One-Time UGB Expansion

/in , , /by

By Armand Resto-Spotts

In 2024, the Oregon State Legislature adopted Senate Bill 1537, which offered new tools for cities to increase housing production.  This included a one-time option to expand the urban growth boundary (UGB) through an expedited process.

In 2025 and 2026, respectively, the legislature adopted Senate Bill 48 and House Bill 4035, which, collectively, revised SB 1537 in certain ways.  Primarily, these bills amended SB 1537 to: 1) remove certain barriers for some cities to more easily qualify for the one-time UGB addition; and 2) increased the acreage allowed for additions.

While some cities have already taken advantage of this expedited process, many are not aware of these recent legislative changes.  We hope this article provides an overview of the general eligibility criteria for a one-time UGB expansion, specifically for non-Metro cities.

In order to proceed with a one-time UGB expansion under the amended SB 1537, a city must demonstrate eligibility by meeting the following criteria:

  1. Demonstrated Need for Additional Land. The city must demonstrate a need for additional land based on the following factors:
  • There have been no UGB expansions for residential use in the previous 20 years; and
  • Within the existing UGB, the city lacks an undeveloped tract zoned for residential use that is larger than 20 net residential acres;

Or

  • If the city has expanded its UGB within the past 20 years, 75% of the area zoned for residential use within the expansion is either developed or subject to an acknowledged comprehensive plan with land use designations in preparation for annexation (and have a public facilities plan).
  1. Demonstrated Need for Affordable Housing. The city must demonstrate that it has a need for affordable housing, either based on having a higher percentage of cost-burdened households than average (based on HUD data) or having at least 25% of renting households considered rent-burdened (as defined ORS 456.602).

If the city can demonstrate compliance with both of the above criteria, its UGB may be expanded, so long as:

  • The site is adjacent to the city’s existing UGB (or separated by only a road);
  • The site is designated urban reserve, non-resource land, or subject to an acknowledged exception to a statewide land use planning goal relating to farmland or forestland;
  • The city has not adopted a one-time UGB expansion yet;
  • The total acreage of the site (for cities less than 25,000) is less than 50 net residential acres; and
  • The city follows the applicable procedures, including application notice, review, public hearing, and conceptual plan development.

Special procedures apply to this one-time UGB expansion process.  The city must declare its intent to include a particular site within its intended UGA expansion via public notice; set a deadline for submittal of applications for site selection; and undertake a review process, which includes a public hearing.  Finally, and most importantly, if the selected site(s) is larger than 15 net residential acres, the city must adopt a binding conceptual plan for the proposed property to be added as an amendment to the city’s comprehensive plan. The conceptual plan must establish: 1) the housing types and sizes, including middle housing, accessible housing, and other needed housing, intended for the site; 2) intended zoning; 3) identified open space, commercial uses, and surrounding housing; 4) transportation networks; and 5) affordability restrictions.  A binding conceptual plan is not required for (non-Metro) UGB expansions of less than 15 net residential acres.

Admittedly, this process entails a lot of work for a one-time UGB expansion. However, ultimately, the criteria and conceptual plan are intended to address the legislature’s primary goal – to increase housing production.

If you have questions about whether your city might qualify for this one-time UGB expansion process or desire a more detailed overview of this process, please contact our office.

Navigating Ambiguous Resignations and ADA Interactive Process Obligations

/in , /by

By Lori Cooper

In November 2025, the Oregon Court of Appeals waded into the murky waters of employees’ resignation/ job abandonment versus termination of employment. In Cullen v. Clean Water Services Division, the Court highlighted the importance of thoughtfully considering whether an employee’s statements and/or behavior may be sufficient to put an employer on notice of a possible disability and the need to engage in an interactive process required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Court also noted the importance of communicating with employees in clear and definite terms whenever possible, such as whether an employee is considered to have quit or resigned.

Background of the Case

In this case, plaintiff Cullen was a long-term employee of defendant employer, Clean Water Services (CWS), who “uncharacteristically” lost his temper during a meeting in the summer of 2022. About a month later, on August 22, 2022, plaintiff met with CWS’s CEO and expressed frustration and dissatisfaction with his job. The employee also made several statements which appeared to indicate he was resigning (e.g., “I’m done. I always thought I was an eternal optimist, but I’ve lost hope and cannot endure any longer”, “This is not how I’ve wanted to go out, but I am exhausted and lost all hope”, and “Let us part professionally, with my integrity intact.”)

A flurry of action took place over the following days, including:

  • The employee discovered he was locked out of his work computer.
  • The employee contacted Human Resources for information relating to the employee assistance program.
  • The employee emailed the CEO to express “surprise” that he was locked out of his work computer. After the CEO explained to plaintiff that she was “respect[ing] his decision to resign,” plaintiff responded that he had not “resigned.”
  • The employee emailed the CEO and stated he would return to work after a “30- to 60-day leave to address his mental health issues.”

Ultimately, the CEO informed the employee that, based on their discussion during the original August meeting, he had “no path back” to his job.

The employee subsequently informed the employer that he had been diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder and Anxiety, and that he attributed his behavior and communications to this diagnosis. The employer had approved a period of FMLA leave for the employee to obtain treatment for his condition, but his employment was ultimately terminated following his leave.
Among other lawsuit allegations, the employee claimed that his employment was terminated after the employer became aware of and/or because of his alleged disability.

The Oregon Court of Appeals’ Decision

The employer argued that, because they were not aware of any alleged disability when the employee resigned, they could not have retaliated and/or discriminated against the employee on the basis of his alleged disability.
The Court disagreed that there was a “clear understanding” that plaintiff resigned and identified that the appropriate inquiry was whether the employee had resigned before or after the employer knew or should have known about his alleged disability.

Key Takeaways for Employers

An employer’s obligations under the ADA (or Oregon state law equivalent) – including what conduct or language is sufficient to trigger the ADA-mandated interactive process – can be extremely nuanced. In situations where an employee does not identify any need for support and does not request any accommodation, it can be difficult for employers to balance their desire to be supportive of employees with the need to not engage in any guesswork about an employee’s medical condition or disability-related needs.

The Cullen decision reinforces the importance of pausing to evaluate the full picture before proceeding with disciplinary action or a termination. Courts will likely scrutinize what the employer knew (or should have known) at every decision point along the way, so it is critical for employers to be thoughtful and intentional when navigating complex termination decisions.

If faced with a situation where an employee is expressing frustration with their job, employers should consider the following:

  • Do not make decisions in a vacuum or ignore surrounding circumstances. If the situation is unclear, speak with employees involved in the employee’s work, gather information about conversations the employee may have had with their supervisor, HR personnel, or others (including, for example, inquiries about the company’s employee assistance program), and determine a course of action based on this information.
  • Prior to making any adverse employment decisions, consult with HR or legal counsel if an employee’s behavior seems unusual or problematic and you think it may be disability-related.
  • Always communicate with employees in clear and definite terms. Set clear and reasonable written deadlines for the employee to provide medical or other relevant information. Similarly, if faced with a surprising employee resignation and providing time for possible reconsideration, communicate a definitive deadline. Employers will have difficulty defending deadlines that were never clearly communicated to employees.

Contact LGLG’s employment and labor law team for help in navigating your obligations under the ADA or state law equivalent programs.

Robert’s Rules Refresher

/in , /by

By Truman Stone

Your board or council just passed a motion. You realize you missed an important step or that important information was not discussed before the vote. Do you know what to do?
A motion and second are made, but you want more information or time to think about the topic before voting. What to do?

A member keeps raising points of order, grinding discussion to a halt and making meetings much longer than necessary. What to do?

In each of the above scenarios, you may wonder whether your governing body should have a designated parliamentarian or receive special training in parliamentary procedure. You also may fear that you must strictly follow the tome that is Robert’s Rules. Never fear – we are here to help!

First, a confession. Law schools generally do not teach parliamentary procedure. Your high school Future Farmers of America (FFA) holds Parli Pro, a competitive leadership development event, and you may be better off asking a kid with a blue jacket. However, most attorneys who represent boards or committee clients are forced to learn parliamentary procedure on the job to help clients run their meetings efficiently. Although not registered parliamentarians, we have gained good working knowledge.

Henry Martyn Robert was an Army officer who first published the Pocket Manual of Rules of Order for Deliberative Assemblies in 1876. The official volume of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised [RONR] is on its twelfth edition. The full parliamentary manual is intended and best suited for large assemblies like the congress or the legislature. Within Robert’s Rules there is a distinction made for small bodies. [RONR Sect. 49:21.]

Are we bound to Robert’s Rules? Generally, no. I find no statute that specifically requires Robert’s Rules. The League of Oregon Cities (LOC) Model Charter simply states that “[t]he council must by resolution adopt rules to govern its meetings.” Unless your Charter or principle act specifically designates Robert’s Rules, you are free to adopt alternate or abbreviated rules – and there are alternates available. Check to see if your government has formally adopted parliamentary rules and what version has been adopted. Once your government has formally designated or adopted rules, you become obligated to follow those rules.

Some general things to consider:

  • Designate a parliamentarian and get that person some training. Consider the board secretary, city recorder, or similar staff member for this role.
  • Have a copy of Robert’s Rules available. Robert’s Rules of Order, In Brief, is a simplified version that I recommend. Rather than guess or struggle, adjourn the meeting for some quick research.
  • If you are unsure what to do, make a parliamentary inquiry to the chair and discuss how to proceed.
  • Review your council or body’s rules on an annual basis. Keep what works and change what does not.
  • The people you represent expect efficient meetings conducted civilly. Don’t get bogged down in the minutia of procedure.

Now, to answer the questions above. If you get stuck and no one knows what to do, make the following motion: “I move to suspend the rules to do _________ or to accomplish __________.” This motion requires a second and a vote of two-thirds of the members. [RONR Sect. 25:1-20.] You must still vote on decisions as required by Oregon Public Meetings Law, but getting to that vote will be easier. Once you get yourself unstuck, regular order resumes.

If you anticipate a problem for an upcoming meeting, call one of our attorneys. Alternatively, find a Future Farmers of America chapter and give a kid a job at your meetings.

House Bills Update: Gifts, Grub, and a Governor’s Veto

/in , /by

By Mark Wolf

Food, Beverages and Swag provided to Public Officials

House Bill (HB) 4161 now clarifies that a public body may provide food and beverages to its public officials during meetings or other official events.

Why the change?  Oregon’s ethics laws prohibit public officials from using their office to obtain a financial benefit that would not otherwise be available to them. In May of 2025, the Oregon Government Ethics Commission (OGEC) concluded that a public body providing food and/or beverages to its elected officials and staff could constitute an impermissible “financial gain” under ORS 244.040, unless the food and beverages are  (1) part of the public officials “official compensation;” or (2) offered to members of the public.

What does the bill do?

HB 4161 now exempts the following actions from the ORS 244.040 prohibition on using one’s office for personal financial gain or to avoid financial harm:

“Food, beverages or both provided to a public official by a public body during meetings or other official events held by the public body or as otherwise required to be provided by law or rule of this state.” ORS 244.040(2)(j).”

And: “Merchandise provided to a public official by a public body if the cost of the merchandise does not exceed $100 in a calendar year, except as otherwise provided by policy of the public body.”  ORS 244.040(2)(k).”

So, local governments can now safely provide meals to their boards, councils, and commissions, as well as to their employees and volunteers during council or board meetings, trainings, and other official meetings.

In addition, local governments may also provide merchandise, such as branded clothing,  hats, drinkware, and other recognition items so long as the total cost does not exceed $100 per year for each public official.  The statute also allows local governments to choose a cap of less than the $100, or to allow none at all.

A Governor’s Veto

House Bill (HB) 4177 was vetoed by Governor Kotek.  It was meant to provide clarity on what constitutes “deliberation” under Oregon’s Public Meetings Laws to help prevent public officials from inadvertently engaging in serial communications in violation of Oregon’s open meeting laws. Specifically, the definition of “deliberation” would have changed from “discussion or communication that is part of a decision-making process” to “discussion or communication in which the members of a governing body examine, weigh or reflect upon the reasons for or against a decision that is subject to the jurisdiction of the governing body.”   The change would have required a quorum’s discussion to have more meaning or purpose for or against a decision for it to rise to the level of “deliberation.”

HB 4177 would have also expanded the list of communications that do not apply to Oregon’s Public Meetings Law.  Those communications that would have been statutorily allowed were those that:

  • Are purely regarding  procedural matters and convey no deliberation or decision;
  • Contain only factual or educational information;
  • Share the views of someone other than a member of the governing body, including but not limited to published articles or constituent letters;
  • Are communications to news media representatives, constituents, members of the public or other persons, unless those persons are being used as intermediaries to allow the governing body to engage in deliberations or make a decision; and
  • Are made for the purpose of gathering information related to a decision that will be deliberated upon or made by the governing body.

Governor Kotek vetoed this bill on April 16, 2026, citing “concerns that some of the new language could be utilized to circumvent transparency.”  She urged the OGEC to work with the legislature, her office and key stakeholders to provide more clarity between now and the next legislative session in 2027.