Item 2C: Ratif. of IGR Actions - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

of expressed statutory authority for the State to conduct such elections. That gave residents the impression there was something wrong with the approach. Mr. Tollenaar said the bill in question would provide counties and cities with the authority to hold instant runoff elections. He asked that the committee recommend support of the bill, with amendments, to the council. He said the chair of the committee to which the bill was referred was %itting" on the bill, although he received a positive communication from the vice chair of the committee, Representative Paul Holvey. Mr. Tollenaar believed the committee's support would help the bill pass. Mr. Tollenaar referred to Section 3 of the bill, which stated that ifa county or city decided to use instant runoff voting, it would have to pay the costs of the election. He suggested the bill be amended by deleting that provision. He did not think instant runoff voting would be used in every election. Of 57 most recent council elections, only seven involved runoff elections, which was not indicative that a large cost was involved. He termed the instant runoff method a ~far superior" way to elect candidates. 4. Grant Proposal Review Mr. Spradling joined the committee to discuss a Eugene Police Department-Lane County Sheriff's application for a Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) in the amount of $137,797, of which Eugene would receive $68,000. Mr. Spradling reviewed the proposal and noted how the funds would be spent by the City of Eugene. Ms. Bettman determined from Mr. Spradling that the $12,000 to be allocated for the Public Safety Coordinating Council (PSCC) staffing and support was for a single year. Ms. Bettman questioned the use of grant funds for ongoing positions, as well as the proposed funding for the taser pilot project and exercise equipment in the light of the fact the Police Commission had dropped the taser policy work for the time being and there was a need to fund the in-car video effort and a civilian review board. She could not support the grant proposal in light of other funding needs. Mr. Spaulding said in the case of the funds for the pilot program, the funds could be redirected. In regard to the exercise equipment, he said the equipment must be updated and maintained as a safety and liability issue. He said the PSCC funding was an ongoing issue, and $12,000 was the lowest level of support provided by the City to this point. If the City decided to drop that support, it could redirect the $12,000. Ms. Bettman hoped the council discussed the PSCC issue at its next process session. She asked if the committee could approve the pursuit of the grant funds and the use of the funds could be discussed later. Ms. Taylor indicated she shared Ms. Bettman's concerns. She questioned the value of the Public Safety Coordinating Council. Mr. Spaulding indicated that the expenditure list was developed in a short period of time because of rule changes at the federal level. He also indicated that the CCIGR only needed to approve pursuit of the grant funds at this time; the precise expenditures could be decided later. The money would not be received until October 2005, and there was a four-year period during which the funds could be spent. Mr. Pap6 agreed there might be question as to the value of the Public Safety Coordinating Council, but he believed that issue should be deferred to the council. He supported the grant application and agreed with the MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 7, 2005 Page 2