Item 6: Ratification of IGR Minutes and Direction on Legislative Policy

Home Browse Search

communications would not be covered, but if he took notes they would be subject to disclosure. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Lidz explained that if a councilor or other public official was sued in his or her individual capacity for something done as a public official, notes taken by an attorney during communications with that public official would be subject to disclosure under the bill. Ms. Bettman felt there could be situations where counsel was giving legal advice to a body and that legal advice was based on a report or study. She said if the public body was making decisions based on that report it should be part of the public bill. She was not convinced the bill warranted Priority 2, Oppose. She said that any fatal flaws in the record would come out during testimony. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to Monitor the bill as a Priority 2. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Ms. Piercy asked if the bill could be amended to resolve those problems. Mr. Lidz said there had been extensive negotiations but so far no agreement. SB 653 Ms. Wilson clarified that the recommendation was a Priority 2, Oppose. Ms. Bettman said she was in agreement with the recommendation. There were no objections. HB 2824 Ms. Bettman said the bill imposed a bond on contractors with public bodies for affordable housing. She said the bond was intended to hold the contractor accountable and questioned why staff would recommend opposition to the bill. She asked who would absorb the liability of that protection was removed. Mr. Perry said the $30,000 public works bond was a new requirement through the Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) and would be in addition to what the City normally required. He said City construction contracts over $50,000 already required a 100 percent performance bond and additionally contractors were required to be bonded through BOLI. He said that if the City had a contracting issue it would go directly to the performance bond and hold the contractor accountable based on that before going to the State for help. Mr. Lidz said the reason to dispense with the requirement for affordable housing would be to make it cheaper to build those projects by removing one cost with the builders felt was not necessary and burden- some. He said the bill would probably be discussed in conjunction with the other bills related to the definition of public works and the prevailing wage issues. His recommendation was to monitor the bill to assure that it was aligned with HB 2557. Ms. Piercy, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to Monitor the bill as a Priority 2. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 576 Ms. Taylor asked how the bill conflicted with the City’s policies. Mr. Svendsen replied that the square footage floor was somewhat smaller than the City’s policy, which was a minor conflict. He said the major concern with the bill was turning the Oregon Department of Energy (DOE) into a building permitting function for any project by a public body that was over 4,000 square feet. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 16, 2007 Page 2