A decision this year by the Oregon Court of Appeals could significantly impact limited liability companies, according to industry experts.

In February, the appeals court reversed part of a decision by another court in the case of Antonio Cortez v. Nacco Materials Handling Group Inc. The case involved a worker who was injured in a forklift accident and later sued a member of the LLC that employed him.

Traditionally, workers’ compensation law protects employer groups from lawsuits through the exclusive remedy provision, which essentially prohibits employees from suing their employers for a workplace injury in exchange for employer-provided workers’ compensation insurance. But the appeals court ruled that the exclusive remedy provision did not protect “members” of LLCs from tort liability.

J.L. Wilson, vice president of government affairs for Associated Oregon Industries, said that decision threatens to unravel nearly a century of law.

“Exclusive remedy is the underpinning of the workers’ comp system dating back to its inception in (1914),” he said.

Wilson said the basis for the finding is that, while the law protects groups like “employers,” “officers,” “directors” and even fellow “employees” from tort liability, it does not specifically mention LLC “members.” He said the court’s interpretation was that because the Legislature did not name that group, it must not have intended to protect them.

“The ramification, as you’ve seen in (the) Cortez (case), is that you can collect benefits on your claim as Cortez did and turn around and sue your employer as well. If you can do that, then really, why have a workers’ comp system?”

AOI – together with a dozen industry trade groups like the Associated General Contractors, the Oregon Home Builders Association and the Oregon Concrete and Aggregate Producers Association – today will file an amicus brief petitioning the Oregon Supreme Court to review the appeals court’s decision. Wilson said AOI also will attempt to get the law amended in the next legislative session.

The exclusive remedy provision underwent significant change in 1990 during what was called the Mahonia Hall reforms. Up to that point, contractors had struggled to keep up with high costs related to workplace injuries while laborers had toiled with comparatively low levels of benefits. Then 14 representatives of management and labor groups met in the basement of the governor’s residence for four months to hammer out a solution.

Prior to a 1.9 percent rise this year, pure premium rates for workers’ compensation had not increased in 21 years – dropping a cumulative 62.8 percent since 1990, according to the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services.

John Rakowitz, government affairs director for AGC’s Oregon-Columbia chapter, said the exclusive remedy provision was a key ingredient in the 1990 reform. He said that if the appeals court’s decision were left unresolved, it would directly impact the financial and legal security of LLCs – a large portion of AGC’s members.

“The impact if there were not to be a fix would be, really, a direct hit on the contractors in our industry at large, who as you know are already contending with the deepest (and) longest downturn in Oregon construction memory,” Rakowitz said.

But not everyone was so quick to rail at the decision.

Elana Guiney, the legislative and communications director for the AFL-CIO, and a board member of Oregon’s Management-Labor Advisory Committee, said she would like to see more information on the subject before any changes are made to the workers’ comp system.

In recent MLAC meetings, she said workers’ compensation lawyers testified that cases similar to Cortez v. Nacco have arisen in the past and that the ability of workers to sue in those situations may actually play an important role in the system. More research, she said, needs to be done to make that judgment.

“(AOI’s) concern is (that) it could undermine the exclusive remedy provision, but I also understand when a business registers as an LLC they’re doing that to avoid certain liabilities – that’s what a limited liability corporation is,” Guiney said. “If they’re trying to avoid certain liabilities, that also means more things are falling to their employees, realistically, with that form of business.”

She said that while workers should not be able to take advantage of loopholes in the system, attention should be paid to the issue to make sure the same is true for owners of LLCs.

“If there are things in the workers’ comp system that are made more difficult at an LLC because that company has less liability in some way,” she said, “then we may need to look at workers’ comp in LLCs.”

Robert Udziela, the plaintiff’s attorney in the appeals case, could not be reached for comment.

The post Court decision exposes LLCs’ liability appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

While city, state and regional government officials last week rejoiced that federal authorities OK’d acquisition of right-of-way for the Columbia River Crossing project, oral arguments over another aspect of the CRC were presented at the Oregon Supreme Court.

The court is expected to decide in the coming months whether Metro inappropriately used a fast-track land-use process to gain approval for the approximately $4 billion rail, road and bridge project. The appeal came from environmental and neighborhood groups that claim Metro is attempting to limit public input. The court’s decision could significantly affect both the length of the land-use process and public support for the project.

The Land Use Final Order process was enacted in legislation in 1997 as a way to consolidate land-use hearings for a north-south light-rail extension planned between Clackamas Town Center and Vancouver, Wash.

“The idea was that these light-rail projects pass through a number of jurisdictions,” Metro senior attorney Dick Benner said.

The Oregon Department of Transportation and transit agency TriMet going through an application process for a zoning change, comprehensive map amendments and so on in multiple jurisdictions “would be a nightmare, and would take a long, long time,” Benner said.

The LUFO process thus allows the state Land Conservation and Development Commission to create a smaller set of approval criteria that applies to all project parts. Each municipality is required to approve the project, and can apply only limited conditions for approval.

Metro is using the LUFO process for the CRC on the basis that the project will, among other things, extend the light-rail line to Vancouver. The language instituting the process allows light rail and “any highway improvements to be included in the project” to go through land-use review only at Metro, and not at every local level.

Opponents say that the CRC is much bigger than only a light-rail project with highway improvements.

“This is essentially a highway expansion; less than 20 percent (of the CRC project) is light rail,” said Steven Cole, a board member of the Northeast Coalition of Neighborhoods.

Cole contended that the fast-track process was therefore inappropriate.

“Metro used this process to limit public input,” he said. “We don’t think it’s appropriate with the scope of this project.”

Oregon Supreme Court justices last week questioned an attorney for the Northeast Coalition of Neighborhoods and the Coalition for a Livable Future about why he believed the “highway improvements” mentioned in the LUFO legislation should be narrowly defined to not include much of the CRC.

Justices also asked Metro and TriMet attorney Mark Greenfield why he thought the opposite was true; and where the boundaries are for highway improvements that could and could not be included in the LUFO.

Benner said that one option for Metro and TriMet, depending on the Supreme Court’s decision, would be to split the project between “highway improvements” that fit under the LUFO and those that don’t. The latter would need to be handled separately, he said.

“If the court agreed with petitioners that the highway improvements that are included in the project have to be related more closely than they are, they would send it back to us,” Benner said. “TriMet would have to go through each of the improvements, see if they are ‘related,’ and if not, we’d have to take them out.”

If the Supreme Court were to side with the petitioners, Benner said the project could face a much slower approval process.

“It would be a lot more time, and opponents of the project would have a lot more opportunities to appeal those decisions to (the Land Use Board of Appeals),” Benner said. “It could tie it up for quite a while.”

The entire LUFO process is on a fast track, so appeals, for example, went straight to the Supreme Court. It has no deadline to issue its decision; however, Benner said that there is a precedent to believe the decision will happen within about two months.

If the court were to side with Metro, however, Cole said that the Northeast Coalition of Neighborhoods may pursue other avenues to challenge the project. The group is weighing whether to challenge federal approval of the project’s environmental impact statement.

Regardless of what the Oregon Supreme Court decides, Metro will have one key issue to address: Only parts of the project within Portland’s urban growth boundary fall under the LUFO’s purview, which includes all of the CRC project aspects in Oregon, but not a small section between the north tip of Hayden Island and the state border in the middle of the Columbia River.

The Land Use Board of Appeals informed Metro that this must be addressed, because the project’s current LUFO includes this area outside Portland’s UGB. Benner said Metro will either expand the UGB or use a separate land-use process for that portion of the project.

The post Supreme Court will decide key Columbia River Crossing issue appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The city of Forest Grove is appealing a jury’s decision in September that found the city and two of its employees liable for “abuse of power,” and awarded David Hill Development $6.5 million in damages.

attorney Daniel Lerner, an associate who worked on the case, said his team is in the process of filing post-trial motions that are necessary before an appeal can be made to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, he said he couldn’t comment beyond that.

“We think that this sets a frightening precedent for every city in Oregon that you could be subject to this kind of a lawsuit loss for an alleged delay in the project,” city manager Michael Sykes said. “The city’s position is that we bent over backwards to help an inexperienced developer and that this judgment was completely wrong.”

The lawsuit, filed in 2008, alleged that the city of Forest Grove, public works director Robert Foster and project engineer Steve Wood delayed construction and added project costs for a 217-lot subdivision, The Parks at Forest Grove – all to benefit a neighboring property owner.

“I would hope that other municipalities and agencies across Oregon and our country take notice of this case and these types of cases and remember that public servants need to follow the law,” said attorney Steve Morasch, the lead attorney on the team that represented David Hill Development in the case. “They can’t play favorites.”

According to the complaint filed in federal court, the city of Forest Grove had determined as early as 2005 that the developer’s sewer routing met all code requirements, but officials instead told the developer that significant changes – costing hundreds of thousands of dollars – were needed.

Emails among city officials acknowledge that David Hill Development’s original sewer plan complied with all codes. Terry Keyes, then the development services manager for Clean Water Services, stated in a 2005 email to Wood that the developer’s proposed route appeared “well thought out and should minimize construction costs and easement issues.”

But according to Morasch, the city failed to approve his client’s sewer route for months as it attempted to help a neighboring property owner connect to the city’s sewer system. Then, after backing down on the route changes, the city said the proposed access easement wasn’t wide enough, which required the developer to pay $400,000 for construction costs and a dedicated right-of-way easement.

The jury found the city accountable of an “abuse of power” that “shocks the conscience,” and took the unusual step of returning the verdict with a note attached; it said that it believed other city officials were at fault as well.

The damages were calculated based on the developer’s 2006 contract to sell the entire project for nearly $28 million. Construction delays caused that transaction to fall through, and then the buyer noticed the market declining. David Hill Development ended up selling fewer lots at a lesser price, with a total market-related loss of approximately $3.7 million.

Other damages were for interest that accrued on the developer’s construction loans during the delay, as well as additional construction costs not part of the original conditions of approval.

“We handle a fair amount of these types of claims, and I’ve never heard of a larger (settlement) in Oregon,” Morasch said.

The city’s insurance policy will cover only $5 million of the damages. The city probably will be responsible for some share of the remaining $1.5 million, although Sykes said the finances are still being sorted out.

“We don’t think the city did anything wrong – everything was clearly spelled out in the development agreement,” Sykes said. “It just means that cities might have to have higher insurance limits.”

The post Forest Grove to appeal $6.5M ‘abuse of power’ decision appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Homeowners may have less time to file negligence claims against developers and homebuilders because of a seemingly insignificant part of a court finding from earlier this year.

In a construction defect case in March, the Oregon Supreme Court included a footnote in its decision stating that a two-year statute of limitations applies to cases of negligent construction. Prior to that decision, the statute of limitations was understood to be six years. Since March, some trial court judges are following the footnote, and others are following the previous statute, but a forthcoming decision from the appellate court may break the tie.

“I’m kind of dumbfounded,” said Crystal Lewis, an attorney representing the plaintiff in a case, Liberty Oaks HOA v. Liberty Oaks LLC, et al, that was dismissed in June because of the footnote mentioning the two-year statute. “Right now it just depends on who your trial judge is.”

But Lewis’ case, which pits a Tualatin homeowners’ association against a developer and other contractors, is going through the appeals process and has piqued the interest of many people involved in construction defect litigation. The appellate court’s ruling on the Liberty Oaks Homeowners Association’s claim could finally clarify whether negligence claims are subject to two- or six-year limitations.

If homeowners have only two years to file a negligence claim after discovering problems caused by faulty construction, Lewis contends that properties maintained by homeowners associations – condominiums and townhomes – will especially be at risk.

Most of the defect claims handled by Lewis are based on building envelope problems caused by improper waterproofing. Volunteer homeowners associations might be informed about a leak or two, but not realize there is an underlying problem for years.

“You can’t tell that’s happening from just looking at the building,” she said. “Six years gives a much more comfortable cushion to figure out the problem and act on it.”

But other lawyers are defending the use of the two-year statute.

Attorney Jonathan Henderson argues that trial courts should have been applying the two-year statute of limitations even prior to the March decision of Abraham v. T. Henry Construction Inc., the case in which the footnote appears.

“People were lulled into complacency, but the defense bar still felt the two-year statute applied,” said Henderson, who is representing several of the defendants in the Liberty Oaks appeal. “Now the odds are pretty good that the appellate courts will stand by the Abraham �ڴǴdzٲԴdzٱ�.”

If they do stand behind the footnote, Henderson said the ruling will provide a limitations defense for many contractors and developers and will cut off “quite a few claims.” Breach-of-contract claims are still subject to a six-year statute of limitations, however.

“The end result is favorable for those in the construction industry,” he said. “If there is a winner, it’ll be contractors and developers.”

But Lewis contends that insurance companies will benefit most.

“The big winners so far are the insurance carriers for contractors,” she said. “It ends up on them to foot the bill for repairs … and a lot of property owners are not going to be able to hold developers and builders accountable for damages caused by construction defect” (if the two-year statute of limitations is upheld).

The appeals process could take many months, but the court will decide the matter one way or the other. Until then, some plaintiff attorneys are scrambling to readjust their schedules now that they may not have as much time to file their claims.

But some attorneys say a bright side may exist for homeowners.

Attorney Hunter Emerick said an increase in construction defect litigation has caused contractors to become more educated. And now that homeowners may have less time to make certain types of claims, maybe they will become more educated too, he said.

“Homeowners and building owners need to become more aware of maintenance and taking care of their own buildings and catching problems early on,” said Emerick, whose practice is based in Salem. “They should use this as a wake-up call to be more proactive.”

Although the appellate court will decide the Liberty Oaks case, the losing party could appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court.

The post A footnote creates waves for construction defect litigation appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Real estate brokers who work under principal brokers who sell property in Portland may no longer be required to pay the city’s income-based business license tax.

The Oregon Court of Appeals last week ruled in favor of two Portland-based residential brokers who claimed the business license tax breaks state law and shouldn’t apply to them because they work under the directive of principal brokers who already pay the tax. Both the local and state Realtor associations plan on using the ruling as legal precedent in their fight to eliminate the tax on brokers.

The ruling reversed an earlier decision by the Multnomah County Circuit Court that sided with the city of Portland and its requirement that real estate brokers pay the tax.

The court case is centered on a 2008 revision of the city’s Business License Law, which, among other things, added a requirement that independent real estate brokers – those classified as 1099 employees for tax purposes – pay the tax.

The minimum fee to obtain a business license is $100, but the amount grows for businesses that make more money. Businesses are taxed at about 2.2 percent of their net income once that $100 threshold is met, according to the city’s Management & Finance division.

The appealing parties – brokers Beth Kellan and Diane Rulien – claimed that the tax on brokers breaks state law. Legislation in 1987 was passed to aid contractors and real estate brokers who work in multiple jurisdictions around the state.

The legislation, which was eventually enacted as ORS 696.365, states, “A city or county shall not impose or collect a business license tax from a person licensed as a real estate salesperson or associate real estate broker who engages in a professional real estate activity only as an agent of a real estate broker or real estate organization.”

City attorneys responded, according to court documents, that the city’s tax differs from the state’s definition of a business license tax because the 2008 revision eliminated the requirement that a business obtain a license before conducting business in the city. The attorneys claimed that the change made to the Business License Law imposes a pure business income tax rather than a business license tax, so the exemption of brokers under ORS 696.365 doesn’t apply.

In its ruling, Court of Appeals Presiding Judge Rick Haselton wrote, “The city’s alteration of other terminology … is cosmetic, not functional.

“Bluntly, by imposing its business income tax on plaintiffs in this case, the city is subjecting plaintiffs to precisely the same harm that the 1987 Legislature intended.”

Kellan was excited about the ruling. She initially got involved with the issue and filed the case in 2009 because she felt it was a cause that no one else was willing to stand up for.

“It’s an important victory for Realtors and sets a good precedent against other municipalities looking to impose a similar tax,” she said.

As part of the ruling, the appealing parties will be allowed to seek damages from the city. Kellan said that will most likely be the amount imposed on the brokers over the past three years. But first, the city of Portland has 35 days, which began Sept. 8, to appeal the decision.

The issue is unlikely to stop there. Representatives of both the Portland Metropolitan Association of Realtors and the Oregon Association of Realtors said the organizations have every intention of making sure the city stops imposing the tax on brokers.

“I’ve been working on this issue for over a decade and the entire time the city of Portland has been looking for a way to charge brokers this tax,” said Jane Leo, government affairs director for PMAR. “We have every intention of using this ruling as legal precedent.”

Jenny Pakula, vice president of government affairs for the OAR, added that local and state organizations have received full support from the National Association of Realtors and that they don’t plan on stopping until the law in Portland is changed. She said the organizations hope to eventually sit down with the city and try to work something out.

The city’s plans aren’t known yet. Kenneth McGair, the city attorney arguing the case, did not return phone inquiries by press time.

No other cities around the state impose such a tax on brokers; however, Pakula said Multnomah County has a similar tax.

“We haven’t looked into all the details there yet,” she said. “We are focused on this case right now, but we will cross that bridge down the road.”

The post Portland real estate brokers fight city tax appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Urban growth boundary expansions usually put land-use activists and city governments at odds in Oregon.

But in McMinnville are two other unlikely foes: the Oregon Court of Appeals and the Land Conservation and Development Commission.

State land-use officials today expressed concern over a recent Court of Appeals decision to overturn McMinnville’s urban growth boundary expansion, which was approved by LCDC in 2008. The remand adds even more time to a process that McMinnville started in 2000 as part of the state-required review of its comprehensive plan.

The Court of Appeals determined that LCDC incorrectly applied state statute in determining that the city had significant evidence to expand its UGB by 1,200 acres. The decision remanded the approval back to LCDC so the commission could make a better case for the expansion or make revisions to it.

“We believe the commission followed its own rules faithfully and acted reasonably in upholding McMinnville’s UGB amendment,” said Department of Land Conservation and Development Acting Director Jim Rue. “…It should concern anyone involved in Oregon planning that a process consuming several years and still reaching an uncertain conclusion is not good for the state land use planning program.”

The UGB expansion’s approval was appealed by 1000 Friend of Oregon, the state-wide land-use advocacy group. The group appealed the original approval of the expansion to LCDC in 2006. Then after changes were made and it was approved by LCDC, the group appealed it to the Court of Appeals, the final land-use decision maker in the state.

But now that the Court of Appeals has sided against the other state land-use decision maker, LCDC, no one is sure how to proceed.

“The implications, while initially troubling, are not fully understood by many planners or lawyers,” said Richard Whitman, former DLCD director and current natural resources policy director to Gov. John Kitzhaber. “It will take some time to understand and resolve the issues raised in this decision. I expect to engage (Rue) and stakeholders from around the state to craft a workable solution.”

The post Land-use officials contest court’s urban growth boundary decision appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The city of McMinnville must return to the drawing board as it attempts to expand its urban growth boundary.

The Oregon Court of Appeals late last week sided against recent Land Conservation and Development Commission approval of the expansion, and called into question the inclusion of nearly 800 acres of farmland to accommodate population and job growth. Portions of the proposal now must be re-examined by the LCDC and retooled to receive state approval.

The city has worked since 2003 to expand the UGB in preparation for a projected population increase to 44,055 by 2023. The city’s population in 2010 was 32,187.

An original proposal was approved by the Department of Land Conservation and Development in 2004; however, it was appealed by land-use advocacy groups Friends of Yamhill County and 1000 Friends of Oregon to the LCDC and then remanded to the city for more work. The city then adjusted some of the boundaries and eventually received approval from the LCDC.

Then the same groups appealed the amended plan to the Court of Appeals, which remanded it to the LCDC.

“We reached the frustration point several years ago,” said Doug Montgomery, planning director for the city of McMinnville. “We are now halfway through our 20-year projection period and it doesn’t seem like we’re that much closer than when we first started this 14 years ago.”

The appealing parties argued, and the court ruled, that the LCDC erred in approving the inclusion of 800 acres of high-priority farmland – productive land featuring top-quality soil. State law – ORS 197.298 – prioritizes which lands can be included in a UGB expansion; highly productive resource land, like farmland and forestland, is at the bottom of the list.

According to Sid Friedman, a 1000 Friends of Oregon staffer who represents Yamhill County, both rural residential exception lands and lower quality farmlands should have been included instead of the highly productive and well-used farmland. Friedman cited Southeast Booth Bend Road and Southwest Old Sheridan Road as examples of potential expansion areas.

“We hope and think that McMinnville can justify a UGB expansion without including intensively farmed areas with productive soil,” he said. “And while the court didn’t mention this, our concerns are more than just over the use of farmland in the expansion. It’s about keeping McMinnville a great place to live.”

Friedman added that the groups feel that the court’s decision vindicates their position.

“Let me add that both DLCD and LCDC don’t do these cities any favors by stringing them along and saying yes to these questionable lands,” he said. “It adds time and money to the process.”

Montgomery, meanwhile, is concerned about the state UGB expansion process.

“McMinnville isn’t alone here,” he said. “The city of Woodburn as well as plenty of others around the state are dealing with a similar appeals process. It takes a lot of time and money.”

But as Friedman pointed out, if cities’ expansion proposals weren’t so aggressive, appeals wouldn’t be filed. There are many cities that expand their UGBs without any contention whatsoever, he said.

Next, McMinnville officials will meet with attorneys to better understand the Court of Appeals ruling. City officials will then meet with the city’s assigned field representative from the DLCD and decide how to proceed.

Options range from retooling the expansion map, trimming the expansion, or providing more accurate and more thorough justification by the LCDC for approval of the UGB expansion.

“We’re all in this together,” Montgomery said. “It’s a requirement by the state, so we will sit down and once again work through this thing.”

The post Court shoots down McMinnville UGB expansion proposal appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

In the constant battle of industry vs. government in Portland, industry has notched another victory.

Last week the Oregon Court of Appeals sided with the , an industry group that represents water dependent businesses in the Portland Harbor, on its claim that the city needs a new buildable lands inventory. The ruling comes after the state Land Use Board of Appeals halted the city’s proposed in January, further diminishing the city’s chances of new environmental zoning on the Willamette River.

The North Reach of the River Plan, which covers land along the Willamette River north of the Broadway Bridge, was passed by the city last year. It was immediately appealed by the WWC to LUBA, and eventually was remanded back to the city with the request that the city determine how much industrial land will be lost with the new zoning and how that land will be replaced.

The WWC didn’t think that was enough, so it appealed the LUBA decision to the Court of Appeals saying the city failed to address Statewide Planning goal 15, which requires various activities to be protected along the Willamette River. The goal couldn’t be met, the WWC said, unless the city conducted a buildable lands inventory. The Court of Appeals sided with the group.

While there isn’t an end in sight to the remand for the city, a buildable lands inventory could be a stepping stone to moving forward with the River Plan.

As part of the city’s , a 25 year vision, city officials plan to conduct a buildable lands inventory. The issue will first be discussed by the Portland Planning and Sustainability Commission, along with a public hearing, at the Tuesday, June 28 . The meeting is at 6 p.m. at 1900 S.W. Fourth Ave., room 2500.

– Nick Bjork

The post River Plan takes another hit; industry group wants buildable lands inventory appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

For young children whose families are tied up in court hearings, sometimes nothing is more comforting than playing with other kids or crawling into a small, safe space.

In the Multnomah County Courthouse, in downtown Portland, children who may otherwise have to attend hearings can find respite in a former jury room that the Multnomah Bar Association converted into a free, drop-in child care center run by Volunteers of America.

Prior to a recent renovation, the room that houses the CourtCare program was functional, but somewhat sterile, according to Jessica Dunham, an interior designer with Yost Grube Hall Architecture. “It had a kind of hospital waiting room feel about it,” she said.

The project was initiated by Mary Rower, a paralegal at Markowitz, Herbold, Glade & Mehlhaf, who directed the remodel as part of the firm’s 25th anniversary in 2008. MHGM has contributed more than $15,000 so far, and individual members of the firm have donated an additional $4,000.

Yost Grube Hall contributed about $12,000 and more than 80 hours of design work toward the upgrade of the room that measures 10 feet by 12 feet.

Dunham’s design took into account the children’s psychological and safety needs. Green floors and a mural by Kari Dunham now brighten the atmosphere. In the middle of the room, a cylindrical piece of casework subdivides the space. Jessica Dunham hopes a crawl tunnel can serve as a safety area, exploration area or whatever suits the kids.

“We wanted to provide a place for the kids to explore and be curious,” Jessica Dunham said. “We also wanted to give them little nooks and a crawl space so that if they needed to be alone they could have that space.”

From a practical standpoint, storage space was another priority for the project. CourtCare provides craft items, stuffed animals, books and toys – and all need to be stored safely when not in use. Changing the walls was not within the scope of the project, so the solution involved assembling three walls of floor-to-ceiling case work.

“The case work provides useful storage that the workers needed,” Jessica Dunham said. “It has soft lines and curved radiuses to soften the overall space.”

Because it was built off-site and needed only to be assembled, the case work helped make the project’s construction schedule feasible. All work was completed over Memorial Day weekend so that CourtCare services could remain available as much as possible.

Jason Chupp, project manager for Howard S. Wright Constructors, estimated that his team donated 60 hours of management time, 30 hours of supervision time, and completed what normally would have been a two-week construction job in only three days.

“It took long days, starting on Friday and working 10 hours,” Chupp said. “At one point we had about six people in the room at one time, packed on top of each other, to get the work done.”

Howard S. Wright leaned on subcontractors to donate materials or labor. Uncommon Cabinetry, Cochran Broadway Electric, Contract Flooring Consultants, Don Herbst Painting, Fred Shearer & Sons, 12.500 Commercial Window Coverings, Power Plumbing, Rose City Cabinets and Contemporary Home Services all made contributions.

“Once we explained to (the subcontractors) who the work was benefiting, people felt it was worth their time and effort to make it happen,” Chupp said. “It was an easy sell once we explained the project. People jumped on board.”

Rower said the work raised awareness about CourtCare beyond the law firms that already raise the money needed to operate the facility.

“Until now, if you stepped outside of the legal community, people didn’t know it existed,” she said. “Vendors gave substantial contributions, and now the architects and tradespeople involved know about it.”

Project officials are still looking for nearly $10,000 in contributions to cover final costs.

The post Pro bono renovation brightens CourtCare facility appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The Multnomah County Courthouse was completed in 1914, and has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places since 1979. But it now is a hazard for the thousands of people who walk along its halls each day.

“An earthquake of any magnitude would be devastating,” said Judy Edwards, executive director of the Multnomah Bar Association.

The building’s unreinforced concrete is a cause for concern, but outdated mechanical, plumbing and electrical systems also are potentially dangerous, according to county reports. Renovations have been considered for more than 40 years; dozens of studies have been published.

“There are many buildings in Portland that are seismically unsafe. The issue with the courthouse is that people are required to be there,” County Commissioner Deborah Kafoury said.

“We are very heartened by the attention the courthouse is receiving,” Edwards said. “It’s not that the county hasn’t wanted to do this – they just haven’t had the money.”

Earlier this week, the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners received a new study about a possible renovation strategy for the eight-story courthouse at 1021 S.W. Fourth Ave. in downtown Portland. The study examined the possibility of seismic upgrades being performed while the structure remained in use. According to the study, previously suggested approaches that would involve vacating the facility were considered cost-prohibitive.

The multiphase strategy, designed by the county and , would cost between $176 million and $220 million. Work would last four to six years and take place on two floors at a time, from 4 p.m. to 1 a.m.

Kafoury said the study is one step in the county’s process to secure money for a project.

“For me, it’s easier to sell something if I know what I’m selling,” she said. “We need a plan for what we’re going to be asking.”

The seismic-upgrade portion of the plan calls for constructing a nine-story structure in the building’s light well – the open, unroofed space in its center. That structure would be used to support seismic straps in the existing building, and add two courtrooms per floor and a new elevator: a total of 75,300 additional square feet.

The renovation would include replacement of all mechanical, electrical, plumbing and telecommunications systems, routed through the new structure. Projected operational energy savings would be approximately 30 percent.

The study calls for restoration of the building’s remaining historic interior, including the grand staircase and main east hallway. However, all design concepts for the renovation would be subject to review by the U.S. National Park Service, the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office and the Portland Historic Landmarks Commission.

At the end of the project, the county would have “the equivalent of a new building” for 50 years of useful life, the study said.

Another option for the county would be to build a new courthouse, but that possibility does not appeal to stakeholders.

“Everybody is in agreement that the courthouse should be downtown,” Kafoury said. “But downtown space is at a premium.”
In addition, she added, if the county wanted to sell the existing building, it might have to perform seismic upgrades anyway.

“One lingering question in my mind and the minds of taxpayers is: If you have a building, why not renovate it?” Kafoury said.

Another study will examine the space needs of the county’s courts system in the coming years. Then the county will decide how to proceed. Funding for a project is not set yet.

“We’re trying to find the best and most cost-effective way to handle this situation,” Kafoury said. She acknowledged that the project will be expensive, but added that the county is “never going to be flush with cash.”

The post Multnomah County Courthouse, deteriorating, needs upgrade appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.