Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Ms. Wilson briefly outlined the function of the CCIGR. She explained that every bill in the legislature was assigned to legislative coordinators throughout the City organization who were specialists in their areas. She said the coordinators read the bills and, based on their professional expertise, made a recommendation to the CCIGR on what the City’s position could be. She listed the positions the City could take on a bill: ? Drop – in the case where a bill had no impact whatsoever on the City; ? Neutral – in the case where no matter whether it was enacted or not it did not impact the City; ? Monitor – City staff reviewed almost all of the bills that came before the Legislature, nearly 3,000 of them, and the City tracked and had positions on over 700 bills in 2007, monitoring meant keeping track of a bill while looking for a broad relating clause or amendments that could impact the City; ? Support or Oppose – this meant the City either supported or opposed the bill, and the City could indicate that it would support a bill with amendments, and the rating of 1 to 3 gave Ms. Wilson the instructions for how much work she and her staff would spend on a particular lobbying effort with 1 being the highest level of effort. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a Priority 2 Oppose posi- tion on Senate Bill 192. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Brown and Tay- lor voting in opposition. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a Neutral position on House Bill 2052. Councilor Taylor explained that she had sought to monitor the bill because she believed it would help protect neighborhoods by providing more time before the facilities could be located in them. She averred that people should be aware of such a facility before it was placed in their neighborhood. Councilor Ortiz asked Ms. Wilson to speak to who sponsored the bill and what counties it would affect. Ms. Wilson stated that the bill had arisen from a situation wherein a lockdown facility had been sited in two communities in the state and the cities had not been notified prior to the placement of the facilities. Councilor Ortiz asked if the bill would cover all halfway houses. Ms. Wilson replied that the law already required notification of the siting of halfway houses, work release centers, and facilities for persons released from correctional facilities and youth care facilities. She said this would add to the list of notification facilities that held people under lockdown conditions, i.e. they were not allowed to freely come and go from the facilities. Councilor Poling understood that this would not diminish a citizen’s ability to respond to the siting of such a facility, rather it enhanced this ability. He thought it would serve as a more focal point for concerns to be addressed to any opposition a neighborhood might have about such a siting. Councilor Clark surmised that the bill would make the siting of a lockdown facility more transparent, as it would require more interaction and cooperation with neighbors to get this done. Ms. Wilson affirmed this. She said it would require the State Department of Corrections to fully inform a local PSCC that they wanted to site such a facility in a particular location. Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to amend the motion to substitute adoption of a Priority 3 Support for House Bill 2052. Roll call vote: the motion to amend passed unanimously, 8:0. Roll call vote: the main motion, as amended, passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 9, 2009 Page 7 Regular Meeting