Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3: Ratification of IGR Committee Actions ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Action: Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of January 3, 2008 Meeting Date: February 25, 2008 Agenda Item Number: 3 Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Brenda Wilson www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-8441 ISSUE STATEMENT This is an action item to ratify the recommendations of the Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) Committee meeting of January 3, 2008. BACKGROUND As a matter of procedure, the City Council is routinely asked to ratify the actions taken by the Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) Committee. This is done by submitting the minutes of each committee meeting to the council. Actions on which the committee is not unanimous are brought before the full City Council for consideration. These bills must be addressed by the full council in order to provide direction to staff in Salem. RELATED CITY POLICIES Ratification of IGR Committee actions is the making or affirming of the City of Eugene’s policy with respect to Federal and State legislative issues or such other matters as may come to the council from the committee. COUNCIL OPTIONS The council may ratify or decline to ratify the IGR Committee’s actions as set forth in the minutes of the committee's meeting. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends ratification of the IGR Committee's actions as set forth in the minutes of the committee's meeting. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to ratify the IGR Committee's actions as set forth in the minutes of the January 3, 2008, IGR meeting. F:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080225\S0802253.doc ATTACHMENTS A. IGR Committee Minutes of January 3, 2008 FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Brenda Wilson Telephone: 682-8441 Staff E-Mail: brenda.s.wilson@ci.eugene.or.us F:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080225\S0802253.doc ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon January 3, 2008 Noon PRESENT: Betty Taylor, Chair; Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, members; Mayor Kitty Piercy; Brenda Wilson, Jessica Mumme, City Manager's Office; Alex Cuyler, Planning and Development. 1. Call to Order and Review Agenda Ms. Wilson reordered the agenda to accommodate Mr. Cuyler’s schedule by placing item 6, Testimony to the Bottle Bill Task Force, after item 2, and renumbered the items accordingly. 2. Election of Chair Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to elect Ms. Taylor chair of the committee. The motion passed unanimously. Mayor Piercy arrived. 3. Testimony to the Bottle Bill Task Force Mr. Cuyler joined the committee for the discussion. Ms. Wilson recalled the 2007 Oregon Legislature’s passage of updates to the Oregon Bottle Bill. The legislature also established a task force to consider expansion of the types of containers that could be redeemed and the potential of collection centers. The law requires the task force to report back to the Legislature with legislative concepts by November 2008. The task force would first meet on January 15, 2008 and would meet again on February 15. She referred the committee to testimony drafted by staff on behalf of the City to the task force. Responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Cuyler indicated that staff supported a curbside collection system that was fiber-rich and a beverage container system that was container-rich. He said that many issues continued to exist with cross-contamination of materials. Mr. Cuyler said that Eugene was trying to make the point that curbside recycling should not be considered as the only, or best, model to pursue, and that the two systems could work together. There being no objection, the committee agreed the testimony could be sent to the task force. Mayor Piercy asked if the task force would continue to work on legislation. Mr. Cuyler indicated that the MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations January 3, 2008 Page 1 legislative concepts developed by the task force could be pursued in 2009. Mr. Cuyler left the meeting. 4. Process of Reviewing and Giving Direction on Legislation Ms. Wilson reported on the preparations for the upcoming special legislative session and noted a bill that had been submitted by Eugene for review by Legislative Counsel. She anticipated a maximum of 109 bills would be introduced. She referred the committee to its operating agreements and briefly described the mechanics of how bills were processed internally and by the committee. She noted the committee’s recommendations were forwarded on to the full City Council and that all non-unanimous votes would be placed on the next available City Council agenda for resolution by the entire Council. Responding to a question from Mr. Poling, Ms. Wilson said staff was trying to find a way to get the full Council to discuss the bills that the committee did not have a unanimous position on in the abbreviated timeframe for the special session. She invited suggestions. Responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Wilson said that she did not know what bills were involved, but under the ground rules established for the session no controversial bills were to be introduced. Any council action must occur by February 12, 2008 due to the deadline currently in place for all bills to be scheduled for a work session by that date. The committee briefly noted the public notice requirements related to council meetings and e-mail ex- changes. Mr. Poling recommended that time be scheduled on the council agenda of February 11 in case the committee had disagreements. Ms. Wilson thought that could be done. Ms. Taylor suggested the council agendas could include a standing item for such discussion. She recommended that staff follow-up on e-mail messages to councilors with requests for a response if the committee decided to take that approach. The committee acknowledged that Ms. Wilson might have to contact councilors on their personal telephones for direction. 5. Process of Reviewing and Giving Direction on Grants Ms. Wilson reviewed the current process used by the committee to review grant proposals. She brought up the suggestion that the committee might want to consider setting a dollar threshold for grants it decided to review. Responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Wilson said that the timing of grants rather that the need to seek the committee’s approval was an issue for staff. It has sometimes been an issue when grants came up when there was no committee meeting or the committee’s e-mail vote was not unanimous and no council meeting was scheduled in time to meet the grant deadline. Ms. Ortiz wished to find some way to distinguish between controversial and non-controversial proposals. Ms. Wilson said that it was difficult to draw that threshold; even when there was not a money match required, some grants still had a financial impact on the City. Mr. Poling suggested that often the subject of the grant would be more controversial than the amount of money involved. Ms. Taylor questioned if there was a need for the committee to change its ground rules because the situation mentioned by Ms. Wilson did not happen often and staff could contact the councilors for direction. There was general concurrence. Ms. Wilson indicated that staff might call the committee members to remind them MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations January 3, 2008 Page 2 of the need to respond to an e-mail poll regarding a grant if they had not yet responded. 6. Process for Supplemental Session Ms. Taylor determined that the committee had addressed this item in its earlier discussion. Ms. Wilson said she would keep the committee informed of legislative activities via e-mail. Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy, Ms. Wilson said she was working on the transportation committee developing legislative concepts for the 2009 Legislative session. Mayor Piercy said because of the shortage of gas tax dollars coming in to the State, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) was suffering budgetary shortfalls and was working on proposals to cut back projects currently in the pipeline. The governor was emphasizing a look at transportation through the lens of climate change and sustainability and she wanted to ensure that Eugene played a role in that as it represented a big shift in how the agency did business. Ms. Wilson concurred. She had been stressing a tool box of solutions rather than a single solution so each community could address its own needs. 7. WOPR Items Ms. Taylor noted that the council would not be able to meet as a council prior to the opportunity to submit comment on the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for its Western Oregon Resource Plan. Mayor Piercy concurred, but said that people who contacted her felt a resolution from the council would be very helpful even if not submitted in time by the BLM’s deadline for public comment. Ms. Wilson confirmed that comment must be submitted to the BLM by January 11 in order for the BLM to legally consider the comment. In regard to a resolution, Ms. Wilson said that Mr. Pryor had asked that the BLM be present to answer questions during any council discussion on the topic, and Ms. Taylor had asked that those with opposing interests also be allowed to be present. She noted that resolutions that went to the council must be prepared by the City Attorney’s Office, and requested direction on how to proceed. Mr. Poling noted that Mr. Pryor’s opposition was based on the fact the federal government was sidestepping its obligations to the timber counties, which he agreed with. He was unsure of the options and suggested the plan be opposed on that basis. Mayor Piercy opposed the EIS because of the option related to the harvesting of old growth, pointing out there were other ways to provide lumber, such as through tree farms. The agency was proposing a large increase in the harvest of old growth, which she opposed. She also agreed with Mr. Poling’s remarks. She did not think the BLM was taking the right direction for Oregon and Eugene should take a stand. Ms. Wilson suggested that the council resolution would not be in opposition to the EIS as one of the options in the EIS was for no change in current practices. In addition, an option was also proposed that would replace the Secure Rural Schools funding. Ms. Taylor suggested a resolution proposing no increase in harvest for reasons of climate change, air quality, carbon retention, etc. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations January 3, 2008 Page 3 Ms. Ortiz agreed with the remarks of other committee members. She did not support the harvesting of old growth but felt that some timber harvesting could occur to support the economy. She was seeking a balance but reiterated the old growth should be left alone. Ms. Wilson suggested that rather than adopt a resolution in response to the EIS, it might want to adopt a resolution setting out its position on the harvest of old growth and environmental protections as the issue was unlikely to go away. Ms. Taylor supported that approach as being in line with the council’s policies. Ms. Wilson offered to get the process started with the City Attorney’s Office. The committee concurred. Ms. Taylor suggested that the council consider the resolution on January 14. 8. Items from Members and Staff Ms. Wilson invited committee members to contact her with questions and offered to meet with members to assist them in learning how to read Oregon legislation and to provide them with an overview of the legislative process. She also invited suggestions on improvements to the materials provided to the committee. The committee tentatively agreed to meet January 22 at noon, January 30 at 1:30 p.m., and February 5 at noon. A second February meeting would be scheduled as necessary. Committee members agreed that if they had no objection to the staff recommendations, meetings would be canceled. The meeting adjourned at 1:05 p.m. (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations January 3, 2008 Page 4