Item 6 - Ratif.IGR Comm.Actions - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Heuser said a local reception for the Lane County delegation had been scheduled, but the League of Oregon Cities scheduled an event that conflicted with the reception, so it was subsequently canceled. Mr. Heuser encouraged committee members to consider the issues of interest to them that they might want to testify about or meet legislators to discuss. He asked members to e-mail him those issues and the names of legislators with whom they were personally acquainted. Mr. Heuser emphasized the importance of peer-to- peer contact between elected officials when lobbying the legislature, as it was more effective than staff contacting legislators. Mr. Pap~ encouraged members to acquaint themselves with the staff of local delegation members. 6. Salem Report Mr. Heuser characterized the passage of Ballot Measure 37 as the "big elephant" in the upcoming legislative session. It was a "must confront" issue, and perhaps the only one the legislature faced. He said that the exercise of implementing the measure would be tricky and difficult given public support and the need to meet the intent of the voters. Mr. Heuser said the measure was ambiguous and silent on many issues, which the legislature would need to clarify. He noted that a committee had been formed following the passage of Ballot Measure 7 to discuss the issues, so the legislature would have someplace to start. He noted that Governor Ted Kulongoski had suggested the State needed to find a way to enforce land use regulations, which implied the governor would propose no other changes. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Heuser said the legislature may decide not to address some of the issues raised by the passage of the ballot measure because ultimately the courts would settle many of them. However, there was nothing to prevent the legislature from clarifying the ambiguous provisions of the measure, and he did not think it would be a bad idea for the legislature to do so. Ms. Bettman asked what the committee's role was given the fact the City's legal counsel was so involved in the implementation of the measure. She suggested the committee could contact Lane County legislators and encourage them to sponsor a solution. Mr. Heuser reported that City Attorney Glenn Klein was discussing that issue with Representative Robert Ackerman. He had solicited Representative Ackerman's staff for time to discuss the measure and some peripheral Goal 5 issues. He anticipated that Mr. Klein would be called upon by the legislature for his expertise over the course of the session. Ms. Bettman said that the problem with having an out-of-house attorney was that Mr. Klein was an expert on the measure but he did not necessarily represent the City's position when he discussed the measure. The City Council had not taken a position except through the ordinance implementing the measure locally. Mr. Heuser concurred. He said he was responsible for stating the City's lobbying positions. Mr. Klein would be called upon by the legislature for technical expertise, and only Mr. Klein could speak to his role. He anticipated that he would check in weekly with the committee to discuss adjustments to the measure and seek committee guidance. Mr. Pap~ suggested that rather than approach the legislature with proposed solutions, the committee wait for input from Mr. Heuser and then be proactive. MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations January 4, 2005 Page 2