Item 2D: Ratification of IGR Committee Actions

Home Browse Search

interoperability, the previous week; the grant required a 25 percent match, and the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) agreed to fund the majority of the match amount; the remainder would be spread out among the other three agencies involved. Mr. Spradling said the City’s share was $183,000. The other $800,000 in match money would be paid for by the other agencies involved as more information was known about equipment needs. Ms. Bettman was inclined to refer to the proposal to the council given the ongoing cost and size of the match. Mr. Spradling noted the other agencies that might be brought into the match and said the match amounts were in flux. Ms. Bettman hoped to have more information by the time the council considered the item. Ms. Taylor recalled that the council had allocated money to interoperability in the past. She asked why communication was still difficult. Mr. Spradling said that money had been spent on different aspects of the system. He said that fire departments traditionally communicate on VHF frequencies, and the grant would allow those departments to communicate on the same UHF channels as other agencies as well as inside buildings, providing for greater radio interoperability. Ms. Bettman said the system was obviously countywide and was met to link the rural and county areas and she did not understand why the City of Eugene, in the form of EWEB, was taking the lead rather than the County. Mr. Spradling indicated the City was taking the lead because of the way COPS grants were structured; the federal government designated certain cities as lead agencies using its own definitions and solicited grants from them. He said the grant was designed to create a tie to what was being purchased to each agency involved, so the $183,000 that would be spent by the City’s Fire Department would be its share of subscriber units placed in vehicles and on units. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Spradling said the grant had no connection to homeland security. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to refer the item to the City Council. The mo- tion passed unanimously. 3. Review Pending Legislation House Bill (HB) 3381 Ms. Bettman pulled the bill because she perceived that it reinforced home rule and she considered it good legislation. She asked if cities were the only jurisdictions that could implement urban renewal. Mr. Weinman believed counties could also do urban renewal. Ms. Wilson indicated the bill was likely dead, although the committee with oversight was still meeting. Mr. Weinman did not think the bill supported home rule; instead, it eroded it by allowing a school district to veto a district by not taking action on it. Ms. Bettman suggested an amendment that allowed a school district to opt out, or in the case of a county, a city to opt out. She thought the bill gave school districts more autonomy, which she also perceived as a home rule issue for the schools. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations June 15, 2007 Page 2