Item 2C: Ratification of IGR Committee Minutes

Home Browse Search

Ms. Wilson said that some of the priorities she had highlighted in gray she did not consider unimportant but felt that they were already being addressed. For example, priority U, “Advocate for sustainable alternatives to fuel taxes,” she said that she knew the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) and the Oregon De- partment of Transportation (ODOT) were already examining that issue, and a task force already existed. g. Priority W - Seek additional funding, efficiencies and program support for multi-modal transit and rail projects In the case of priority W, “Seek additional funding, efficiencies and program support for multi-modal transit and rail projects,” Ms. Wilson explained that ODOT would submit a legislative concept that would call for permanency for ConnectOregon (at the current time it was session-by-session). She said that in addition, an off-the-top amount for multi-modal and rail was being considered and Mayor Piercy was on a committee that was looking at the spending of federal flexible funds. She said that these items were just for CCIGR members' information – if they wanted to suggest them as legislative priorities for the LOC, that was fine, but there were already other efforts going on that addressed those issues. Mayor Piercy stated that this was a time of limited revenues and limited ability to take on new big projects. Because of this, it seemed to her that, despite Ms. Wilson's explanation that some of the items listed would happen whether or not the LOC prioritized them, it made more sense for the CCIGR to look through the ones that were already happening to see what the CCIGR thought to be most important than to start some- thing new (unless the CCIGR decided that something was hugely important to the COE). She reiterated her point that it made more sense to encourage the LOC to leverage projects that were already ongoing. Ms. Wilson said that the LOC had the ability to have bills introduced. She said that it was not that the LOC would not engage in some of the listed priorities, for instance, overhauling state property taxes. Should that come forward as a recommendation to the legislature from a task force, the LOC would engage in it anyway, and would hold the line on what members normally asked them to do (for example, no pre-emption, protec- tion of home rule, no smaller bucket of money, additional tools for cities). These priorities would be for the LOC to take a proactive action, and actually have bills introduced or have the legislature direct a work group or task force to address some of these issues even though they were already ongoing. Ms. Wilson stated that, for example, it would be difficult for the LOC to have a bill introduced that would address priority W, “Efficiencies and program support for multi-modal transit and rail projects.” The LOC would expend energy ensuring an amount was taken from ConnectOregon (which is usually funded at $100 million) to go towards multi-modal and rail projects (at this time this was not occurring), rather than asking that a ConnectOregon bill be introduced. This was not to say that if this was not one of LOC's priorities, they wouldn't do it anyway. Ms. Wilson related that the CCIGR could suggest six priorities, or one, or none, but some direction needed to be given to the LOC addressing where the COE thought they should spend their energy. She reiterated her point that she expected the next legislative session to be quite serious for local government, specifically cities. Cities would need to do everything they could to ensure their revenues were not attacked, that their home rule authority remained intact, and that no additional preemptions were adopted against them. She stated that the COE should in fact do what they could to lift preemptions already in place. Ms. Ortiz asserted that she understood what Mayor Piercy was saying, but she said that she was comforta- ble with Ms. Wilson's suggestions. She said that she hoped that she would look at them through the lens of MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations June 30, 2010 Page 4