Laserfiche WebLink
C. ACTION: <br /> Adoption of 2009 League of Oregon Cities Legislative Recommendations <br /> <br />Intergovernmental Relations Manager Brenda Wilson explained that the League of Oregon Cities (LOC) had <br />recently revised its legislative policy process, which had resulted in a proactive legislative agenda. She <br />described the process used to determine priority legislative outcomes and said the LOC wanted cities to <br />name their top four issues from a list of 24 items. She said the list was reviewed by the Intergovernmental <br />Relations (IGR) Committee, which identified the follow five priorities for Eugene: <br /> <br />? <br /> Changes to the property tax system <br />? <br /> Increased regulation on metal theft <br />? <br /> Transportation funding package <br />? <br /> Climate change legislation <br />? <br /> Oregon wireless interoperability network <br /> <br />Ms. Wilson said the council could submit all five items to the LOC, prioritize the items or substitute items <br />from the full list. She noted that the issue of ethics reform was not on the list because the legislature had <br />recognized the need to revise the law and was working on changes for the next session. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark asked for further explanation of Item C on the list, which was related to legislation to ensure cities <br />could collect franchise fees from all electricity providers that utilized City-owned right-of-way. He <br />wondered whether that would apply to new ways of generating electricity that might emerge in the future. <br />Ms. Wilson explained that Eugene did not currently collect franchise fees from electricity providers that <br />utilized right-of-way. She said the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) collected six percent of sales in <br />lieu of taxes (SILT) in lieu of right-of-way fees. She said LOC was pursuing the item on behalf of cities not <br />now able to collect right-of-way fees and had not considered the impact of new technology. She said that <br />amendment could be proposed if a bill was actually introduced. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark said if the IGR list was narrowed to four items, his lowest priority would be changes to the <br />property tax system. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman stated that the $78,000 the City paid for LOC dues was a total waste of money and rural <br />entities had the same vote as the City. She said there was no equity or balance in the LOC structure and she <br />bemoaned the development of a specific legislative agenda on which the influence of small cities and rural <br />areas was unknown. She recommended listing the item related to changes in the property tax system four <br />times as it was a concern to all jurisdictions across the state and the other items on the IGR list were being <br />addressed in other ways. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor thanked the IGR for its work. He concurred with the recommended list, but if it was narrowed to <br />four items he would be willing to include the interoperability network to the three items that received <br />unanimous support from the committee and perhaps substitute another item for increased regulation on <br />metal theft. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka agreed with the IRG’s five recommendations and thought they should not be in any priority <br />order. He asked if the wireless interoperability network was a statewide or local issue. Ms. Wilson said it <br />was a local issue because local governments were not convinced the State had the ability or the will to work <br />with local governments in developing a system. She said developing a network was essential as the federal <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 11, 2008 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />