $0 $0.89 1,815.60$ 1,815.60 $ 1,788.43 Island City 1,140 $0 $0.89 1,014.60$ 1,014.60 $ 1,004.34 Jacksonville 3,040 $0 $0.89 2,705.60$ 2,705.60 $ 2,656.22 Jefferson 3,280 $0 $0.89 2,919.20$ 2,919.20 $ 2,876.47 John Day 1,750 $0 $0.89 1,557.50$ 1,557.50 $ 1,528.54 Johnson City 565 $0 $0.89 502.85$ 502.85 $ 497.77 Jordan Valley 175 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 Joseph 1,120 $0 $0.89 996.80$ 996.80 $ 986.72 Junction City 6,200 $4,030 $0.74 888.00$ 4,918.00 $ 4,849.95 Keizer 38,585 $4,030 $0.74 24,852.90$ 28,882.90 $ 28,671.30 King City 4,280 $0 $0.89 3,809.20$ 3,809.20 $ 3,691.39 Klamath Falls 21,940 $4,030 $0.74 12,535.60$ 16,565.60 $ 16,485.00 La Grande 13,460 $4,030 $0.74 6,260.40$ 10,290.40 $ 10,083.15 La Pine 2,005 $0 $0.89 1,784.45$ 1,784.45 $ 1,673.90 Lafayette 4,155 $0 $0.89 3,697.95$ 3,697.95 $ 3,634.13 Lake Oswego 39,480 $4,030 $0.74 25,515.20$ 29,545.20 $ 29,064.53 Lakeside 1,750 $0 $0.89 1,557.50$ 1,557.50 $ 1,541.75 Lakeview 2,300 $0 $0.89 2,047.00$ 2,047.00 $ 2,026.30 Lebanon 17,335 $4,030 $0.74 9,127.90$ 13,157.90 $ 12,909.23 Lexington 265 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 Lincoln City 8,865 $4,030 $0.74 2,860.10$ 6,890.10 $ 6,779.33 Lonerock 20 $116 $0.00 0.00$ 116.00 $ 115.00 Long Creek 195 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 Lostine 215 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 Lowell 1,090 $0 $0.89 970.10$ 970.10 $ 960.29 Lyons 1,200 $0 $0.89 1,068.00$ 1,068.00 $ 1,057.20 Madras 6,470 $4,030 $0.74 1,087.80$ 5,117.80 $ 5,004.30 Malin 820 $0 $0.89 729.80$ 729.80 $ 722.42

Alpha 1% Base Per Capita increase ‐ FY2021‐22 Dues increase 3 of 6 106 Manzanita 645 $0 $0.89 574.05$ 574.05 $ 568.25 Maupin 435 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 378.83 Maywood Park 750 $0 $0.89 667.50$ 667.50 $ 660.75 McMinnville 34,615 $4,030 $0.74 21,915.10$ 25,945.10 $ 25,253.55 Medford 83,115 $4,030 $0.74 57,805.10$ 61,835.10 $ 60,075.78 Merrill 845 $0 $0.89 752.05$ 752.05 $ 744.45 Metolius 825 $0 $0.89 734.25$ 734.25 $ 726.83 Mill City 1,915 $0 $0.89 1,704.35$ 1,704.35 $ 1,656.28 Millersburg 2,850 $0 $0.89 2,536.50$ 2,536.50 $ 2,303.82 Milton-Freewater 7,210 $4,030 $0.74 1,635.40$ 5,665.40 $ 5,566.58 Milwaukie 20,600 $4,030 $0.74 11,544.00$ 15,574.00 $ 15,408.23 Mitchell 160 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 Molalla 9,910 $4,030 $0.74 3,633.40$ 7,663.40 $ 7,580.48 Monmouth 9,940 $4,030 $0.74 3,655.60$ 7,685.60 $ 7,606.20 Monroe 640 $0 $0.89 569.60$ 569.60 $ 563.84 Monument 130 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 Moro 340 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 295.14 Mosier 490 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 414.07 Mt Angel 3,520 $0 $0.89 3,132.80$ 3,132.80 $ 3,052.67 Mt Vernon 525 $0 $0.89 467.25$ 467.25 $ 462.53 Myrtle Creek 3,600 $0 $0.89 3,204.00$ 3,204.00 $ 3,074.69 Myrtle Point 2,535 $0 $0.89 2,256.15$ 2,256.15 $ 2,233.34 Nehalem 285 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 246.68 Newberg 24,120 $4,030 $0.74 14,148.80$ 18,178.80 $ 17,988.08 Newport 10,400 $4,030 $0.74 3,996.00$ 8,026.00 $ 7,874.48 North Bend 9,975 $4,030 $0.74 3,681.50$ 7,711.50 $ 7,609.88 North Plains 3,360 $0 $0.89 2,990.40$ 2,990.40 $ 2,894.09 North Powder 445 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 392.05 Nyssa 3,340 $0 $0.89 2,972.60$ 2,972.60 $ 2,924.92 Oakland 965 $0 $0.89 858.85$ 858.85 $ 850.17 Oakridge 3,310 $0 $0.89 2,945.90$ 2,945.90 $ 2,911.71 Ontario 11,515 $4,030 $0.74 4,821.10$ 8,851.10 $ 8,756.48 Oregon City 35,885 $4,030 $0.74 22,854.90$ 26,884.90 $ 26,458.95 Paisley 300 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 268.71 Pendleton 17,025 $4,030 $0.74 8,898.50$ 12,928.50 $ 12,824.70 Philomath 5,370 $4,030 $0.74 273.80$ 4,303.80 $ 4,316.90 Phoenix 4,660 $0 $0.89 4,147.40$ 4,147.40 $ 4,096.65 Pilot Rock 1,505 $0 $0.89 1,339.45$ 1,339.45 $ 1,325.91 Port Orford 1,150 $0 $0.89 1,023.50$ 1,023.50 $ 1,013.15 Portland 664,605 $181,225 $0.40 65,842.00$ 247,067.00 $ 242,271.00 Powers 700 $0 $0.89 623.00$ 623.00 $ 612.30 Prairie City 915 $0 $0.89 814.35$ 814.35 $ 806.12 Prescott 55 $116 $0.00 0.00$ 116.00 $ 115.00 Prineville 10,355 $4,030 $0.74 3,962.70$ 7,992.70 $ 7,826.70 Rainier 1,940 $0 $0.89 1,726.60$ 1,726.60 $ 1,709.14 Redmond 32,215 $4,030 $0.74 20,139.10$ 24,169.10 $ 22,806.00 Reedsport 4,230 $0 $0.89 3,764.70$ 3,764.70 $ 3,713.42

Alpha 1% Base Per Capita increase ‐ FY2021‐22 Dues increase 107 4 of 6 Richland 175 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 Riddle 1,190 $0 $0.89 1,059.10$ 1,059.10 $ 1,048.39 Rivergrove 510 $0 $0.89 453.90$ 453.90 $ 444.91 Rockaway Beach 1,390 $0 $0.89 1,237.10$ 1,237.10 $ 1,202.57 Rogue River 2,250 $0 $0.89 2,002.50$ 2,002.50 $ 1,969.04 Roseburg 24,915 $4,030 $0.74 14,737.10$ 18,767.10 $ 18,609.15 Rufus 290 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 246.68 Salem 168,970 $72,655 $0.46 31,726.20$ 104,381.20 $ 102,940.00 Sandy 11,650 $4,030 $0.74 4,921.00$ 8,951.00 $ 8,455.13 Scappoose 7,360 $4,030 $0.74 1,746.40$ 5,776.40 $ 5,658.45 Scio 940 $0 $0.89 836.60$ 836.60 $ 819.33 Scotts Mills 385 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 334.78 Seaside 6,565 $4,030 $0.74 1,158.10$ 5,188.10 $ 5,154.98 Seneca 200 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 Shady Cove 3,140 $0 $0.89 2,794.60$ 2,794.60 $ 2,770.75 Shaniko 35 $116 $0.00 0.00$ 116.00 $ 115.00 Sheridan 6,100 $4,030 $0.74 814.00$ 4,844.00 $ 4,875.68 Sherwood 19,885 $4,030 $0.74 11,014.90$ 15,044.90 $ 14,717.33 Siletz 1,235 $0 $0.89 1,099.15$ 1,099.15 $ 1,088.04 Silverton 10,520 $4,030 $0.74 4,084.80$ 8,114.80 $ 7,944.30 Sisters 3,220 $0 $0.89 2,865.80$ 2,865.80 $ 2,629.79 Sodaville 355 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 303.95 Spray 160 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 Springfield 61,535 $4,030 $0.74 41,835.90$ 45,865.90 $ 45,410.93 St Helens 13,915 $4,030 $0.74 6,597.10$ 10,627.10 $ 10,171.35 St Paul 440 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 383.24 Stanfield 2,280 $0 $0.89 2,029.20$ 2,029.20 $ 1,977.85 Stayton 7,880 $4,030 $0.74 2,131.20$ 6,161.20 $ 6,099.45 Sublimity 3,050 $0 $0.89 2,714.50$ 2,714.50 $ 2,616.57 Summerville 135 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 Sumpter 210 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 Sutherlin 8,260 $4,030 $0.74 2,412.40$ 6,442.40 $ 6,367.73 Sweet Home 9,415 $4,030 $0.74 3,267.10$ 7,297.10 $ 7,179.90 Talent 6,530 $4,030 $0.74 1,132.20$ 5,162.20 $ 5,066.78 Tangent 1,265 $0 $0.89 1,125.85$ 1,125.85 $ 1,110.06 The Dalles 14,845 $4,030 $0.74 7,285.30$ 11,315.30 $ 11,207.70 Tigard 54,520 $4,030 $0.74 36,644.80$ 40,674.80 $ 39,600.75 Tillamook 4,930 $0 $0.89 4,387.70$ 4,387.70 $ 4,347.74 Toledo 3,520 $0 $0.89 3,132.80$ 3,132.80 $ 3,074.69 Troutdale 16,180 $4,030 $0.74 8,273.20$ 12,303.20 $ 12,210.98 Tualatin 27,195 $4,030 $0.74 16,424.30$ 20,454.30 $ 20,259.23 Turner 2,410 $0 $0.89 2,144.90$ 2,144.90 $ 1,951.42 Ukiah 240 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 Umatilla 7,605 $4,030 $0.74 1,927.70$ 5,957.70 $ 5,805.45 Union 2,175 $0 $0.89 1,935.75$ 1,935.75 $ 1,911.77 Unity 75 $116 $0.00 0.00$ 116.00 $ 115.00 Vale 1,875 $0 $0.89 1,668.75$ 1,668.75 $ 1,651.88

Alpha 1% Base Per Capita increase ‐ FY2021‐22 Dues increase 108 5 of 6 Veneta 4,845 $0 $0.89 4,312.05$ 4,312.05 $ 4,228.80 Vernonia 2,110 $0 $0.89 1,877.90$ 1,877.90 $ 1,845.70 Waldport 2,125 $0 $0.89 1,891.25$ 1,891.25 $ 1,858.91 Wallowa 840 $0 $0.89 747.60$ 747.60 $ 740.04 Warrenton 5,350 $4,030 $0.74 259.00$ 4,289.00 $ 4,225.20 Wasco 425 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 374.43 Waterloo 235 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 West Linn 25,975 $4,030 $0.74 15,521.50$ 19,551.50 $ 19,355.18 Westfir 265 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 Weston 690 $0 $0.89 614.10$ 614.10 $ 607.89 Wheeler 400 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 352.40 Willamina 2,270 $0 $0.89 2,020.30$ 2,020.30 $ 1,982.25 Wilsonville 25,915 $4,030 $0.74 15,477.10$ 19,507.10 $ 19,156.73 Winston 5,620 $4,030 $0.74 458.80$ 4,488.80 $ 4,394.25 Wood Village 4,190 $0 $0.89 3,729.10$ 3,729.10 $ 3,576.86 Woodburn 25,185 $4,030 $0.74 14,936.90$ 18,966.90 $ 18,789.23 Yachats 780 $0 $0.89 694.20$ 694.20 $ 669.56 Yamhill 1,110 $0 $0.89 987.90$ 987.90 $ 973.51 Yoncalla 1,075 $0 $0.89 956.75$ 956.75 $ 942.67

Grand Total 2,952,102 $769,064 $1,179,288 $1,948,352 $1,913,522

109 Alpha 1% Base Per Capita increase ‐ FY2021‐22 Dues increase 6 of 6 Rate Per Base Dues Calculation Capita 115 0‐99 237 100‐299 0.88 Rate X Population 300‐4999 3,990 0.74 Base + Rate X Pop over 5,000 LOC Membership Dues 71,936 0.46 Base + Rate X Pop over 100,000 FY2021-22 179,431 0.40 Base + Rate X Pop over 500,000 *Sorted by Population 1% base and per capita increase *STAFF RECOMMENDATION Prior year 2021‐22 2021‐2022 2021-2022 Rate Per Total Dues City dues per Capita Capita Rate 2021-22 Population Base FY20-21 Greenhorn 2 $116 $0.00 0.00$ 116.00 $ 115.00 Lonerock 20 $116 $0.00 0.00$ 116.00 $ 115.00 Shaniko 35 $116 $0.00 0.00$ 116.00 $ 115.00 Granite 40 $116 $0.00 0.00$ 116.00 $ 115.00 Antelope 50 $116 $0.00 0.00$ 116.00 $ 115.00 Prescott 55 $116 $0.00 0.00$ 116.00 $ 115.00 Unity 75 $116 $0.00 0.00$ 116.00 $ 115.00 Monument 130 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 Barlow 135 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 Summerville 135 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 Dayville 155 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 Idanha 155 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 Mitchell 160 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 Spray 160 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 Grass Valley 165 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 Jordan Valley 175 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 Richland 175 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 Adrian 190 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 Long Creek 195 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 Helix 200 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 Seneca 200 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 Detroit 205 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 Elkton 205 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 Sumpter 210 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 Lostine 215 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 Waterloo 235 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 Ukiah 240 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 Lexington 265 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 Westfir 265 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 237.00 Nehalem 285 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 246.68 Rufus 290 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 246.68 Halfway 300 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 259.90 Paisley 300 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 268.71 Imbler 305 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 268.71

Population 1% Base Per Capita increase ‐ FY2021‐22 Dues increase 110 1 of 6 Ione 330 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 290.73 Moro 340 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 295.14 Sodaville 355 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 303.95 Adams 375 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 330.38 Scotts Mills 385 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 334.78 Wheeler 400 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 352.40 Haines 415 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 365.62 Wasco 425 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 374.43 Maupin 435 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 378.83 St Paul 440 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 383.24 Huntington 445 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 392.05 North Powder 445 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 392.05 Bonanza 455 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 400.86 Butte Falls 460 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 405.26 Fossil 475 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 418.48 Mosier 490 $239 $0.00 0.00$ 239.00 $ 414.07 Rivergrove 510 $0 $0.89 453.90$ 453.90 $ 444.91 Mt Vernon 525 $0 $0.89 467.25$ 467.25 $ 462.53 Gates 540 $0 $0.89 480.60$ 480.60 $ 427.29 Cove 555 $0 $0.89 493.95$ 493.95 $ 484.55 Johnson City 565 $0 $0.89 502.85$ 502.85 $ 497.77 Arlington 615 $0 $0.89 547.35$ 547.35 $ 541.82 Dufur 625 $0 $0.89 556.25$ 556.25 $ 550.63 Monroe 640 $0 $0.89 569.60$ 569.60 $ 563.84 Manzanita 645 $0 $0.89 574.05$ 574.05 $ 568.25 Gaston 655 $0 $0.89 582.95$ 582.95 $ 577.06 Condon 685 $0 $0.89 609.65$ 609.65 $ 607.89 Weston 690 $0 $0.89 614.10$ 614.10 $ 607.89 Powers 700 $0 $0.89 623.00$ 623.00 $ 612.30 Canyon City 705 $0 $0.89 627.45$ 627.45 $ 621.11 Echo 720 $0 $0.89 640.80$ 640.80 $ 625.51 Chiloquin 740 $0 $0.89 658.60$ 658.60 $ 651.94 Maywood Park 750 $0 $0.89 667.50$ 667.50 $ 660.75 Yachats 780 $0 $0.89 694.20$ 694.20 $ 669.56 Malin 820 $0 $0.89 729.80$ 729.80 $ 722.42 Metolius 825 $0 $0.89 734.25$ 734.25 $ 726.83 Garibaldi 830 $0 $0.89 738.70$ 738.70 $ 731.23 Wallowa 840 $0 $0.89 747.60$ 747.60 $ 740.04 Merrill 845 $0 $0.89 752.05$ 752.05 $ 744.45 Glendale 860 $0 $0.89 765.40$ 765.40 $ 757.66 Prairie City 915 $0 $0.89 814.35$ 814.35 $ 806.12 Scio 940 $0 $0.89 836.60$ 836.60 $ 819.33 Halsey 945 $0 $0.89 841.05$ 841.05 $ 828.14 Oakland 965 $0 $0.89 858.85$ 858.85 $ 850.17 Aurora 985 $0 $0.89 876.65$ 876.65 $ 867.79 Donald 995 $0 $0.89 885.55$ 885.55 $ 872.19 Falls City 1,000 $0 $0.89 890.00$ 890.00 $ 863.38

Population 1% Base Per Capita increase ‐ FY2021‐22 Dues increase 2 of 6 111 Yoncalla 1,075 $0 $0.89 956.75$ 956.75 $ 942.67 Lowell 1,090 $0 $0.89 970.10$ 970.10 $ 960.29 Adair Village 1,105 $0 $0.89 983.45$ 983.45 $ 792.90 Yamhill 1,110 $0 $0.89 987.90$ 987.90 $ 973.51 Joseph 1,120 $0 $0.89 996.80$ 996.80 $ 986.72 Island City 1,140 $0 $0.89 1,014.60$ 1,014.60 $ 1,004.34 Port Orford 1,150 $0 $0.89 1,023.50$ 1,023.50 $ 1,013.15 Drain 1,165 $0 $0.89 1,036.85$ 1,036.85 $ 1,026.37 Athena 1,170 $0 $0.89 1,041.30$ 1,041.30 $ 1,030.77 Riddle 1,190 $0 $0.89 1,059.10$ 1,059.10 $ 1,048.39 Lyons 1,200 $0 $0.89 1,068.00$ 1,068.00 $ 1,057.20 Siletz 1,235 $0 $0.89 1,099.15$ 1,099.15 $ 1,088.04 Gold Hill 1,240 $0 $0.89 1,103.60$ 1,103.60 $ 1,074.82 Tangent 1,265 $0 $0.89 1,125.85$ 1,125.85 $ 1,110.06 Heppner 1,295 $0 $0.89 1,152.55$ 1,152.55 $ 1,140.90 Bay City 1,355 $0 $0.89 1,205.95$ 1,205.95 $ 1,189.35 Dunes City 1,365 $0 $0.89 1,214.85$ 1,214.85 $ 1,184.95 Coburg 1,375 $0 $0.89 1,223.75$ 1,223.75 $ 1,140.90 Rockaway Beach 1,390 $0 $0.89 1,237.10$ 1,237.10 $ 1,202.57 Cascade Locks 1,420 $0 $0.89 1,263.80$ 1,263.80 $ 1,211.38 Depoe Bay 1,450 $0 $0.89 1,290.50$ 1,290.50 $ 1,273.05 Pilot Rock 1,505 $0 $0.89 1,339.45$ 1,339.45 $ 1,325.91 Gearhart 1,545 $0 $0.89 1,375.05$ 1,375.05 $ 1,343.53 Hines 1,565 $0 $0.89 1,392.85$ 1,392.85 $ 1,378.77 Culver 1,570 $0 $0.89 1,397.30$ 1,397.30 $ 1,374.36 Amity 1,705 $0 $0.89 1,517.45$ 1,517.45 $ 1,471.27 Brownsville 1,730 $0 $0.89 1,539.70$ 1,539.70 $ 1,515.32 Elgin 1,730 $0 $0.89 1,539.70$ 1,539.70 $ 1,524.13 Cannon Beach 1,740 $0 $0.89 1,548.60$ 1,548.60 $ 1,524.13 John Day 1,750 $0 $0.89 1,557.50$ 1,557.50 $ 1,528.54 Lakeside 1,750 $0 $0.89 1,557.50$ 1,557.50 $ 1,541.75 Clatskanie 1,795 $0 $0.89 1,597.55$ 1,597.55 $ 1,563.78 Vale 1,875 $0 $0.89 1,668.75$ 1,668.75 $ 1,651.88 Durham 1,885 $0 $0.89 1,677.65$ 1,677.65 $ 1,660.69 Mill City 1,915 $0 $0.89 1,704.35$ 1,704.35 $ 1,656.28 Rainier 1,940 $0 $0.89 1,726.60$ 1,726.60 $ 1,709.14 Cave Junction 1,975 $0 $0.89 1,757.75$ 1,757.75 $ 1,739.98 Banks 1,980 $0 $0.89 1,762.20$ 1,762.20 $ 1,643.07 Columbia City 1,980 $0 $0.89 1,762.20$ 1,762.20 $ 1,748.79 Canyonville 1,985 $0 $0.89 1,766.65$ 1,766.65 $ 1,739.98 Enterprise 1,995 $0 $0.89 1,775.55$ 1,775.55 $ 1,748.79 La Pine 2,005 $0 $0.89 1,784.45$ 1,784.45 $ 1,673.90 Irrigon 2,040 $0 $0.89 1,815.60$ 1,815.60 $ 1,788.43 Vernonia 2,110 $0 $0.89 1,877.90$ 1,877.90 $ 1,845.70 Waldport 2,125 $0 $0.89 1,891.25$ 1,891.25 $ 1,858.91 Union 2,175 $0 $0.89 1,935.75$ 1,935.75 $ 1,911.77 Rogue River 2,250 $0 $0.89 2,002.50$ 2,002.50 $ 1,969.04

Population 1% Base Per Capita increase ‐ FY2021‐22 Dues increase 3 of 6 112 Willamina 2,270 $0 $0.89 2,020.30$ 2,020.30 $ 1,982.25 Stanfield 2,280 $0 $0.89 2,029.20$ 2,029.20 $ 1,977.85 Carlton 2,290 $0 $0.89 2,038.10$ 2,038.10 $ 1,999.87 Lakeview 2,300 $0 $0.89 2,047.00$ 2,047.00 $ 2,026.30 Gold Beach 2,310 $0 $0.89 2,055.90$ 2,055.90 $ 2,017.49 Turner 2,410 $0 $0.89 2,144.90$ 2,144.90 $ 1,951.42 Myrtle Point 2,535 $0 $0.89 2,256.15$ 2,256.15 $ 2,233.34 Gervais 2,620 $0 $0.89 2,331.80$ 2,331.80 $ 2,303.82 Dayton 2,745 $0 $0.89 2,443.05$ 2,443.05 $ 2,413.94 Burns 2,835 $0 $0.89 2,523.15$ 2,523.15 $ 2,497.64 Millersburg 2,850 $0 $0.89 2,536.50$ 2,536.50 $ 2,303.82 Jacksonville 3,040 $0 $0.89 2,705.60$ 2,705.60 $ 2,656.22 Sublimity 3,050 $0 $0.89 2,714.50$ 2,714.50 $ 2,616.57 Shady Cove 3,140 $0 $0.89 2,794.60$ 2,794.60 $ 2,770.75 Sisters 3,220 $0 $0.89 2,865.80$ 2,865.80 $ 2,629.79 Bandon 3,225 $0 $0.89 2,870.25$ 2,870.25 $ 2,836.82 Jefferson 3,280 $0 $0.89 2,919.20$ 2,919.20 $ 2,876.47 Dundee 3,285 $0 $0.89 2,923.65$ 2,923.65 $ 2,850.04 Oakridge 3,310 $0 $0.89 2,945.90$ 2,945.90 $ 2,911.71 Hubbard 3,315 $0 $0.89 2,950.35$ 2,950.35 $ 2,911.71 Nyssa 3,340 $0 $0.89 2,972.60$ 2,972.60 $ 2,924.92 North Plains 3,360 $0 $0.89 2,990.40$ 2,990.40 $ 2,894.09 Mt Angel 3,520 $0 $0.89 3,132.80$ 3,132.80 $ 3,052.67 Toledo 3,520 $0 $0.89 3,132.80$ 3,132.80 $ 3,074.69 Myrtle Creek 3,600 $0 $0.89 3,204.00$ 3,204.00 $ 3,074.69 Harrisburg 3,695 $0 $0.89 3,288.55$ 3,288.55 $ 3,242.08 Coquille 3,920 $0 $0.89 3,488.80$ 3,488.80 $ 3,453.52 Estacada 4,035 $0 $0.89 3,591.15$ 3,591.15 $ 3,281.73 Lafayette 4,155 $0 $0.89 3,697.95$ 3,697.95 $ 3,634.13 Wood Village 4,190 $0 $0.89 3,729.10$ 3,729.10 $ 3,576.86 Aumsville 4,215 $0 $0.89 3,751.35$ 3,751.35 $ 3,638.53 Reedsport 4,230 $0 $0.89 3,764.70$ 3,764.70 $ 3,713.42 King City 4,280 $0 $0.89 3,809.20$ 3,809.20 $ 3,691.39 Boardman 4,580 $0 $0.89 4,076.20$ 4,076.20 $ 3,968.91 Phoenix 4,660 $0 $0.89 4,147.40$ 4,147.40 $ 4,096.65 Veneta 4,845 $0 $0.89 4,312.05$ 4,312.05 $ 4,228.80 Tillamook 4,930 $0 $0.89 4,387.70$ 4,387.70 $ 4,347.74 Warrenton 5,350 $4,030 $0.74 259.00$ 4,289.00 $ 4,225.20 Philomath 5,370 $4,030 $0.74 273.80$ 4,303.80 $ 4,316.90 Creswell 5,585 $4,030 $0.74 432.90$ 4,462.90 $ 4,364.85 Winston 5,620 $4,030 $0.74 458.80$ 4,488.80 $ 4,394.25 Sheridan 6,100 $4,030 $0.74 814.00$ 4,844.00 $ 4,875.68 Junction City 6,200 $4,030 $0.74 888.00$ 4,918.00 $ 4,849.95 Madras 6,470 $4,030 $0.74 1,087.80$ 5,117.80 $ 5,004.30 Talent 6,530 $4,030 $0.74 1,132.20$ 5,162.20 $ 5,066.78 Seaside 6,565 $4,030 $0.74 1,158.10$ 5,188.10 $ 5,154.98 Brookings 6,670 $4,030 $0.74 1,235.80$ 5,265.80 $ 5,199.08

Population 1% Base Per Capita increase ‐ FY2021‐22 Dues increase 113 4 of 6 Milton-Freewater 7,210 $4,030 $0.74 1,635.40$ 5,665.40 $ 5,566.58 Scappoose 7,360 $4,030 $0.74 1,746.40$ 5,776.40 $ 5,658.45 Umatilla 7,605 $4,030 $0.74 1,927.70$ 5,957.70 $ 5,805.45 Stayton 7,880 $4,030 $0.74 2,131.20$ 6,161.20 $ 6,099.45 Sutherlin 8,260 $4,030 $0.74 2,412.40$ 6,442.40 $ 6,367.73 Hood River 8,565 $4,030 $0.74 2,638.10$ 6,668.10 $ 6,419.18 Lincoln City 8,865 $4,030 $0.74 2,860.10$ 6,890.10 $ 6,779.33 Florence 8,925 $4,030 $0.74 2,904.50$ 6,934.50 $ 6,819.75 Eagle Point 9,375 $4,030 $0.74 3,237.50$ 7,267.50 $ 7,121.10 Sweet Home 9,415 $4,030 $0.74 3,267.10$ 7,297.10 $ 7,179.90 Fairview 9,440 $4,030 $0.74 3,285.60$ 7,315.60 $ 6,933.68 Astoria 9,675 $4,030 $0.74 3,459.50$ 7,489.50 $ 7,437.15 Independence 9,675 $4,030 $0.74 3,459.50$ 7,489.50 $ 7,319.55 Molalla 9,910 $4,030 $0.74 3,633.40$ 7,663.40 $ 7,580.48 Monmouth 9,940 $4,030 $0.74 3,655.60$ 7,685.60 $ 7,606.20 North Bend 9,975 $4,030 $0.74 3,681.50$ 7,711.50 $ 7,609.88 Baker City 10,010 $4,030 $0.74 3,707.40$ 7,737.40 $ 7,639.28 Cottage Grove 10,155 $4,030 $0.74 3,814.70$ 7,844.70 $ 7,767.90 Prineville 10,355 $4,030 $0.74 3,962.70$ 7,992.70 $ 7,826.70 Newport 10,400 $4,030 $0.74 3,996.00$ 8,026.00 $ 7,874.48 Silverton 10,520 $4,030 $0.74 4,084.80$ 8,114.80 $ 7,944.30 Ontario 11,515 $4,030 $0.74 4,821.10$ 8,851.10 $ 8,756.48 Sandy 11,650 $4,030 $0.74 4,921.00$ 8,951.00 $ 8,455.13 Gladstone 11,945 $4,030 $0.74 5,139.30$ 9,169.30 $ 9,065.18 Cornelius 12,635 $4,030 $0.74 5,649.90$ 9,679.90 $ 9,300.38 La Grande 13,460 $4,030 $0.74 6,260.40$ 10,290.40 $ 10,083.15 St Helens 13,915 $4,030 $0.74 6,597.10$ 10,627.10 $ 10,171.35 The Dalles 14,845 $4,030 $0.74 7,285.30$ 11,315.30 $ 11,207.70 Troutdale 16,180 $4,030 $0.74 8,273.20$ 12,303.20 $ 12,210.98 Dallas 16,555 $4,030 $0.74 8,550.70$ 12,580.70 $ 12,266.10 Coos Bay 16,810 $4,030 $0.74 8,739.40$ 12,769.40 $ 12,589.50 Pendleton 17,025 $4,030 $0.74 8,898.50$ 12,928.50 $ 12,824.70 Canby 17,210 $4,030 $0.74 9,035.40$ 13,065.40 $ 12,773.25 Lebanon 17,335 $4,030 $0.74 9,127.90$ 13,157.90 $ 12,909.23 Central Point 18,755 $4,030 $0.74 10,178.70$ 14,208.70 $ 13,813.28 Hermiston 18,775 $4,030 $0.74 10,193.50$ 14,223.50 $ 13,850.03 Sherwood 19,885 $4,030 $0.74 11,014.90$ 15,044.90 $ 14,717.33 Milwaukie 20,600 $4,030 $0.74 11,544.00$ 15,574.00 $ 15,408.23 Ashland 21,105 $4,030 $0.74 11,917.70$ 15,947.70 $ 15,720.60 Klamath Falls 21,940 $4,030 $0.74 12,535.60$ 16,565.60 $ 16,485.00 Happy Valley 22,400 $4,030 $0.74 12,876.00$ 16,906.00 $ 16,264.50 Newberg 24,120 $4,030 $0.74 14,148.80$ 18,178.80 $ 17,988.08 Roseburg 24,915 $4,030 $0.74 14,737.10$ 18,767.10 $ 18,609.15 Woodburn 25,185 $4,030 $0.74 14,936.90$ 18,966.90 $ 18,789.23 Forest Grove 25,435 $4,030 $0.74 15,121.90$ 19,151.90 $ 18,822.30 Wilsonville 25,915 $4,030 $0.74 15,477.10$ 19,507.10 $ 19,156.73 West Linn 25,975 $4,030 $0.74 15,521.50$ 19,551.50 $ 19,355.18

Population 1% Base Per Capita increase ‐ FY2021‐22 Dues increase 114 5 of 6 Tualatin 27,195 $4,030 $0.74 16,424.30$ 20,454.30 $ 20,259.23 Redmond 32,215 $4,030 $0.74 20,139.10$ 24,169.10 $ 22,806.00 McMinnville 34,615 $4,030 $0.74 21,915.10$ 25,945.10 $ 25,253.55 Oregon City 35,885 $4,030 $0.74 22,854.90$ 26,884.90 $ 26,458.95 Grants Pass 37,725 $4,030 $0.74 24,216.50$ 28,246.50 $ 27,866.48 Keizer 38,585 $4,030 $0.74 24,852.90$ 28,882.90 $ 28,671.30 Lake Oswego 39,480 $4,030 $0.74 25,515.20$ 29,545.20 $ 29,064.53 Tigard 54,520 $4,030 $0.74 36,644.80$ 40,674.80 $ 39,600.75 Albany 54,935 $4,030 $0.74 36,951.90$ 40,981.90 $ 40,093.20 Corvallis 59,730 $4,030 $0.74 40,500.20$ 44,530.20 $ 43,595.48 Springfield 61,535 $4,030 $0.74 41,835.90$ 45,865.90 $ 45,410.93 Medford 83,115 $4,030 $0.74 57,805.10$ 61,835.10 $ 60,075.78 Bend 92,840 $4,030 $0.74 65,001.60$ 69,031.60 $ 67,482.98 Beaverton 99,225 $4,030 $0.74 69,726.50$ 73,756.50 $ 72,532.43 Hillsboro 104,670 $72,655 $0.46 2,148.20$ 74,803.20 $ 73,477.00 Gresham 112,660 $72,655 $0.46 5,823.60$ 78,478.60 $ 77,368.60 Salem 168,970 $72,655 $0.46 31,726.20$ 104,381.20 $ 102,940.00 Eugene 173,620 $72,655 $0.46 33,865.20$ 106,520.20 $ 104,692.60 Portland 664,605 $181,225 $0.40 65,842.00$ 247,067.00 $ 242,271.00

Grand Total 2,952,102 $769,064 $1,179,288 $1,948,352 $1,913,522

Population 1% Base Per Capita increase ‐ FY2021‐22 Dues increase 6 of 6 115 Rate Per Base Dues Calculation Capita 115 0‐99 237 100‐299 0.88 Rate X Population 300‐4999 3,990 0.74 Base + Rate X Pop over 5,000 LOC Membership Dues 71,936 0.46 Base + Rate X Pop over 100,000 FY2021-22 179,431 0.40 Base + Rate X Pop over 500,000 *Sorted by Population 0% base and per capita increase Prior year 2021‐22 2021‐2022 2021-2022 Rate Per Total Dues City dues per Capita Capita Rate 2021-22 Population Base FY20-21 Greenhorn 2 $115.00 0.0000 0.00$ 115.00 $ 115.00 Lonerock 20 $115.00 0.0000 0.00$ 115.00 $ 115.00 Shaniko 35 $115.00 0.0000 0.00$ 115.00 $ 115.00 Granite 40 $115.00 0.0000 0.00$ 115.00 $ 115.00 Antelope 50 $115.00 0.0000 0.00$ 115.00 $ 115.00 Prescott 55 $115.00 0.0000 0.00$ 115.00 $ 115.00 Unity 75 $115.00 0.0000 0.00$ 115.00 $ 115.00 Monument 130 $237.00 0.0000 0.00$ 237.00 $ 237.00 Barlow 135 $237.00 0.0000 0.00$ 237.00 $ 237.00 Summerville 135 $237.00 0.0000 0.00$ 237.00 $ 237.00 Dayville 155 $237.00 0.0000 0.00$ 237.00 $ 237.00 Idanha 155 $237.00 0.0000 0.00$ 237.00 $ 237.00 Mitchell 160 $237.00 0.0000 0.00$ 237.00 $ 237.00 Spray 160 $237.00 0.0000 0.00$ 237.00 $ 237.00 Grass Valley 165 $237.00 0.0000 0.00$ 237.00 $ 237.00 Jordan Valley 175 $237.00 0.0000 0.00$ 237.00 $ 237.00 Richland 175 $237.00 0.0000 0.00$ 237.00 $ 237.00 Adrian 190 $237.00 0.0000 0.00$ 237.00 $ 237.00 Long Creek 195 $237.00 0.0000 0.00$ 237.00 $ 237.00 Helix 200 $237.00 0.0000 0.00$ 237.00 $ 237.00 Seneca 200 $237.00 0.0000 0.00$ 237.00 $ 237.00 Detroit 205 $237.00 0.0000 0.00$ 237.00 $ 237.00 Elkton 205 $237.00 0.0000 0.00$ 237.00 $ 237.00 Sumpter 210 $237.00 0.0000 0.00$ 237.00 $ 237.00 Lostine 215 $237.00 0.0000 0.00$ 237.00 $ 237.00 Waterloo 235 $237.00 0.0000 0.00$ 237.00 $ 237.00 Ukiah 240 $237.00 0.0000 0.00$ 237.00 $ 237.00 Lexington 265 $237.00 0.0000 0.00$ 237.00 $ 237.00 Westfir 265 $237.00 0.0000 0.00$ 237.00 $ 237.00 Nehalem 285 $0.00 0.8810 251.09$ 251.09 $ 246.68 Rufus 290 $0.00 0.8810 255.49$ 255.49 $ 246.68 Halfway 300 $0.00 0.8810 264.30$ 264.30 $ 259.90 Paisley 300 $0.00 0.8810 264.30$ 264.30 $ 268.71 Imbler 305 $0.00 0.8810 268.71$ 268.71 $ 268.71

Population 0% Base Per Capita increase ‐ FY2021‐22 Dues increase 116 1 of 6 Ione 330 $0.00 0.8810 290.73$ 290.73 $ 290.73 Moro 340 $0.00 0.8810 299.54$ 299.54 $ 295.14 Sodaville 355 $0.00 0.8810 312.76$ 312.76 $ 303.95 Adams 375 $0.00 0.8810 330.38$ 330.38 $ 330.38 Scotts Mills 385 $0.00 0.8810 339.19$ 339.19 $ 334.78 Wheeler 400 $0.00 0.8810 352.40$ 352.40 $ 352.40 Haines 415 $0.00 0.8810 365.62$ 365.62 $ 365.62 Wasco 425 $0.00 0.8810 374.43$ 374.43 $ 374.43 Maupin 435 $0.00 0.8810 383.24$ 383.24 $ 378.83 St Paul 440 $0.00 0.8810 387.64$ 387.64 $ 383.24 Huntington 445 $0.00 0.8810 392.05$ 392.05 $ 392.05 North Powder 445 $0.00 0.8810 392.05$ 392.05 $ 392.05 Bonanza 455 $0.00 0.8810 400.86$ 400.86 $ 400.86 Butte Falls 460 $0.00 0.8810 405.26$ 405.26 $ 405.26 Fossil 475 $0.00 0.8810 418.48$ 418.48 $ 418.48 Mosier 490 $0.00 0.8810 431.69$ 431.69 $ 414.07 Rivergrove 510 $0.00 0.8810 449.31$ 449.31 $ 444.91 Mt Vernon 525 $0.00 0.8810 462.53$ 462.53 $ 462.53 Gates 540 $0.00 0.8810 475.74$ 475.74 $ 427.29 Cove 555 $0.00 0.8810 488.96$ 488.96 $ 484.55 Johnson City 565 $0.00 0.8810 497.77$ 497.77 $ 497.77 Arlington 615 $0.00 0.8810 541.82$ 541.82 $ 541.82 Dufur 625 $0.00 0.8810 550.63$ 550.63 $ 550.63 Monroe 640 $0.00 0.8810 563.84$ 563.84 $ 563.84 Manzanita 645 $0.00 0.8810 568.25$ 568.25 $ 568.25 Gaston 655 $0.00 0.8810 577.06$ 577.06 $ 577.06 Condon 685 $0.00 0.8810 603.49$ 603.49 $ 607.89 Weston 690 $0.00 0.8810 607.89$ 607.89 $ 607.89 Powers 700 $0.00 0.8810 616.70$ 616.70 $ 612.30 Canyon City 705 $0.00 0.8810 621.11$ 621.11 $ 621.11 Echo 720 $0.00 0.8810 634.32$ 634.32 $ 625.51 Chiloquin 740 $0.00 0.8810 651.94$ 651.94 $ 651.94 Maywood Park 750 $0.00 0.8810 660.75$ 660.75 $ 660.75 Yachats 780 $0.00 0.8810 687.18$ 687.18 $ 669.56 Malin 820 $0.00 0.8810 722.42$ 722.42 $ 722.42 Metolius 825 $0.00 0.8810 726.83$ 726.83 $ 726.83 Garibaldi 830 $0.00 0.8810 731.23$ 731.23 $ 731.23 Wallowa 840 $0.00 0.8810 740.04$ 740.04 $ 740.04 Merrill 845 $0.00 0.8810 744.45$ 744.45 $ 744.45 Glendale 860 $0.00 0.8810 757.66$ 757.66 $ 757.66 Prairie City 915 $0.00 0.8810 806.12$ 806.12 $ 806.12 Scio 940 $0.00 0.8810 828.14$ 828.14 $ 819.33 Halsey 945 $0.00 0.8810 832.55$ 832.55 $ 828.14 Oakland 965 $0.00 0.8810 850.17$ 850.17 $ 850.17 Aurora 985 $0.00 0.8810 867.79$ 867.79 $ 867.79 Donald 995 $0.00 0.8810 876.60$ 876.60 $ 872.19 Falls City 1,000 $0.00 0.8810 881.00$ 881.00 $ 863.38

Population 0% Base Per Capita increase ‐ FY2021‐22 Dues increase 2 of 6 117 Yoncalla 1,075 $0.00 0.8810 947.08$ 947.08 $ 942.67 Lowell 1,090 $0.00 0.8810 960.29$ 960.29 $ 960.29 Adair Village 1,105 $0.00 0.8810 973.51$ 973.51 $ 792.90 Yamhill 1,110 $0.00 0.8810 977.91$ 977.91 $ 973.51 Joseph 1,120 $0.00 0.8810 986.72$ 986.72 $ 986.72 Island City 1,140 $0.00 0.8810 1,004.34$ 1,004.34 $ 1,004.34 Port Orford 1,150 $0.00 0.8810 1,013.15$ 1,013.15 $ 1,013.15 Drain 1,165 $0.00 0.8810 1,026.37$ 1,026.37 $ 1,026.37 Athena 1,170 $0.00 0.8810 1,030.77$ 1,030.77 $ 1,030.77 Riddle 1,190 $0.00 0.8810 1,048.39$ 1,048.39 $ 1,048.39 Lyons 1,200 $0.00 0.8810 1,057.20$ 1,057.20 $ 1,057.20 Siletz 1,235 $0.00 0.8810 1,088.04$ 1,088.04 $ 1,088.04 Gold Hill 1,240 $0.00 0.8810 1,092.44$ 1,092.44 $ 1,074.82 Tangent 1,265 $0.00 0.8810 1,114.47$ 1,114.47 $ 1,110.06 Heppner 1,295 $0.00 0.8810 1,140.90$ 1,140.90 $ 1,140.90 Bay City 1,355 $0.00 0.8810 1,193.76$ 1,193.76 $ 1,189.35 Dunes City 1,365 $0.00 0.8810 1,202.57$ 1,202.57 $ 1,184.95 Coburg 1,375 $0.00 0.8810 1,211.38$ 1,211.38 $ 1,140.90 Rockaway Beach 1,390 $0.00 0.8810 1,224.59$ 1,224.59 $ 1,202.57 Cascade Locks 1,420 $0.00 0.8810 1,251.02$ 1,251.02 $ 1,211.38 Depoe Bay 1,450 $0.00 0.8810 1,277.45$ 1,277.45 $ 1,273.05 Pilot Rock 1,505 $0.00 0.8810 1,325.91$ 1,325.91 $ 1,325.91 Gearhart 1,545 $0.00 0.8810 1,361.15$ 1,361.15 $ 1,343.53 Hines 1,565 $0.00 0.8810 1,378.77$ 1,378.77 $ 1,378.77 Culver 1,570 $0.00 0.8810 1,383.17$ 1,383.17 $ 1,374.36 Amity 1,705 $0.00 0.8810 1,502.11$ 1,502.11 $ 1,471.27 Brownsville 1,730 $0.00 0.8810 1,524.13$ 1,524.13 $ 1,515.32 Elgin 1,730 $0.00 0.8810 1,524.13$ 1,524.13 $ 1,524.13 Cannon Beach 1,740 $0.00 0.8810 1,532.94$ 1,532.94 $ 1,524.13 John Day 1,750 $0.00 0.8810 1,541.75$ 1,541.75 $ 1,528.54 Lakeside 1,750 $0.00 0.8810 1,541.75$ 1,541.75 $ 1,541.75 Clatskanie 1,795 $0.00 0.8810 1,581.40$ 1,581.40 $ 1,563.78 Vale 1,875 $0.00 0.8810 1,651.88$ 1,651.88 $ 1,651.88 Durham 1,885 $0.00 0.8810 1,660.69$ 1,660.69 $ 1,660.69 Mill City 1,915 $0.00 0.8810 1,687.12$ 1,687.12 $ 1,656.28 Rainier 1,940 $0.00 0.8810 1,709.14$ 1,709.14 $ 1,709.14 Cave Junction 1,975 $0.00 0.8810 1,739.98$ 1,739.98 $ 1,739.98 Banks 1,980 $0.00 0.8810 1,744.38$ 1,744.38 $ 1,643.07 Columbia City 1,980 $0.00 0.8810 1,744.38$ 1,744.38 $ 1,748.79 Canyonville 1,985 $0.00 0.8810 1,748.79$ 1,748.79 $ 1,739.98 Enterprise 1,995 $0.00 0.8810 1,757.60$ 1,757.60 $ 1,748.79 La Pine 2,005 $0.00 0.8810 1,766.41$ 1,766.41 $ 1,673.90 Irrigon 2,040 $0.00 0.8810 1,797.24$ 1,797.24 $ 1,788.43 Vernonia 2,110 $0.00 0.8810 1,858.91$ 1,858.91 $ 1,845.70 Waldport 2,125 $0.00 0.8810 1,872.13$ 1,872.13 $ 1,858.91 Union 2,175 $0.00 0.8810 1,916.18$ 1,916.18 $ 1,911.77 Rogue River 2,250 $0.00 0.8810 1,982.25$ 1,982.25 $ 1,969.04

Population 0% Base Per Capita increase ‐ FY2021‐22 Dues increase 3 of 6 118 Willamina 2,270 $0.00 0.8810 1,999.87$ 1,999.87 $ 1,982.25 Stanfield 2,280 $0.00 0.8810 2,008.68$ 2,008.68 $ 1,977.85 Carlton 2,290 $0.00 0.8810 2,017.49$ 2,017.49 $ 1,999.87 Lakeview 2,300 $0.00 0.8810 2,026.30$ 2,026.30 $ 2,026.30 Gold Beach 2,310 $0.00 0.8810 2,035.11$ 2,035.11 $ 2,017.49 Turner 2,410 $0.00 0.8810 2,123.21$ 2,123.21 $ 1,951.42 Myrtle Point 2,535 $0.00 0.8810 2,233.34$ 2,233.34 $ 2,233.34 Gervais 2,620 $0.00 0.8810 2,308.22$ 2,308.22 $ 2,303.82 Dayton 2,745 $0.00 0.8810 2,418.35$ 2,418.35 $ 2,413.94 Burns 2,835 $0.00 0.8810 2,497.64$ 2,497.64 $ 2,497.64 Millersburg 2,850 $0.00 0.8810 2,510.85$ 2,510.85 $ 2,303.82 Jacksonville 3,040 $0.00 0.8810 2,678.24$ 2,678.24 $ 2,656.22 Sublimity 3,050 $0.00 0.8810 2,687.05$ 2,687.05 $ 2,616.57 Shady Cove 3,140 $0.00 0.8810 2,766.34$ 2,766.34 $ 2,770.75 Sisters 3,220 $0.00 0.8810 2,836.82$ 2,836.82 $ 2,629.79 Bandon 3,225 $0.00 0.8810 2,841.23$ 2,841.23 $ 2,836.82 Jefferson 3,280 $0.00 0.8810 2,889.68$ 2,889.68 $ 2,876.47 Dundee 3,285 $0.00 0.8810 2,894.09$ 2,894.09 $ 2,850.04 Oakridge 3,310 $0.00 0.8810 2,916.11$ 2,916.11 $ 2,911.71 Hubbard 3,315 $0.00 0.8810 2,920.52$ 2,920.52 $ 2,911.71 Nyssa 3,340 $0.00 0.8810 2,942.54$ 2,942.54 $ 2,924.92 North Plains 3,360 $0.00 0.8810 2,960.16$ 2,960.16 $ 2,894.09 Mt Angel 3,520 $0.00 0.8810 3,101.12$ 3,101.12 $ 3,052.67 Toledo 3,520 $0.00 0.8810 3,101.12$ 3,101.12 $ 3,074.69 Myrtle Creek 3,600 $0.00 0.8810 3,171.60$ 3,171.60 $ 3,074.69 Harrisburg 3,695 $0.00 0.8810 3,255.30$ 3,255.30 $ 3,242.08 Coquille 3,920 $0.00 0.8810 3,453.52$ 3,453.52 $ 3,453.52 Estacada 4,035 $0.00 0.8810 3,554.84$ 3,554.84 $ 3,281.73 Lafayette 4,155 $0.00 0.8810 3,660.56$ 3,660.56 $ 3,634.13 Wood Village 4,190 $0.00 0.8810 3,691.39$ 3,691.39 $ 3,576.86 Aumsville 4,215 $0.00 0.8810 3,713.42$ 3,713.42 $ 3,638.53 Reedsport 4,230 $0.00 0.8810 3,726.63$ 3,726.63 $ 3,713.42 King City 4,280 $0.00 0.8810 3,770.68$ 3,770.68 $ 3,691.39 Boardman 4,580 $0.00 0.8810 4,034.98$ 4,034.98 $ 3,968.91 Phoenix 4,660 $0.00 0.8810 4,105.46$ 4,105.46 $ 4,096.65 Veneta 4,845 $0.00 0.8810 4,268.45$ 4,268.45 $ 4,228.80 Tillamook 4,930 $0.00 0.8810 4,343.33$ 4,343.33 $ 4,347.74 Warrenton 5,350 $3,990.00 0.7350 257.25$ 4,247.25 $ 4,225.20 Philomath 5,370 $3,990.00 0.7350 271.95$ 4,261.95 $ 4,316.90 Creswell 5,585 $3,990.00 0.7350 429.98$ 4,419.98 $ 4,364.85 Winston 5,620 $3,990.00 0.7350 455.70$ 4,445.70 $ 4,394.25 Sheridan 6,100 $3,990.00 0.7350 808.50$ 4,798.50 $ 4,875.68 Junction City 6,200 $3,990.00 0.7350 882.00$ 4,872.00 $ 4,849.95 Madras 6,470 $3,990.00 0.7350 1,080.45$ 5,070.45 $ 5,004.30 Talent 6,530 $3,990.00 0.7350 1,124.55$ 5,114.55 $ 5,066.78 Seaside 6,565 $3,990.00 0.7350 1,150.28$ 5,140.28 $ 5,154.98 Brookings 6,670 $3,990.00 0.7350 1,227.45$ 5,217.45 $ 5,199.08

Population 0% Base Per Capita increase ‐ FY2021‐22 Dues increase 119 4 of 6 Milton-Freewater 7,210 $3,990.00 0.7350 1,624.35$ 5,614.35 $ 5,566.58 Scappoose 7,360 $3,990.00 0.7350 1,734.60$ 5,724.60 $ 5,658.45 Umatilla 7,605 $3,990.00 0.7350 1,914.68$ 5,904.68 $ 5,805.45 Stayton 7,880 $3,990.00 0.7350 2,116.80$ 6,106.80 $ 6,099.45 Sutherlin 8,260 $3,990.00 0.7350 2,396.10$ 6,386.10 $ 6,367.73 Hood River 8,565 $3,990.00 0.7350 2,620.28$ 6,610.28 $ 6,419.18 Lincoln City 8,865 $3,990.00 0.7350 2,840.78$ 6,830.78 $ 6,779.33 Florence 8,925 $3,990.00 0.7350 2,884.88$ 6,874.88 $ 6,819.75 Eagle Point 9,375 $3,990.00 0.7350 3,215.63$ 7,205.63 $ 7,121.10 Sweet Home 9,415 $3,990.00 0.7350 3,245.03$ 7,235.03 $ 7,179.90 Fairview 9,440 $3,990.00 0.7350 3,263.40$ 7,253.40 $ 6,933.68 Astoria 9,675 $3,990.00 0.7350 3,436.13$ 7,426.13 $ 7,437.15 Independence 9,675 $3,990.00 0.7350 3,436.13$ 7,426.13 $ 7,319.55 Molalla 9,910 $3,990.00 0.7350 3,608.85$ 7,598.85 $ 7,580.48 Monmouth 9,940 $3,990.00 0.7350 3,630.90$ 7,620.90 $ 7,606.20 North Bend 9,975 $3,990.00 0.7350 3,656.63$ 7,646.63 $ 7,609.88 Baker City 10,010 $3,990.00 0.7350 3,682.35$ 7,672.35 $ 7,639.28 Cottage Grove 10,155 $3,990.00 0.7350 3,788.93$ 7,778.93 $ 7,767.90 Prineville 10,355 $3,990.00 0.7350 3,935.93$ 7,925.93 $ 7,826.70 Newport 10,400 $3,990.00 0.7350 3,969.00$ 7,959.00 $ 7,874.48 Silverton 10,520 $3,990.00 0.7350 4,057.20$ 8,047.20 $ 7,944.30 Ontario 11,515 $3,990.00 0.7350 4,788.53$ 8,778.53 $ 8,756.48 Sandy 11,650 $3,990.00 0.7350 4,887.75$ 8,877.75 $ 8,455.13 Gladstone 11,945 $3,990.00 0.7350 5,104.58$ 9,094.58 $ 9,065.18 Cornelius 12,635 $3,990.00 0.7350 5,611.73$ 9,601.73 $ 9,300.38 La Grande 13,460 $3,990.00 0.7350 6,218.10$ 10,208.10 $ 10,083.15 St Helens 13,915 $3,990.00 0.7350 6,552.53$ 10,542.53 $ 10,171.35 The Dalles 14,845 $3,990.00 0.7350 7,236.08$ 11,226.08 $ 11,207.70 Troutdale 16,180 $3,990.00 0.7350 8,217.30$ 12,207.30 $ 12,210.98 Dallas 16,555 $3,990.00 0.7350 8,492.93$ 12,482.93 $ 12,266.10 Coos Bay 16,810 $3,990.00 0.7350 8,680.35$ 12,670.35 $ 12,589.50 Pendleton 17,025 $3,990.00 0.7350 8,838.38$ 12,828.38 $ 12,824.70 Canby 17,210 $3,990.00 0.7350 8,974.35$ 12,964.35 $ 12,773.25 Lebanon 17,335 $3,990.00 0.7350 9,066.23$ 13,056.23 $ 12,909.23 Central Point 18,755 $3,990.00 0.7350 10,109.93$ 14,099.93 $ 13,813.28 Hermiston 18,775 $3,990.00 0.7350 10,124.63$ 14,114.63 $ 13,850.03 Sherwood 19,885 $3,990.00 0.7350 10,940.48$ 14,930.48 $ 14,717.33 Milwaukie 20,600 $3,990.00 0.7350 11,466.00$ 15,456.00 $ 15,408.23 Ashland 21,105 $3,990.00 0.7350 11,837.18$ 15,827.18 $ 15,720.60 Klamath Falls 21,940 $3,990.00 0.7350 12,450.90$ 16,440.90 $ 16,485.00 Happy Valley 22,400 $3,990.00 0.7350 12,789.00$ 16,779.00 $ 16,264.50 Newberg 24,120 $3,990.00 0.7350 14,053.20$ 18,043.20 $ 17,988.08 Roseburg 24,915 $3,990.00 0.7350 14,637.53$ 18,627.53 $ 18,609.15 Woodburn 25,185 $3,990.00 0.7350 14,835.98$ 18,825.98 $ 18,789.23 Forest Grove 25,435 $3,990.00 0.7350 15,019.73$ 19,009.73 $ 18,822.30 Wilsonville 25,915 $3,990.00 0.7350 15,372.53$ 19,362.53 $ 19,156.73 West Linn 25,975 $3,990.00 0.7350 15,416.63$ 19,406.63 $ 19,355.18

Population 0% Base Per Capita increase ‐ FY2021‐22 Dues increase 5 of 6 120 Tualatin 27,195 $3,990.00 0.7350 16,313.33$ 20,303.33 $ 20,259.23 Redmond 32,215 $3,990.00 0.7350 20,003.03$ 23,993.03 $ 22,806.00 McMinnville 34,615 $3,990.00 0.7350 21,767.03$ 25,757.03 $ 25,253.55 Oregon City 35,885 $3,990.00 0.7350 22,700.48$ 26,690.48 $ 26,458.95 Grants Pass 37,725 $3,990.00 0.7350 24,052.88$ 28,042.88 $ 27,866.48 Keizer 38,585 $3,990.00 0.7350 24,684.98$ 28,674.98 $ 28,671.30 Lake Oswego 39,480 $3,990.00 0.7350 25,342.80$ 29,332.80 $ 29,064.53 Tigard 54,520 $3,990.00 0.7350 36,397.20$ 40,387.20 $ 39,600.75 Albany 54,935 $3,990.00 0.7350 36,702.23$ 40,692.23 $ 40,093.20 Corvallis 59,730 $3,990.00 0.7350 40,226.55$ 44,216.55 $ 43,595.48 Springfield 61,535 $3,990.00 0.7350 41,553.23$ 45,543.23 $ 45,410.93 Medford 83,115 $3,990.00 0.7350 57,414.53$ 61,404.53 $ 60,075.78 Bend 92,840 $3,990.00 0.7350 64,562.40$ 68,552.40 $ 67,482.98 Beaverton 99,225 $3,990.00 0.7350 69,255.38$ 73,245.38 $ 72,532.43 Hillsboro 104,670 $71,936.00 0.4600 2,148.20$ 74,084.20 $ 73,477.00 Gresham 112,660 $71,936.00 0.4600 5,823.60$ 77,759.60 $ 77,368.60 Salem 168,970 $71,936.00 0.4600 31,726.20$ 103,662.20 $ 102,940.00 Eugene 173,620 $71,936.00 0.4600 33,865.20$ 105,801.20 $ 104,692.60 Portland 664,605 $179,431.00 0.4000 65,842.00$ 245,273.00 $ 242,271.00

Grand Total 2,952,102 $756,484 $1,178,775 $1,935,259 $1,913,522

Population 0% Base Per Capita increase ‐ FY2021‐22 Dues increase 6 of 6 121 MEMORANDUM To: LOC Board of Directors From: Patty Mulvihill, LOC General Counsel Ariel Nelson, LOC Lobbyist Date: November 17, 2020 Re: Approval of 190 Agreements for Housing Money

During the June 2020 Board meeting, the Board entered into an intergovernmental agreement with the Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) division. This agreement saw OHCS allocate $135,000 in funding to the LOC, so that LOC could disburse funding to coastal communities for housing technical assistance. Deciding how the funds should be disbursed would be the job of a project team comprised of representatives from the LOC, OHCS, Association of Oregon Counties (AOC), and the Department of Land and Conservation Development (DLCD). The contract called for three categories of services:

1. Funding to Coos and Curry County to hire and retain a housing coordinator to help them effectuate and implement their respective housing action plans;

2. Funding to multiple cities and/or counties to hire and retain land use planners to review and update land development codes; and

3. Funding to multiple cities and/or counties to hire independent contract professionals to provide technical assistance regarding housing needs assessments.

The first category, allocating funds to Coos and Curry County so that those counties can hire and retain a housing coordinator to help them effectuate and implement their respective housing action plans, was effectuated by the Board during the August 19, 2020 special Board meeting. During that meeting, the Board authorized the Executive Director to enter into a 190 Agreement with Coos County, wherein LOC provided Coos County twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000).

This Memorandum is regarding the second category of services, allocating funds to multiple cities and/or counties so that they may hire and retain land use planners to review and update land development codes. LOC and its partners notified all cities and counties located along the coast of an opportunity to apply for grant funding to meet the purposes of this second category on September 14th. The notice required any interested county or city to submit a Statement of Interest no later than October 16, 2020. Several jurisdictions submitted Statements of Interest and after carefully reviewing all such Statements, the Project Team has recommended that four entities be allocated funding:

Amount of Grant Jurisdiction Purpose of Grant Allocation Analyze and audit the City’s City of Toledo $5,000 existing housing code to

122 identify barriers to housing; develop a Buildable Lands Inventory and Housing Needs Analysis scope of work; and audit the Housing Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, last updated in 2000, to determine needed updates. Update the land development code to eliminate dual zones and to bring the Special City of Reedsport $7,000 Provisions section of the code in line with current regulations regarding hazard and natural resource zones. Update and revise both its City of Wheeler $14,000 comprehensive plan and development code. Reduce conflicting regulations between Urban Growth Boundaries and land Coos County $14,000 development code standards in various cities’ ordinances located within the County’s jurisdiction.

All four governmental entities will enter into a separate 190 Agreement with the LOC so that they may receive the desired funds. In exchange for receiving these funds, the governmental entities will agree to provide LOC with written reports on their progress towards successfully achieving their code update goals. Written reports must be submitted to LOC in calendar year 2021, during the following months: February, April, May, July, September and December. The governmental entities must also send representative to attend meetings with the Project Team.

To provide the above governmental entities with the described funding, it is recommended that an intergovernmental agreement between each entity be executed.

Proposed Motion. The Board of Directors authorizes the Executive Director to execute four separate Intergovernmental Agreements with the cities of Toledo, Reedsport and Wheeler, as well as Coos County in the amounts and for the purposes described in this Memorandum.

123