Item 2F: Ratification of IGR Committee Actions

Home Browse Search

House Bill 2730 Ms. Wilson explained that the bill would prevent an employer from including residency pay differentials in wages or salaries that were based on cities or counties where the employee resided. She related that staff had recommended a Priority 3 Support. Mr. Poling questioned why, if the bill did not affect the City of Eugene, the recommendation was for adopting a support stance and not to remain neutral on it. Ms. Piercy arrived at 1:24 p.m. Financial Reporting Manager, Finn Cronin, explained that he had recommended support because the bill was probably only applicable to the state. Mr. Poling asked if this would affect federal positions. Glenda Surdam, Classification Compensation Manager, replied that it could. She explained that the way it was worded referred to geographic pay differentials based on costs of living in urban and rural areas. Ms. Ortiz arrived at 1:26 p.m. Mr. Poling thought he might have to declare a conflict of interest in this case. He asked how the state could enforce this on the federal government. He noted that he received a pay differential in his work for the Transportation Securities Administration (TSA) based on this locale. Ms. Surdam was unclear as to whether the Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) could adopt rules to implement what impact the differentials could have and what rules could actually be put into place. Mr. Poling declared a conflict of interest and recused himself from further discussion of the bill. Ms. Wilson noted that staff currently recommended a Priority 3 Support. Ms. Taylor observed that if the CCIGR did not take any action this recommendation would stand. She preferred to leave it at that. Mr. Poling indicated that he would check with the City Attorney regarding whether he should declare a conflict. The CCIGR made no changes to the staff recommendation of Priority 3 Support. Senate Bill 560 Principal Planner, Steve Nystrom, stated that the bill had a connection with Eugene as a result of the fallout of changes that resulted from the abolition of the Boundary Commission. He said counties were responsible for annexations to special districts. He explained that one district was problematic as it had been formed for the purpose of financing wastewater treatment many years earlier. He said it had served its purpose and that purpose was now being served by the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission, but the district could not be eliminated without bringing it to a full election. He related that the bill sought to remedy this. Ms. Ortiz thanked him for clarifying the bill. The CCIGR made no changes to the staff recommendation of Priority 3 Support. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 4, 2009 Page 2