Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-1120 Study Session CITY OF ASHLAND Memo TO: Mayor Stromberg and Ashland City Council FROM: Diana Shiplet DATE: November 16, 2017 RE: November 20 and 21 Meeting Preface Study Session of November 20, 2017 III. State of the City Planning. Discussion questions: Is Council amenable to the proposed plan for the January, 2018 State of the City? IV. Clarifications of Council rules. Discussion questions: This agenda item is intended to give Councilmembers the opportunity to clarify and modify, if appropriate, mutual expectations about procedural rules for Council study sessions and regular business`meetings. Attachment A presents (1) eight questions proposed for discussion at this meeting; (2) some points Councilors may want to take into account as they address the questions; and (3) some alternative ways of answering the questions. Attachment B lists twenty more questions about meeting procedure that the Council may wish to discuss in future study sessions. V. City regulation of vehicles for hire services. Discussion questions: Should staff be directed to draft an ordinance enabling Transportation Network Companies ("TNC's") to operate within the City of Ashland? While the issues are many, of primary interest/concern to City staff are the following areas that may create challenges in allowing one or more Transportation Network Companies to operate legally within Ashland: • Quality and depth of required background checks for drivers • Level of involvement, collaboration, and coordination between TNC's and the regional transit system • Amounts of fees and insurance • Ability of the City to audit and verify compliance with City of Ashland ordinances • Regulatory equity for taxi companies and drivers Pagel of4 ADMINISTRATION Tel: 5414188-8002 20 East Main Street Fax: 541-088-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.orms Business Meeting of November 21, 2017 CONSENT AGENDA Items 1, 2, 3, and 4 are an items Council sees on a regular basis (minutes, liquor licenses, commission appointments, etc.) 5. Confirmation of Mayoral appointment of Mike D'Orazi as Fire Chief. The City conducted an open and competitive selection process for Fire Chief. Four finalists were invited to participate in an intensive two-day interview and selection process in Ashland this past summer. One finalist dropped out at the last minute, so three finalists were interviewed. Mike D'Orazi was selected due to his impressive background in the fire service. Mike promoted up through the ranks with the City of Alameda, California Fire Department serving as their Fire Chief his last 3 '/2 years with the Department. Mike is excited to bring his unique skill-set to Ashland Fire & Rescue and he promises to continue the culture of collaboration, community partnership, and innovation that John Karns established during his tenure as Chief. 6. Approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution creating the 'Ashland Heritage Tree List' and including the Southern Oregon University Spirit Tree, as silver maple located in the courtyard between Mcloughlin and Shasta residence halls, as Ashland's first heritage tree". The proposed resolution would create an Ashland Heritage Tree list envisioned in AMC 18.4.5.060. In April of 2017, the Council approved the Tree Commission's request to approve the Southern Oregon University Spirit Tree being named an Ashland Heritage Tree with the understanding that staff would come back to a future meeting with a resolution to create the Heritage Tree list. 7. Approval of a resolution titled "A resolution authorizing a loan from the Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund by entering into a financing contract with the Oregon Infrastructure Finance Authority for contract amendment number 4 (S14005, A-04) Pump Station Replacements and TAP Intertie". Before Council is a request to approve a resolution authorizing a financing loan increase of $954,173 to a new loan total of $4,465,200, and adjusting the loan's subsequent re-payment date. The additional funds ensure full pump station replacements for both Park Estates and Terrace Street Pump Stations rather than the initial pump only replacements. This is an ongoing project with the Oregon Infrastructure Finance Authority (IFA) that was initially signed on July 1, 2014, with the TAP Pipeline and Pump Station Improvements. 8. Special procurement for Pioneer Hall rehabilitation plan development. Before the Council is a special procurement, direct award, to commission architectural and structural engineering services for the rehabilitation of Pioneer Hall. Services will include the development of plans for modifying the building to achieve compliance with the 2014 Oregon Structural Specialty Code (OSSC), including occupancy, gravity and seismic provisions. Page 2 of 4 ADMINISTRATION Tex: 541ABM002 20 East Main Street Fax: 541-0BB-5311 5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 w ,ashland.onus 9. Approval of sewer connection on a property within the Urban Growth Boundary but outside City limits. Before Council is a request for approval of a connection to the City's sewer system for a property located outside of the city limits but within the urban growth boundary (UGB). Scott Brown and Jennifer Mortimer-Lamb, property owners of 3103 East Main Street, have requested a City sewer connection for the property in question due to a failing septic system. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has informed the property owners that they are unable to gain approval of an alternate on-site septic system as they are within 300 feet of an available sewerage service. As such they are therefore required to connect into city sewer. Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Section 14.08.030 lists the conditions and requirements for connection of properties located outside the City limits but within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). This application currently meets all conditions of the code for connection to the City sewer system. 10. Approval of the release of interest in a portion of a Conservation/ Natural Drainage Easement and approval of a new Conservation/ Natural Drainage Easement. Before the Council is a request to approve the release of interest in a portion of a dedicated conservation and natural drainage way easement and approval of a new conservation and natural drainage way easement. The original easement, as stated, is no longer required due to a letter of map amendment (LOMA) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) which redefined the boundary of the special flood hazard area for Hamilton Creek. PUBLIC HEARINGS None UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Staff report on last season's winter shelters. At the Business Meeting on September 19, 2017, Council requested that staff present a report on the winter shelter activities of last season. This report was originally scheduled for presentation to Council at the May 15, 2017, Study Session but was postponed due to time constraints. This report contains basically the same information that was on the May 15th agenda but also includes response reports to Pioneer Hall from APD and AF&R. The operation of the winter shelter at Pioneer Hall, while successful, has produced some challenges as outlined in the comments from staff (see May 15 agenda packet). These include damage to the facility, inappropriate behavior by some shelter guests and unsuitable interactions between the public and shelter guests. 2. Approval of a resolution titled, "A revised resolution authorizing the City of Ashland to provide a City building for a winter shelter three nights per week through April, 2018 and repealing Resolution 2017-23". This item was brought to Council at the Page 3 of 4 ADMINISTRATION Tel: 541-488-6002 20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 wm.ashland.or.us last Business Meeting on November 7, 2017. Council took no action on the resolution repeal and replacement but requested that staff bring the issue back to Council at the next meeting and asked that the winter shelter organizers please attend so they could answer questions that Council may ask. At its October 17, 2017 business meeting, Council approved Resolution 2017-23 authorizing the City to provide a City building for winter shelter three nights per week from November 2017 through April 2018. Resolution 2017-23 replicated the previous year's resolution on providing winter shelter space for the winter of 2016- 17, Resolution 2016-34, except for four additions noted during Council deliberation. One of those additions - the one stating that a City-provided shelter at City buildings would not be opened on any night when at least one certified female volunteer host and one certified male volunteer host are not available - now appears to contravene the Council's intention when it passed Resolution 2016-34 for the winter of 2016-17. In order to provide an alternative to the requirement for a volunteer host of each gender and retain consistency with the comparable provision in Resolution 2016-34, Council would have to repeal Resolution 2017-23 and replace it with a revised version. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS None ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Second reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending Chapters 18.2.2.030, 18.2.3.090, 18.2.5.030, 18.3.4.040, 18.3.5.050, 18.3.9, 18.4.3.040, 18.4.8, and 18.5.2.050 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to establish standards for Cottage Housing Developments within R-1-5, R-1-7.5, and NN-1-5 Single Family Residential Zones". A draft ordinance relating to the development of cottage housing within single family residential zones is attached. This ordinance creates the opportunity for small cottage housing developments on vacant and under developed properties within residential zones. Page 4 of 4 ADMINISTRATION Tel: 541488-6002 20 East Main Street Fax: 541488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us City of Ashland Council Meeting Look Ahead *****THIS IS A DRAFT AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE***** Responsible Departments Lead Staff ss cc ss cc ss cc Ss CC SOTC SS cc ss cc ss cc ss cc 12/4 Admin PW John Karns/ Paula Brown SS PW Paula Brown SS 12/5 Corn Dev Bill Molnar PRES Admin Adam Hanks PH RESO Parks Michael Black PH HR Admin Tina Gray/ John Karns NEW Finance Mark Welch NEW Finance Mark Welch NEW Finance Mark Welch ORD-1 ORD-2 Finance Legal Mark Welch ORD-1 ORD-2 12/18 Admin Com Dev Adam Hanks/ Bill Molnar SS Admin Electric Adam Hanks/ Thomas SS McBartlett 12/19 Admin Electric Adam Hanks/ Thomas CONS McBartlett funds to Finance Mark Welch CONS Corn Dev Bill Molnar CONS Finance Mark Welch UNFIN Recorder Melissa Huhtala >sion NEW Finance Admin Mark Welch/ Adam Hanks NEW Legal David Lohman ORD-2 Finance Legal Mark Welch ORD-2 1/1 1/2 1/15 1/16 PW Paula Brown CONS Corn Dev Bill Molnar NEW 2/5 Admin Adam Hanks Stuart Green SS Admin Police John Karns/ Tighe O'Meara SS 2/6 Admin Adam Hanks PRES 2/19 A 2/20 PW Pai ila Rrnwn PRES City of Ashland Council Meeting Look Ahead *****THIS IS A DRAFT AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE***** Departments u Lead Staff 2j4 12JS 12118 12 1/2 iA5 ills, 316 3/19 3120 Responsible 3/5 ;ouncilor Admin Legal John Karns/ David Lohman 77 ss 3/6 3/19 Admin John Karns SS 3/20 Com Dev Bill Molnar PRES Commission Presentation Dates - 2018 February 20 - Transportation Commission March 20 - Tree Commission April 17 - Historic Commission May 15 - Wildfire Mitigation Commission June 5 - Band Board Jul 17 - Forest Lands Commission August 14 - Conservation Commission September 18 - Airport Commission October 16 - Public Arts Commission November 6 - Housing & Human Srvcs. Comm. December 4 - Planning Commission icilor Seffin er i car camping (re q. of Mayor Stromber ification project new AFN Commission Council Stud Session November 20, 2017 Title: State of the City Planning Item Type: Request for Direction Requested by Council? Yes From: John Karns City Administrator John.karns@ashland.or.us Discussion Questions: Is Council amenable to the proposed plan for the January, 2018 State of the City? Resource Requirements: The proposed plan would cost approximately, $3011, an increase of approximately $1000 over last year's event. These additional costs were not budgeted for. Suggested Next Steps: If Council approves the proposed plan, staff would move forward with organizing the event. Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: N/A Background and Additional Information: At the November 6, 2017, study session Council asked about the current status of the plans for the annual State of the City celebration. They raised concerns with both the date and location. It was determined that Wednesday, January 31 st would be the preferred event date. As no City buildings of appropriate size are available on January 31, 2018, staff has looked into alternate locations. The only location which responded to staff's inquiry and had availability is the ballroom of the Ashland Springs Hotel. This facility is fairly well sized for the event but does require the City to use their catering services, thus increasing the total event costs, as follows: Room rental and catering = $2381 Printing and mailing of invitations = $150 Musicians (alternately, we could ask the hotel to play background music) _ $300 Award plaques (2) _ $180 Total = $3011 An additional concern Council should consider is lack of parking. Staff proposes encouraging carpooling, alternate transportation (bus, walking, etc.) modes, and including a parking pass in each invitation for attendees to use the Hargadine parking structure for the duration of the event. Attachments: N/A Page 1 of 1 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Stud Session November 20, 2017 Title: Clarification of Council Rules Item Type: Presentation Requested by Council? Yes From: David Lohman City Attorney david.lohman@ashland.or.us i Discussion Questions, This agenda item is intended to give Councilmembers the opportunity to clarify and modify, if appropriate, mutual expectations about procedural rules for Council study sessions and regular business meetings. Attachment A presents (1) eight questions proposed for discussion at this meeting; (2) some points Councilors may want to take into account as they address the questions; and (3) some alternative ways of answering the questions. Attachment B lists twenty more questions about meeting procedure that the Council may wish to discuss in future study sessions. Resource Requirements: N/A SuIZ14ested Next Steps: As time permits at upcoming study sessions, Council may wish to address the twenty additional questions in Attachment B, along with questions Councilors wish to have added to the list. Once agreement is reached on clarifications or revisions to Council rules of procedure, at future business meetings, staff will propose ordinance amendments needed to effect those changes or, perhaps, simple written interpretations of some rules. Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: Council Goal 2: Promote effective citizen communication and engagement. Background and Additional Information: Robert's Rules of Order serve as the default reference for meeting procedure rules. Over time, refinements or alternatives to Robert's Rules have been adopted to accommodate Ashland City Council's particular needs and circumstances. In 2014, the Council rules were updated again. Since then, more ambiguities, uncertainties, and inconsistencies have surfaced and occasionally have become sources of confusion and even frustration. This agenda item, and similar ones to follow, is intended to give the Council an opportunity to identify problems with the current Council rules, reach agreement on interpretation of them, and determine whether more changes are in order. Page 1 of 2 CITY OF -ASHLAND Based on issues and questions about Council rules that have arisen since 2014, staff has identified 28 questions believed to be worthy of Council discussion for purposes of either clarification or revision. Council may wish to add more items to the list, merge some, or strike some off the list. The questions are grouped into the following general topics: agendas; study sessions; deliberation rules; suspension of Council rules; Councilmember requests for information from staff, and miscellany. Attachment A lists the first eight questions, which are about agendas and study sessions. Attachment A also includes "Points and Authorities" intended as starting points for discussion and, finally, possible alternative conclusions. Asterisked alternative conclusions are those the City Attorney recommends, but not for legal reasons. For the most part, City ordinances are the only legal constraints on the Council's decisions about these rules. Attachment B lists the next 20 questions for possible discussion at future meetings. Council will be asked whether the format used for the first eight questions should also be used for discussion of those remaining questions and whether the time it takes for full discussion of such procedural rules is warranted. Attachments: Attachment A: Eight Questions About Council Rules Attachment B: Twenty Additional Questions About Council Rules I Page 2 of 2 CITY OF -ASHLAND ATTACHMENT A EIGHT QUESTIONS ABOUT COUNCIL RULES AGENDAS 1. Question: Should contracts above a specified dollar amount be presented as individual matters for Council decision, as opposed to being included on the Consent Agenda? Response: Council is free to decide this question by agreed-upon practice, by resolution, or by ordinance. Points and Authorities: a. Currently, personal services contracts for more than $75,000 and contracts for materials, supplies, equipment, public improvements, and services (other than personal services) for amounts greater than $100,000 require Council approval (on the regular agenda or the consent agenda). b. In addition, contracts for amounts greater than $5000 but less than the above Council- approval thresholds require solicitation of competitive proposals, except in the case of sole- source procurements, emergency procurements, or special procurements - all of which themselves require formal Council approval c. Most large-dollar contracts are public improvement projects which are approved by Council as part of the City's Capital Improvement Project list and often also as elements in Council- approved master plans. d. The Council Communications for Consent Agenda items are, or can be required to be, no less detailed than those for regular agenda items. e. Fewer Consent Agenda items likely would lead either to slightly longer business meetings or slightly less time for Council consideration of the individual items not on the Consent Agenda. f. Any Councilor can "pull" any Consent Agenda item to have staff make a presentation on it and have a separate Council vote on it. Alternative Conclusions to Consider: a. *Continue leaving it to the City Administrator to place items on the Consent Agenda based on his/her judgment call and leaving it to individual Councilors to "pull" items from the Consent Agenda if they feel additional attention is warranted. b. Direct the City Administrator to place any contract/procurement in excess of and not previously approved in the budget and capital improvements on the regular business agenda. c. Direct the City Administrator place approval of any contract/procurement in excess of $ on the regular business agenda. 2. Question: Should minutes of City advisory bodies be included in the Council agenda packets, along with a summary of which advisory bodies have met recently? Response: Council is free to decide this question by agreed-upon practice, by resolution, or by [1] ordinance. Points and Authorities: a. While current practice is to have Council approve the minutes of advisory bodies, there is no requirement to do so in either the Municipal Code or the City Charter, and not all advisory bodies have been in the practice of submitting minutes for Council review b. Currently, draft minutes (not yet approved by the advisory body) are not included Council agenda packets. c. More than a month can sometimes unavoidably elapse between the date of an advisory committee meeting and the subsequent meeting at which the minutes of a previous meeting get approved. Then, depending on when meetings of the advisory body occur in relation to meetings of the Council, more weeks can sometimes unavoidably elapse before those approved minutes can be included in a Council agenda packet. d. Currently, the City website shows the schedule for recent and upcoming meetings of advisory bodies, along with the draft or final versions of the minutes of recent meetings. The draft minutes are posted shortly after they become available, as are the final minutes after approval. e. A report in each Council agenda packet on recent advisory body meetings, including draft and/or final minutes of the meetings would require more staff time and potentially an earlier deadline for agenda packet submittals. f. It seems unlikely that most Councilors would have time to regularly read the additional agenda packet material on advisory body meetings. Alternative Conclusions to Consider: a. Direct staff to include draft or final minutes (depending on which is currently available) of City advisory bodies in the Council agenda packets, along with a summary of which advisory committees met recently. b. *Direct staff to (1) see that the City website contains a readily accessible, one-button access to information on recent and upcoming meetings of City Advisory bodies, including draft or final minutes, and (2) include with each Council agenda a hyperlink to the City webpage through which such information is available. C. *Direct staff to require timely website posting of minutes after they have been approved. 3. Question: During a Council meeting, under what circumstances should the scheduled order of a meeting agenda be altered? Response: The order of the agenda can be changed at the discretion of the presiding officer. The Council can approve a motion to rearrange the order of agenda items, but the Mayor need not comply. Points and Authorities: a. The regular order of the agenda for Council business meetings is established by AMC 2.04.050: Roll Call; Approval of Minutes of the Previous Meeting; Special Presentations, Proclamations and Awards; Public Forum; Consent Agenda; Public Hearings; Public Testimony on Agenda Items; Unfinished Business; New Business; Ordinances, Resolutions and Contracts; and then Other Business from Councilmembers. [21 b. AMC 2.04.050 says "the Mayor or presiding officer may change the order of business on the agenda." c. At some Council meetings, not following the regular order of the agenda can mean citizens expecting to be able to address or hear about an item scheduled for early in the meeting become frustrated. d. At some Council meetings, following the regular order of the agenda can mean citizens in attendance solely to address or hear about an item near the end of the agenda have to wait a long time for the chance to be heard, while also recognizing that the agenda item possibly could get postponed to a subsequent meeting. e. Pursuant to Robert's Rule of Order §18, an individual Councilor can require adherence to the scheduled agenda by interrupting whomever has the floor to "Call for the Orders of the Day." This "privileged motion" takes precedence over main motions and subsidiary motions, does not require a second, is not debatable or amendable, and prevails unless two- thirds of those voting wish to set aside the scheduled agenda. Alternative Conclusions to Consider: a. Continue leaving it to the presiding officer to make a judgment call on changing the regular order of business depending on circumstances and leaving it to Councilors to utilize appropriate parliamentary procedures to reverse a contemplated modification of the regular order. b. *Establish an agreement among Councilors and the Mayor to adhere to the regular order of meeting agendas except in very rare circumstances and after approval by a majority of the Council. Such a protocol could be left informal or enacted by resolution or ordinance. c. Revise AMC 2.04.050 to remove the authority of the Mayor to alter the regular order of an agenda and make such a change possible only after suspension of Council rules by two- thirds of those voting. 4. Question: During a Council meeting, how should a Councilor go about adding an item to the agenda? Response: During a meeting, a Councilor may move to add an item to the agenda for that meeting (or a future meeting). In the normal order of business, a motion to add an item to an agenda should be made at the time designated for "Other Business from Council Members." But the Mayor could change the order of business so as to take up the motion to add the item earlier in the meeting. If the motion to add an item to the current meeting's agenda receives a second, any debate, and majority approval, the item normally would be placed in the "Other Business from Council Members" section of the agenda. The Mayor, however, could decide to modify the order. Points and Authorities: a. AMC 2.04.030D says the following about agenda additions during a meeting, "A topic may be added to the agenda by a majority vote of the Councilors present. Generally, these items should be limited to items of timeliness or emergencies." b. While the above admonition to limit last-minute agenda additions to unusual circumstances is not a strict requirement, it serves as a reminder that under public meetings law the public should get advance notice of topics to be addressed unless unexpectedly urgent action is called for. [3] c. Concerning the notice requirement for public meetings, ORS 192.640(1) says, "The notice shall include a list of the principal subjects anticipated to be considered at the meeting, but this requirement shall not limit the ability of a governing body to consider additional subjects." d. The Attorney General's Public Meetings manual says, "the Public Meetings law does not require that every proposed item of business be described in the [public] notice." Page 121. e. After a citizen presents a matter to the Council during Public Forum, a Councilor may move to place the item on the current meeting agenda (or a future agenda), subject to admonition above to limit last-minute additions urgent matters. f. Adding Council decision on an issue to the current meeting's agenda may catch citizens with an interest in that issue by surprise, effectively depriving them of an opportunity for face-to- face input to the Council. Alternative Conclusions to Consider: a. *Retain the current rules for adding an agenda item during a meeting. b. Before considering the addition of an agenda item to a current meeting, require a successful motion to adopt a finding justifying urgent action (analogous to requiring a declaration of emergency before foregoing normal procedures). 5. Question: Outside of a meeting, how should a Councilor go about getting a matter added to an upcoming meeting agenda? Response: An individual Councilor can get matter added to a future Council meeting agenda by making a timely written request to the City Administrator, unless the item requires more than two hours of preparation by staff- in which case consent from a majority of the Council at a Council meeting is required. Points and Authorities: a. For a matter to be added to the agenda for an upcoming meeting, the proposed addition is to be delivered to the City Administrator no later than noon of the Wednesday preceding the meeting. AMC 2.04.030B(1). b. Unless the City Administrator determines the topic is not timely or the agenda for the proposed meeting is already full, the City Administrator's response to the Councilor's proposal must be to put the matter on the agenda as proposed, and make an initial determination as to wherein the Council agenda it is to appear. AMC 2.04.030A. c. The Mayor may also defer the matter until a later meeting if the agenda of the target meeting is already lengthy or if, in the Mayor's sole judgment, the matter is not time sensitive. But in no case may the Mayor defer the item more than 3 months beyond the date proposed by the Councilor submitting the item. AMC 2.04.03OB(1). d. Having made such a request, the requesting Councilmember is to submit to the City Administrator any materials for Council consideration prior to finalization of the Council packet. Id. e. Requiring a matter to be added to an agenda at the behest of just one Councilor may cause the Council to spend time on a matter of little or no interest to other Council members. [4] f. It seems inconsistent to require consent of the Council majority if a Councilor wishes to add an agenda item during a Council meeting while allowing a lone Councilor to add an agenda item if the proposal is made outside of a Council meeting. g. As noted in items 7 and 8 below, standard parliamentary procedures exist for removal from the agenda of an item of little interest to other members. Alternative Conclusions to Consider: a. Continue the current rules for adding an agenda item outside of a meeting. b. *For a Counselor to add an item to an upcoming agenda, require consent from at least at least one additional Councilor. 6. Question: How should a citizen go about getting a matter added to a Council meeting agenda? Response: A citizen should make the request to any Councilor or the Mayor or City Administrator or to a City advisory board, commission, or committee or make the request as part of testimony during Public Forum. Points and Authorities: a. Items can be placed on a Council meeting agenda not only by the procedures described in questions 5 and 6 above, but also by the City Administrator, City Attorney, Mayor, and City boards, commissions, and committees. AMC 2.04.030B(1). b. If the purpose of the proposed item is to acknowledge special recognition and awards given to the City or present proclamations which serve to encourage and educate the community, a citizen can submit to the Mayor a written request include the item under the portion of the business meeting agenda reserved for Special Presentations, Proclamations and Awards. AMC.2.04.050C. Alternative Conclusions to Consider: a. *Retain the current means for an individual citizen to get a matter added to a Council meeting agenda. 7. Question: How should a Councilor seek removal or postponement of a scheduled agenda item? Response: Before or at the outset of consideration of a matter, a Councilor may "object to consideration of the question." After consideration of a matter has begun, a Councilor may "move to postpone the matter to a certain time" or "move to postpone the matter indefinitely." These are efficient, respectful parliamentary mechanisms for deferring and agenda item which is believed to be not yet ripe for consideration. Points and Authorities: a. A successful objection to consideration of a matter prevents its consideration for the rest of the meeting. The objection may be made even while another person has the floor; must be addressed to the Chair (unless it is the Chair who raises the objection); does not require a second; is not debatable or amendable; and requires a "no" from at least two thirds of those voting in order to prevent consideration of the subject agenda item. AMC 2.04.040C(4)(b)(3). 151 b. A successful motion to postpone a matter defers its consideration to a particular future meeting. The motion requires a second; is debatable and amendable; and passes upon a majority vote in favor. AMC 2.04.040C(4)(j). c. A successful motion to postpone a matter indefinitely prevents its consideration for at least the rest of the meeting without identifying any future date for consideration. The motion requires a second; is debatable but not amendable; and passes upon a majority vote in favor. AMC 2.04.040C(4)(k). Alternative Conclusions to Consider: a. *Retain the current means for postponing a scheduled agenda item. STUDY SESSIONS 8. Question: Should/could Study Sessions be made more useful by treating them less like briefings and more like sessions for interactive exploration of key topics, adopting minimal formalities for presentations to and questioning of staff and for discussion among Councilmembers? Response: Yes, probably. Points and Authorities: a. Study Sessions often fall short of being thorough examinations of the key questions about topics on the agenda. b. Responding to strongly-worded advocacy sometimes takes precedence over deep, objective exploration of topics. c. Councilors may state positions on a topic, but seldom are their positions subjected to critical analysis or debate. d. Staff are often reluctant to raise questions or doubts about Councilors' statements in order to avoid effrontery or perceived disrespect. e. Councilors are sometimes reluctant to raise questions or doubts about other Councilors' statements, perhaps to preserve collegiality, composure, or flexibility to modify views as new information surfaces. Alternative Conclusions to Consider: a. *Encourage free-flowing, unstructured colloquy among Councilmembers and relevant staff and consultants. b. Try dividing major agenda items into 5 steps: (1) staff or consultant presentation of key facts; (2) identify key questions through group discussion; (3) use brainstorming techniques to generate conceivable answers to the key questions, refraining from evaluation or rebuttal; (4) evaluate, prioritize, and refine responses to key questions; and (5) use brainstorming techniques to identify information still needed before making a final decision. C. *Limit public input at Study Sessions to Public Forum comments on agenda items only. d. *Resume holding Study Sessions in the Siskiyou Room to better preserve an intimate, informal atmosphere. e. *Try not televising Study Sessions. f. Retain 5:30 pm start time for Study Sessions, but provide healthy snacks to enhance conviviality and sustain energy despite delayed dinner. [6) ATTACHMENT B TWENTY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ABOUT COUNCIL RULES STUDY SESSIONS (continued) 9. Should Council be precluded from making decisions at Study Sessions? COMMENTS/PRESENTATIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC 10. Should a person speaking before the Council be required to state his or her street address? 11. Should Public Form ever be extended beyond 15 minutes and, if so, how? 12. How should the time limit on speakers at Council meetings be determined? 13. At what point during consideration of a scheduled agenda item, should members of the public be invited to present their views on the item? 14. If a person goes to the trouble to provide public input on a matter, should the Council respond to that input immediately after? During Council's deliberation on the matter? 15. Should follow-up questioning of speakers be permitted without suspension of Council Rules? 16. Following a presentation to Council from staff or an invitee, should members of the public be permitted to direct arguments or questions to the presenter? 17. If discussion of an agenda item begins in one meeting and is continued to a subsequent meeting, should a member of the general public who spoke before the Council at the first meeting have opportunity to speak before the Council on the same topic at the subsequent meeting? 18. Should a citizen's wish to testify on a matter on the Consent Agenda automatically cause the item to be pulled from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration by the Council, including public testimony? DELIBERATION RULES 19. Should every Councilor get a "turn" to speak on an issue before any Councilor gets a follow-up turn? SUSPENSION OF COUNCIL RULES 20. Should the list of rules that Council can suspend be expanded? 21. How should a Councilor seek a suspension of Council rules? 22. Does suspension of the rules always require a formal vote? COUNCILMEMBER REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION FROM STAFF 23. Outside of a meeting, how should a Councilor go about getting information from staff if the request likely to require no more than two hours of staff time? If the request is likely to require more than two hours of staff time? 24. How should an employee handle a request for information that is likely to require more than 2 hours of staff time? 25. Is the two-hour rule appropriate? 26. Should the staff's response to a Councilor's inquiry always be sent to all Councilmembers? MISCELLANY 27. Should individual Councilors serve as Council liaisons to the various City departments, similar to their roles as liaisons to City advisory bodies? 28. Could changes be made to the Look Ahead to enhance its usefulness to Councilmembers? [1) Council Stud Session November 20, 20171 Title: City Regulation of Vehicle For Hire Services Item Type: Request for Direction Requested by Council? No From: David Lohman City Attorney David. Lohman@ashland.or.us I Discussion Questions: Should staff be directed to draft an ordinance enabling Transportation Network Companies ("TNC's") to operate within the City of Ashland? While the issues are many, of primary interest/concern to City staff are the following areas that may create challenges in allowing one or more Transportation Network Companies to operate legally within Ashland: • Quality and depth of required background checks for drivers • Level of involvement, collaboration, and coordination between TNC's and the regional transit system • Amounts of fees and insurance • Ability of the City to audit and verify compliance with City of Ashland ordinances • Regulatory equity for taxi companies and drivers Resource Requirements: The development of ordinance amendments and additions to the current language set forth in Chapter 6.28 of the Ashland Municipal Code related to taxicabs will require staff time from the City Attorney's office and other City Departments. No direct expenditure of funds is anticipated in conducting research or in developing ordinance language. Suggested Next Steps: If Council is interested in ordinance changes that would allow TNC's to legally operate in Ashland, staff will prepare a draft ordinance for Council consideration in the near future. Policies, Plans and Goals Supported: N/A Background and Additional Information: Current Status The City of Medford recently adopted amendments to its municipal code that allow TNC's such as Uber and Lyft to legally operate within Medford. Bend, Redmond, Salem and other Oregon cities have recently approved similar code revisions. Page 1 of 2 CITY OF -ASHLAND City of Ashland Legal and Administration staff recently met with an Uber representative to discuss Medford's recent code amendments and how they differ from those found in other jurisdictions in Oregon. The issue of whether the City of Ashland's regulatory framework should mirror Medford's was also discussed. As currently written the Ashland Municipal Code does not expressly address TNC's nor allow them to operate under their current model. Staff is interested in obtaining direction from Council about whether to prepare code amendments that would allow TNC's to operate in Ashland. Attachments: City of Medford Ordinance and Agenda Item Commentary Page 2 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND 0 CITY OF MEDFORD Item No: 80.1 AGENDA ITEM COMMENTARY oxECo www.ci.medford.or.us DEPARTMENT: Legal AGENDA SECTION: Ordinances and Resolutions PHONE: (541) 774-2020 MEETING DATE: October 19, 2017 STAFF CONTACT: Lori Cooper, City Attorney COUNCIL BILL 2017-96 An ordinance repealing sections 8.004 and 8.400 through 8.495, amending section 8.497, and adding sections 8.320 through 8.380 regarding taxicabs and transportation network companies. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND The current Medford code regulating taxicabs does not expressly address Transportation Network Companies (TNC's) such as Uber and Lyft. The Council will be considering whether to repeal Medford's existing code chapter regulating taxicabs, and whether to replace it with somewhat more detailed provisions clarifying operating, insurance, and fee requirements and specifically authorizing TNC's to operate within the City PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTIONS A study session was held on June 29, 2017. A public hearing was held on August 17, 2017. A study session was held September 14, 2017, and staff was directed to present an ordinance for Council consideration. ANALYSIS TNC's - Uber and Lyft are the most prominent examples - have become a central part of the new sharing economy. Government and the insurance industry have struggled to address the TNC business model, and to identify and minimize the risks presented and deal with insurance coverage issues. There have also been concerns about respecting the traditional taxi industry, and creating an environment that fosters the fairest possible competition between taxis and TNC's. Staff has attempted to create a code that will create consistency and a level regulatory playing field for the different models of vehicle for hire services. The intention of the proposed code is to create standards sufficient to address the primary concerns about background checks, insurance, accessibility, and operating standards, while not delving more deeply than necessary into subjects such as vehicle requirements, driver education, etc. Another key feature of the proposed new code is a general shift of some responsibilities from the City to the companies themselves, in conjunction with certification and auditing elements that will allow the City to monitor compliance. The key features of the new code sections include adoption of the "three period model" for determining TNC automobile liability coverage limits. Period 1 is when the TNC driver has logged into the TNC's digital dispatch system or is otherwise connected to the TNC's digital network, but has not yet accepted a request for a ride from a passenger (for example, the software application is open and the driver is waiting for a match); Period 2 is when a passenger match has been accepted, but the passenger is not yet picked up (for example, the driver is on the way to pick up the passenger); and Period 3 is when the passenger is in the vehicle. Notably, the three TNC service periods do not determine whether TNC's are required to carry primary automobile liability coverage (they are), but instead reflect how much coverage is available, depending on the period during which an accident or loss occurs. This coverage is now readily available for TNC's, which, along with many local and state regulators, have generally adopted it as the standard framework for Page 120 x CITY OF MEDFORD Item No: 80. V AGENDA ITEM COMMENTARY OREGOv www.ci.medford.or.us automobile liability insurance to address the coverage gaps or "livery exclusions" that caused concerns during the advent of TNC operations. The proposed code contains new background check requirements which would be equally applicable to all vehicle for hire operators, whether TNC's or Taxi Companies - the new code would apply the same standards to all operators of vehicles for hire in the City. Convictions for misdemeanor theft offenses do not disqualify drivers from obtaining a business license under the proposed new code. The proposed new code eliminates the taxi card appeal process. If a vehicle for hire applicant is denied a business license, he or she can appeal the denial through the business license appeal process set out in code section 8.004. Staff was unable to determine an accurate and equitable formula for a street utility-type fee for TNC's, since TNC's do not have brick and mortar buildings which can be used to calculate trip generation, and it is not known at this time how many trips TNC's will generate. Staff has prepared three fee/surcharge options for Council's consideration: 1. Flat business license/operator fee: This fee would apply to TNC's and taxi companies. Currently, taxi companies pay a $50 operator fee, a $30 taxi ID card fee, and a $100 business license fee. This could remain the same under the proposed new code (except a taxi driver ID card and associated fee will not be necessary since the Operators will be doing the background checks on Drivers), or like Bend, during the first year of operation, the City could charge the TNC's a higher application fee. Currently, Bend charges TNC's $680 and taxi companies $285 annually. Bend's TNC ordinance, which is very similar to the draft ordinance being presented to the Council, contains a provision that the fee is based on the number of drivers operating for the company at the time of application. Since it was unknown how many TNC drivers would be operating at the time its TNC ordinance went into effect, the City of Bend chose an initial application fee amount of $680. Under this fee scenario, each TNC driver would be required to obtain a business license, since they are considered independent contractors. Similarly, taxi drivers who are independent contractors would be required to obtain a business license. This fee option would capture some of the City's costs in administering the program. In staff's opinion, this fee option would most likely have the highest compliance rate and would be the easiest to administer. 2. Per trip surcharge: This charge would capture some of the City's costs to administer the TNC program, as well as recover some costs of the impacts that TNC's will have on the City's transportation system. This charge would apply only to TNC's, since taxi companies already pay street utility fees (or home occupancy licenses), which helps pay for the operation and maintenance of city streets. Staff suggests a 25 cent per trip surcharge. This surcharge program would rely on the "honor system," much like the transient lodging tax system, in which the City relies on the regulated industry for accurate reporting and payment of the fee. Taxi companies, TNC's, and drivers who are independent contractors would be also required to obtain a business license under this option. Page 121 f M~ P (I CITY OF MEDFORD Item No: 80.1 _WR AGENDA ITEM COMMENTARY ORF("),... www.ci.medford.or.us 3. Gross receipts charge: Some cities in other states charge TNC's a gross receipts fee, ranging anywhere from 1 % to 4% of the total gross trip fare collected from TNC passengers for rides that originate in the city. Like the per trip surcharge discussed above, this program would rely on self-reporting by the regulated entities. This gross receipts charge would recover some of the staff costs to administer the program, as well as some of the costs of the impacts that TNC's will have on the City's transportation system. Like the per trip surcharge option, the gross receipts charge would only apply to TNC's, since taxi companies already pay a street utility fee. Taxi companies, TNC's, and drivers who are independent contractors would be also required to obtain a business license under this option. FINANCIAL AND/OR RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS Unknown at this time, since there is no data available regarding how many drivers and/or trips may be generated in the City. If Council adopts a fee or surcharge on taxis and TNC's, these funds would at least partially cover the staff costs of processing the business licenses and other compliance oversight, and the impact of TNC's on the City's transportation system. TIMING ISSUES None. COUNCIL OPTIONS Approve the ordinance as presented. Modify the ordinance as presented. Deny the ordinance and give staff further direction. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the ordinance with fee option 1, the flat business license/operator fee. SUGGESTED MOTION I move to approve the ordinance adopting the proposed code amendment. EXHIBITS Ordinance Page 122 ORDINANCE NO. 2017-96 AN ORDINANCE repealing sections 8.004 and 8.400 through 8.495, amending section 8.497, and adding sections 8.320 through 8.380 regarding taxicabs and transportation network companies. THE CITY OF MEDFORD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 8.004 of the Medford Code is hereby repealed: 8.004 Appeal of Denial, Revocation, Classification or Exemption of License. taxi driveris 1P ee&d if Council finds reliable indieia E)f r-ehabilitation ffem a disquali6ing event listed in Seetion 9.425. In making its deeision, Gooneil may ineluding hilt qAt i family pr-agmfnmifig tfeatment; (d) gainful emple5ment; (e) stable housing; ~A testimeny &-m A Section 2. Section 8.400 of the Medford Code is hereby repealed: 9.400 Fees Required fer- Taxi Businesses. in additian to fees outlined in 9.060, an), taxi business shall heA,e the &Nowing non refundable annual fees~ Taxi Operator's Fee $50.00 Taxi Dr-ver If Bard (T Card' SY)Ao Section 3. Section 8.405 of the Medford Code is hereby repealed: nnc Openat°''s t : e Required (1) No per-son shall engage in a ta*ieab business in the eitywithout a ewfeRt, Valid btlsifleSS lieeHSe. e valid ta*i driver- 1P eafd as set fefth in 9.4,1-5-. (3) A per-son operating a taxieab shall be e9nsider-ed to be operating a taxieab btisiness t"in the n agent he, of kis mr > > pieks r Y b 7~1-11110- n n puw :-izgeru -icn-- hire. Ordinance No. 2017- 96 P:\Cassie\0RDS\1. Council Documents\1 0 1 917\amd8 Page 123 Section 4. Section 8.410 of the Medford Code is hereby repealed: 9.110 .pp..ou .d.... M eeetio : o Aznrl0) (11) .,_a (la)Section 5. Section 8.425 of the Medford Code is hereby repealed: 8. 425 T----,i Privaeg IQ Card. $epaA3H2AE (2) A taid driver's m eard shall issued by t'' n iee D., r writt and a fee as set fei4h i Cheek, 8.400, if and only if-the Pahee Department finds that the applieant-. is t'. enty ane years of age a '.la'.'f . an a /1.\ Possesses a valid motor vehicle ope`at'"l° liseasej an (a) Has not been o t bn declared a hah:t...,lxxaxa t`e aazx~xo e 6ffP.ndBrR4th2n 9th' fig B(5) j years of th9 - date vran5 applieati9A; and (d) if the appheant has ever been Eleslared a habitual traffie affender, has not been BEIRVieted Of tfaffie orime v4diin five (5) years of the date of this 0 (e) Has not been eenvieted of of the following e6mes or aE*, shnilaF erimes in aRy degree at t23i3~ AF*, felon), orime committed against another perse (ii) Any person that is a registered sLqk effeade @Nq Any felony property within &,e /c~ years o of the date of thir.roea fi, r..,rty e rime ap^prmvn (Nq Any tFaffie eiim-e ivifl;in tkee (-3) years of the date of this application (vo Any di-ag aMnse within five (5) years of the date of this applieation (;,iO Any misdemeaneF person er-ime within three (3) years ef the date of this applieatign (viii) Any misdemeanor property crime within di-ee (3) 5vars of the date A-If Wflealien (f) Did not kneA4ngly make any false statement in the applieatien for the IkAmqP, (3) The Finn-BAR T:_ et.. -ha:l ravake the tw driver ID e rd of-.a- driver who fails to meet th qualifleatims qAt Aut in flmi-q qeetiaa after a peEmit has been issued to that person. A pOHOR m pennit is denied or- r-evoked may Feapply after one year if the applioant meets the qualifieafions set Section 6. Section 8.430 of the Medford Code is hereby repealed: 9.430 Tawieab Regulations. Ordinance No. 2017-96 P:\Cassie\ORDS\l. Couucil Documents\101917\amd8 Page 124 (1) All taxieabs shall be elean, of good appear-anee, proper-15, equipped, and in a safe eendition f0F the . tr-anspaFta4ian of passengers, and subjeet to insperstion by the Paliee Departfnent at My (2) l~ - . ` r shall display his taxi dr-iyer W cafd wher-e it will t,«l., "1. sible to passen ~-i - passengers-. (4) All taxieab dr-iver-s shall give Feceipts for- fare,-, paid, upon request of a passenger, „ manufaetwer4s stated lead limits F Y that whiele. (7*NoTersea shallaperrate a taxieab exeept in eon&fmanee with the Oregon Motor- Welliele Code and the Code of Medfefd Felating to traffie. (9) ab 'l ~sr.-: z shall 1:":t passengers by shot:«„ Na ..v vcav rv°' (9) A taxieab ^ r- t shall maintain r 1 4'F r r f 74 1, .1' t 1, (10) A taxieab oper-a4or- shall eqtiip all with meter-s showing the amount of fafe an a lighted f4ee plainly visible to a passenger, On demand by the Pakee PepaFtfaent, the lieensee shall defnanstr-ate shall b '1 at anee, inspeetion shall be kept in the ta*i eab and available &Y- law efifereement upon request at any spot tinspeetion „lit (12) All taxi eabs afe r-equir-ed to pefmanently affix the eompany name and phone number to begi sides of the taxi Eab. The s ° must be elear- , bl f 20 fi t (13) No per-son shall operate any vehiele as a taxieab upAess that vehiele is eovervd by liab4ity rre,,4ding $100,000.00 eawr-age for- property damage or- destFuetion, $300,000.00 eaver-ag &r- bodily ij 1 J T~7-"°i Qei}th of any $500,000.00 --fEr e3Eh--0EEuH'f213E2; or- in lieu of sueh operator's eavffage, a Single lifnit insur-anee Pokey of not less than $500,000.00 eoveT-ing all elaims p-er- I i insur-anee shall be kept in the ta*i eab and available &r- !a%, efifer-eementiapan request at any speA inspeetion or- audit. Section 7. Section 8.440 of the Medford Code is hereby repealed: 8.4 Appea4 Any per-son aggrieved by a f:uling afthe Paliee PepaFtFnent r-elating to Seetion 8.425 shall have the right to appeal to the Finanee DiFeeter- under- the pr-aeedures set atit in SertiEffl 9.004 of this Section 8. Section 8.450 of the Medford Code is hereby repealed: I 8.450 Team of T°°; Dr-iy°" 1D r""1 an n«°'•°t"" s T : . F° (1) A taxieab oper-aterls heense and a taxi dr-iver- 1D eard shall be valid for the same teffil as th-e business fieense. Ordinance No. 2017-96 P:\Cassie\ORDS\1. Council Documents\101917\amd8 Page 125 (2) T eab aperatef's lieenses may be renewed ^..^..ally - of the ____,_t as forth 9.490 unless pp - ~,.ended sked rer eause Taxe b epemters-lieenses--are-net 1 t ansf•e bl and et ..,.eh.. other mh° lessee _ assignee _f_ t__---' the temq of seefiRn 8.4 10, et seq. Section 9. Section 8.451 of the Medford Code is hereby repealed: 8.451 Fees Required ferhimousine Businesses. T addition to r es ^..tlined in 8.069, any limousine '.mess °h°11 have th- Allw.'-- annual s- Limousine Opemter's Fee $,30.90 Taid Priver lB Card (T- e^rd` $30.00- Section 10. Section 8.452 of the Medford Code is hereby repealed: 8.452 &empt vehiele^ (1) Vehieleg deli"^d ^ r tt h regalations d by Seetions 9.400 ^ and } exempt (a) Ambulance equipped 9taffed - h ht of previding ses,iees in eei~unetien;hith passenger e (h)--Gauftesy hi 1 used by a hotel mate!, ear ental P •a 1 h , paddng f eilia.. or- other business to k^ e't that business'elients ..h_ - h thess'' and the tmnsp'"tafie is Q^^ ^ ed : the general overhead of t business; (e) Nen v uV4 as base dr-amm vehieles; (d) $ropeEb, delivery e ' s used for aeliveFi g prepeily exelusive -rpassenger - - en (e) Sh'•tfle vehieles and hmseq used r providing fixed reute and- time sehedule; anEl (f) Velutvteer-driven h• 1 Pe^^ted bya driver whe:^_eimbu-e4fer asem:1.._°e expeases and / ^t b as taideabs or limausines. Section 11. Section 8.455 of the Medford Code is hereby repealed: 8.455 9peEatoi4sbieenseRequired. (1) Tile PeFsen shall engage ill a lipAgusine businew; in the eity without a eauent-,valid business license. (a) No persen shall aYeate ° limousine in the ^•t' • h f lid tffid driver / fiq#nl in 9.4.2-5-. (3) A - b lim shell be eensideFed to be operating ° v.__.--'--'-usin---''- the city' he, or his agent ^ ..,ptoy^e, p:^l.^ up a passenger r h• h• the eity limits. (Il) "Limousine" chauffeur driven sedan ..l.:eh r hiFe where the . r^^e eh^_6 d_is_at_lea $25.00. The minimum fare is solely for the-puEpese e€ Ordinance No. 2017-96 P:\Cassie\ORDS\l. Council Documents\l01917\amd8 Page 126 Section 12. Section 8.460 of the Medford Code is hereby repealed: 9.469 Applieation for Operaterishiewiser. deseriptien F e....:....ent to 1..,used. a d shall pay the non r '.71.1 C as AlIflined in 9.4. 41. Section 13. Section 8.470 of the Medford Code is hereby repealed: 9470 m -1 rnn a No person shall Ernousiae , a have a- driveF's m card issued by the Pelie-e DepaFtment as outlined in 8.425. Section 14. Section 8.475 of the Medford Code is hereby repealed: 8.475 Lime....:..e Regulations. (1) All limousines shall be elean, of gaed appeaFanee, pr-eperly equipped and in a safe eendition fe the tfanspartation of passengers, and . ubjeet to : eetion 1.. tl. n 1 • . DepaFtEnent at J time. (n\ A limousine drive` shall pF ..:de ° ..1. d 1 fares to ~ passengers, Y request. AN l:.„ e drive shall give r fer- fhres Y idf Y request C passenger. faetnFeA stated lead lifaits for that vehicle. (5) Ne person shall operate a limausine emeept in eeafefmanee mrith the Ofegen Meter Ve4gele and the-Gede of Nledford relating to tFaffiG. (7) A-limnll in dFiver shall mainAaia hi : driver m eaEd in his 1. limm-1sing and display the pe.P., request a pm......6 rpocx (8) All-linawu z d have an .al Acv ..,..t:red ...,.....ie in. poet:,... n_.._c..ctt.,_ inspeetion shall be kept in the limausine and available for him., enfor-eem-ent upen request at any spot inspeetioa or audit. insuranee b f eoverage for Y Y J be ardestraetion, $300,000.00 eaverage for bad:l. _.~_.J or 1..6ah ~1 $590,000.00 yr vu..e o..a~ er in llieti C stieb eavemge, single " poliey of C ~Tp"u~~.l u 1 „t less than $590,090.00 eaverifig all elaims PaeouFr-enee. A m4ifieate of insuFance shall be provided to the rinanee Direeter upon approval of th aeouFr-enee. A m4ifieate of insuFance shall be provided to the rinanee Direeter upon approval of th eperatorls heense and at the time E)f annual r-enewal. The eperateF shall requke the insurer-te pFe,,,id avMttennefiqe of eaneellatiente the FinaneeDireeter:r - aflYffisuffinee pelie-5, is eaneelled. Pres insurnfly'P. shall be kept in the limousine eF insurnfly'P. shall be kept in the limousine and,. aila1.1..F-1..... ,...F upenrequest at any ..,.t iWeefian Ry Audit. Section 15. Section 8.485 of the Medford Code is hereby repealed: 8.485 Appeal: Ordinance No. 2017-96 P:\Cassie\ORDS\l. Council Documents\101917\amd8 Page 127 9.470 shall have the fight tappeal under the preeedtifes set out ifl seetiOft 9.004 Of thi a Section 16. Section 8.495 of the Medford Code is hereby repealed: 8.495 T..++++ of + u . va aP Car -El and vYva uro . hieenses; Fees. (1) A limousine I b s lieense. operator's (2) Limousine in 8.451 unless suspended or- rvw)ked for- eause. Li . 1 , and a eontfaet pufehasef or- ether- pur-ehaser, lessee or- assignee of a lieensed limausine business shall net do business without f"s.t applying for- an : .,twa a. Iu " 1'a.vaauv and other- li under- the to ^f " ~.°iu- vetion 4.460, et seq- Section 17. Section 8.497 of the Medford Code is amended to read as follows: 8.497 Horse Drawn Vehicle Regulations. (2) No person shall operate a horse drawn vehicle unless the person is twenty-one years of age or older and has not been convicted of any crime set forth in Section 9.425(l)(d) an (e). 8.335 Section 18. Section 8.320 of the Medford Code is added to read as follows: 8.320 Title, Intent, and Purpose of Sections 8.325 to 8.380. This ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the "Vehicle for Hire Ordinance of the City of Medford." The City Council of the City of Medford finds and declares that the purpose of this ordinance is to promote the safety and welfare of the general public by regulating vehicle for hire operators and their drivers within the City of Medford, as authorized by ORS 221.485 and 221.495. Nothing contained in this ordinance is intended or shall be construed to create any liability on the part of the City, its officers or employees for any injury or damage related to any provision of this ordinance, or by reason or in consequence of any act or omission in connection with the implementation or enforcement of this ordinance on the part of the City, its officers, or employees. Section 19. Section 8.325 of the Medford Code is added to read as follows: 8.325 Definitions. Words and phrases used in this ordinance shall have the following meanings ascribed to them: (1) "Digital dispatch system" means an internet-based software application, website, platform, or interface that allows for the solicitation, arrangement, or provision of vehicle for hire services and the display of rates, calculation of fares, or acceptance of payment for vehicle for hire services. Ordinance No. 2017-96 P:\Cassie\ORDS\1. Council Documents\ 10 1917\amd8 Page 128 (2) "Driver" means any individual person who operates a vehicle for hire within the City. (3) "Limousine" means a luxury motor vehicle for hire whose chassis and wheelbase have been lengthened beyond the original manufacturer's specifications, whether at the time of production or after. (4) "Limousine Company" means any person operating one or more limousines for hire, other than as a driver, regardless of the legal form of the entity and regardless of whether the limousines so operated are owned by the company, leased, or owned by individual members of an entity. (5) "Operator" means a person engaged in the business of furnishing or operating a business defined by this ordinance, whether upon contract or by offering such service to the public generally. (6) "Taxi" means a motor vehicle for hire, other than a limousine or transportation network vehicle. (7) "Taxi Company" means any person operating one or more vehicles for hire, other than as a driver, regardless of the legal form of the entity and regardless of whether the taxis so operated are owned by the company, leased, or owned by individual members of an entity. Taxi Companies do not include Transportation Network Companies. (8) "Transportation Network" means one or more drivers working as independent contractors and utilizing a digital dispatch system, and using personal motor vehicles in the provision of transportation services. (9) "Transportation Network Company or TNC" means a person that operates or facilitates a transportation network. (10) "Transportation Network Vehicle or TNV" means a personal motor vehicle which is used as a vehicle for hire and is part of a transportation network. (11) "Vehicle for Hire" means a motor vehicle used for the ground transportation of passengers for compensation within the City, including taxis, limousines and transportation network vehicles. The following vehicles shall not be considered vehicles for hire for the purposes of this ordinance, and are forbidden from operating as a taxi, limousine, or transportation network vehicle: (a) Ambulances equipped and staffed so as to be capable of providing emergency medical services in conjunction with passenger transportation; (b) Courtesy vehicles used by a hotel, motel, car rental company, residential home, parking facility, or other business to transport that business' clients when transportation is secondary to the business' primary purpose and the transportation is free or contained in the general overhead of the business; (c) Non-motorized vehicles such as horse-drawn vehicles; (d) Property delivery vehicles used for delivering property exclusive of passenger transportation; (e) Shuttle vehicles and buses used for providing passenger transportation over a fixed route and time schedule; and (f) Volunteer-driven vehicles operated by a driver who is reimbursed for basic mileage expenses and who does not receive wages, salary, or other compensation. (12) "Vehicle for hire agency" means a business engaged in furnishing or providing one or more vehicles for hire through a digital dispatch system or by any other means, regardless of whether such business has employees or delivers its services through independent contractors, including a transportation network company. (13) "Vehicle for hire driver" means a person who carries on the vocation of driving a Ordinance No. 2017-96 P:\Cassie\ORDS\1. Council Documents\ 10 1 917\amd8 Page 129 vehicle for hire. Section 20. Section 8.330 of the Medford Code is added to read as follows: 8.330 Business License Required for Operators and Drivers; Regulatory License Tees. (1) No Operator shall conduct business in the City without obtaining the applicable regulatory license set out in subsection (2). (2) The City may issue a License to an Operator if the company certifies on a form acceptable to the City that it is in compliance with all requirements of this chapter, including but not limited to driver and insurance requirements, operating standards, and any other code requirements, and actually meets all applicable standards and requirements. (3) The City may include conditions, restrictions, or special provisions in the License, including but not limited to conditions related to routes, times of operation, lighting, alternative requirements or means of meeting requirements, or other conditions, if, in the sole discretion of the City, the applicant's vehicles or operations warrant conditions, restrictions, or special provisions. (4) The License issued under this chapter is valid for one year. Any renewal must be approved by the City prior to the expiration date in order for the Operator to continue providing vehicle for hire services within the City. (5) The application fee shall be based on the number of drivers operating for the Operator at the time of the application, and shall be intended to account for the City's costs in administering this code and for the City's costs in operating and maintaining streets within the City. The fee amounts shall be set by City Council resolution as part of the City's fee schedule. (6) The application fee shall be paid to the City at the time of submitting both initial and renewal License applications. (7) No Operator or Driver shall conduct business in the City without a valid business license. Section 21. Section 8.335 of the Medford Code is added to read as follows: 8.335 Driver requirements. (1) Drivers shall be at least 21 years of age and shall possess a valid driver license, proof of . motor vehicle registration, and proof of current automobile liability insurance that meets the requirements of this chapter and state law. (2) Every Operator shall maintain accurate, current records for all drivers employed by, contracting with, or otherwise affiliated with the company, including all drivers accessing the company's digital network to operate in the City. The records shall include the driver's name, date of birth, address, social security number, criminal background check results, driver's license information, motor vehicle registration, and automobile insurance. Operators shall provide a person in compliance with this section written notice of compliance, who shall then submit the notice to the City as part of the business license Ordinance No. 2017-96 P:\Cassie\ORDS\I. Council Documents\l 0 1917\amd8 Paae130 application required by section 8.330(3). (3) Prior to permitting a person to operate as a Driver, and annually thereafter, the Operator shall conduct, or have a qualified third party conduct, a criminal background check. The criminal background check shall include a search of no less than seven years of history, unless prohibited by law, in which case the duration of the search shall be the maximum number of years permitted by law. The criminal background check shall include local, state, and national criminal history databases and all accessible sex offender registries. Any person who is on a sex offender registry, or any person that has a record of a felony conviction within the previous seven years may not act as a driver. A record of a conviction of any of the following within the previous seven years will also disqualify a person from acting as a driver: crimes involving driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances, sexual offenses, or crimes involving physical harm or attempted physical harm to a person. The company or its agent shall maintain records of a criminal background checks for a period of at least two years. For purposes of this section, the term "conviction" includes convictions, bail forfeitures, and other final adverse findings. (4) An Operator must revoke a driver's authority to operate as a driver for their company and inform the City if it finds at any time that the standards set forth in this section are no longer being met by the driver. The Operator shall only reinstate a driver upon a finding by the company that all standards are again being met by the driver. Section 22. Section 8.340 of the Medford Code is added to read as follows: 8.340 Insurance Requirements. (1) For all required insurance, Operators shall provide certificates of insurance naming the City, its officers, agents, and employees as additional insured parties and give at least 30 calendar days' notice to the City before a policy is canceled, expires, or has any reduction in coverage. (2) Insurance requirements of this section shall be satisfied by insurance issued by a licensed insurer or an eligible surplus lines insurer in the State of Oregon. (3) The insurance limits for Operators are subject to statutory changes as to maximum limits of liability imposed on municipalities of the State of Oregon during the permit's term, or other statutory changes. (4) The adequacy of insurance coverage is subject to the review and approval of the City. (5) Every Operator shall maintain continuous, uninterrupted coverage for the duration of the License and any operations in the City. Any lapse in insurance coverage, even if it is later backdated by the insurance company, is a violation of this chapter. (6) Operators shall secure and maintain commercial general liability insurance with limits of not less than $1 million per occurrence and $2 million aggregate for claims arising out of, but not limited to, bodily injury and property damage incurred in the course of operating in the City. (7) Taxi Companies operating any motor vehicles shall secure and maintain commercial automobile liability insurance covering those vehicles, with a combined single limit of not less than $1 million per occurrence for claims arising out of, but not limited to, bodily injury and property damage incurred in the course of operating in the City. Ordinance No. 2017-96 P:\Cassie\ORDS\1. Council Documents\101917\amd8 Page 131 (8) TNC Service Periods Defined: (a) Period 1: The TNC Driver has logged into the App or is otherwise connected to the TNC's digital network, but has not yet accepted a request for a ride from a passenger. For example, the App is open and the driver is waiting for a match. (b) Period 2: A passenger match has been accepted, but the passenger is not yet picked up (for example, the driver is on the way to pick up the passenger). (c) Period 3: The passenger is in the vehicle. (9) Upon City request or as part of an application, TNCs shall provide proof of current valid insurance for City approval covering all affiliated TNC Drivers and vehicles for hire operating for such company and satisfying the minimum requirements of Periods 1, 2, and 3. (10) All TNCs shall maintain and provide the City with proof of the following automobile liability coverages: (a) Primary insurance coverage during Period 1 with minimum liability limits of $50,000 per person for death and injury, $100,000 per incident for death and injury, and $25,000 for property damage, plus any other state compulsory coverage. (b) Primary insurance coverage during Periods 2 and 3 with minimum liability limits of $1 ❑iillion in combined single limit coverage for death, personal injury and property damage per incident; and $1 million in combined single limit under/uninsured motorist coverage for death, personal injury and property damage per incident. (c) The required automobile liability insurance shall specifically recognize the driver's provision of TNC and vehicle for hire services and shall comply with the laws of the State of Oregon and/or other applicable governing bodies. (11) TNC drivers shall be responsible for maintaining all personal automobile liability insurance required by State law. Section 23. Section 8.345 of the Medford Code is added to read as follows: 8.345 Operational Requirements (1) TNCs shall maintain records of all trips made by all drivers for at least one year from the date of the trip. The data may be aggregated and/or anonymized, and shall include, at minimum, the locations by ZIP code of trip origination and destination, vehicle miles traveled, trip origination and completion times, trip duration, and passenger wait times from a driver's acceptance of a request to passenger pick-up. The City may require a TNC to enter a data sharing agreement in order to receive a License. (2) All vehicles operating for a TNC or Taxi Company shall be clearly marked with the company name or logo. Vehicles operating for a Taxi Company shall include the company name or logo, phone number, and a vehicle identification number in plain sight. Vehicles operated solely for TNC services shall be clearly marked as operating for the TNC, although any vehicle marking requirements imposed by a TNC may apply. The TNC's software application or website shall display for the passenger the make, model, and license plate number of the TNC vehicle. (3) TNC drivers may not accept street hails, and may only accept rides arranged through a TNCs digital network. Ordinance No. 2017-96 P:\Cassic\ORDS\l. Council Documents\1019 Mamd8 Page132 (4) Operators shall implement and maintain at all times a zero tolerance policy on the use of drugs or alcohol applicable to all drivers employed by or affiliated with the company while providing vehicle for hire services. Companies shall provide notice of the zero tolerance policy on their website and/or have it clearly displayed in each vehicle. The notice must include contact information to report a complaint about a driver for possible violation of policy. A company shall immediately suspend a driver upon receipt of a passenger complaint alleging a violation of the zero tolerance policy, for at least the duration of the investigation of the complaint. (5) Operators must provide reasonable accommodations to passengers with disabilities, including passengers accompanied by a service animal, passengers with hearing and visual impairments, and passengers with mobility devices, and must comply with all applicable requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Section 24. Section 8.350 of the Medford Code is added to read as follows: 8.350 Audit. The City may audit Operators up to twice per calendar year to review compliance with this ordinance. Upon request, an Operator shall provide the City a sample of records for up to thirty (30) drivers affiliated with the Operator that have operated in the thirty (30) days preceding the audit. An audit shall occur at a time and location designated by the City. In addition to an audit, the City may require an Operator to produce records related to an investigation of a specific allegation of a violation of this ordinance or other applicable law, or to evaluate a complaint. Production of records for an investigation or to evaluate a complaint does not count toward the twice-per-year auditing limit. Section 25. Section 8.355 of the Medford Code is added to read as follows: 8.355 Revocation, Suspension. In addition to the remedies provided for in section 8.900 and ORS 30.315, the City may suspend, revoke, or refuse to issue a license if an Operator or Driver has violated or not met any of the provisions of sections 8.330 through 8.380. A violation includes any failure to meet or maintain any of the requirements or qualifications set forth in sections 8.330 through 8.380, including the procedures and requirements for obtaining and maintaining a business license, the making of any material misrepresentation, or if an Operator or Driver is otherwise engaged in unlawful activity. Section 26. Section 8.360 of the Medford Code is added to read as follows: 8.360 Effective Date. Any Vehicle for Hire Agency License that is current as of the effective date of this ordinance, shall remain valid, until June 30, 2018, unless the License holder wishes to apply for a new license under this chapter. Ordinance No. 2017-96 P:\Cassie\ORDS\l. Council Documents\101917\amd8 Page 133 Section 27. Section 8.365 of the Medford Code is added to read as follows: 8.365 Charges for Vehicle for Hire Services. (1) Calculation and Display of Charges. All charges for vehicle for hire services shall be calculated and displayed by a taximeter or digital dispatch system. When charges are to be displayed by a taximeter, the taximeter shall be placed in the vehicle for hire so that the reading dial showing the amount to be charged is illuminated and readily discernible to passengers. (2) Charges to be Registered Only When Vehicle for Hire is Engaged. No taximeter or digital dispatch system shall be operated in any manner so as to cause any charge to be registered thereon except during the time while the vehicle for hire is engaged by a passenger. (3) Taximeter or Digital Dispatch System to be in Continuous Operation. No passenger shall be carried in any vehicle for hire unless the taximeter or digital dispatch system is in operation, whether or not the trip is entirely within or partially within and partially without the boundaries of the City. The taximeter or digital dispatch system shall be in continuous operation during the entire time that a passenger is being transported for compensation. (4) Specialized charges. A vehicle for hire agency may impose a specialized charge to carry extra passengers or to deliver goods or other items so long as such specialized charge is clearly calculated and displayed before any service is provided. . Section 28. Section 8.370 of the Medford Code is added to read as follows: 8.370. Use of Direct Route Required. A vehicle for hire driver employed to carry a passenger to a definite point shall take the most direct route possible that will carry the passenger safely and expeditiously to his destination. Section 29. Section 8.375 of the Medford Code is added to read as follows: 8.375 Smoking Prohibited. (1) It shall be unlawful for any vehicle for hire driver to smoke in the presence of any passenger without the consent of such passenger. (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, it shall be unlawful for any person to smoke in a vehicle for hire if oxygen tanks or other devices containing inflammable materials are present in the vehicle. (3) A violation of this section constitutes a violation. Section 30. Section 8.380 of the Medford Code is added to read as follows: 8.380. Taximeter Inspection. Every taximeter shall be inspected and tested for accuracy by the vehicle for hire agency at Ordinance No. 2017-96 P:\Cassie\ORDS\l. Council Documents\101917\amd8 Page 134 least once every six months. PASSED by the Council and signed by me in authentication of its passage this _ day of 2017. ATTEST: City Recorder Mayor APPROVED 1 2017. Mayor NOTE: Matter in bold is new. Matter s9xek on is existing law to be omitted. Three asterisks * indicate existing law which remains unchanged by this ordinance but was omitted for the sake of brevity. Ordinance No. 2017-96 P:\Cassie\ORDS\l. Council Documents\101917\amd8 Page 135