Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2C: Ratification of IGR Actions of April 23, 2008 ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of April 23, 2008 Meeting Date: May 27, 2008 Agenda Item Number: 2C 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 meetings of April 23, 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. The April 23, 2008 IGR Committee minutes were electronically submitted to the IGR Committee on Monday, May 12, 2008 for review and approval. IGR Committee members, including the Mayor who sat in as proxy to Councilor Poling, were asked to respond by Friday, May 16, 2008. Because no responses were received, a reminder message was sent to the IGR Committee on Friday, May 16, 2008. As of Tuesday, May 20, 2008, no responses to the message for review and approval of the IGR Committee minutes have been received by staff. Although the IGR Committee has not provided their approval of the April 23, 2008 IGR Committee meeting minutes, staff is submitting the minutes for ratification in order to address the concern that the minutes be provided to the City Council in a timely manner. 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. Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080527\S0805272C.doc 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 April 23, 2008, IGR meetings. ATTACHMENTS A. IGR Committee Minutes of April 23, 2008 Emergency Communications: Extension of the 9-1-1 Tax B. Attachment with the heading referred to in the minutes FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Brenda Wilson Telephone: 682-8441 Staff E-Mail: brenda.s.wilson@ci.eugene.or.us Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080527\S0805272C.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 April 23, 2008 10:30 a.m. PRESENT: Betty Taylor, Chair; Andrea Ortiz, members; Mayor Kitty Piercy; Brenda Wilson, Jessica Mumme, City Manager's Office. ABSENT: George Poling, member. 1. Call to Order and Review Agenda Ms. Taylor called the meeting of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) to order and reviewed the agenda. It was noted that Mayor Piercy was sitting in for Councilor Poling as his proxy. Intergovernmental Relations Manager, Brenda Wilson, asked that three additional items be placed on the agenda: first a grant application submitted by the Recreation Department; second, clarification from the CCIGR of the grant application process; and third, a discussion of the recent federal priorities (United Front) trip to Washington D.C. 2. Grant Application Ms. Wilson indicated that the grant request had been submitted by Craig Smith, Recreation Program Manager, and asked him to briefly highlight it. Mr. Smith explained that the School District 4J had asked the City to partner with them for a grant to fund an after school program. Mayor Piercy noted that she was serving as a proxy for Mr. Poling. She asked if the grant sought to replace the funding that the City had invested in the past. Mr. Smith replied that to a certain degree this was correct. He clarified that the grant would add capacity to the program. Mr. Smith related that he had spoken to the grant writer and she indicated that she wanted to increase the request for funding from $64,000 to $83,000. Councilor Taylor asked if this increase would have any impact on the city’s responsibility or require funding from the city. Mr. Smith stated that the increase would not. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mayor Piercy, moved to accept the grant application. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 23, 2008 Page 1 Ms. Wilson asked Mr. Smith to keep the committee up to date on the progress of the grant. 3. Council Resolution on Grant Applications Ms. Wilson recalled that when the operating agreements had initially been discussed the portions affecting grant applications had been made “pretty straight-forward.” She said recently some issues had arisen regarding grant applications that had not been anticipated and that IGR staff needed some clarification of the grant application process. Ms. Wilson noted that staff had received an email vote on the recreation grant before the CCIGR today from Mr. Poling in addition to the proxy given to the Mayor. She stressed that the email vote had not been counted but that there had been no direction regarding this in the IGR Operating Agreements. She requested clarification noting that there would have been an issue if one of the votes had been a “no” vote with the concern being that neither the IGR Operating Agreements nor Resolution 4908 (Resolution) required a unanimous vote on grants. Ms. Taylor declared that in her opinion, Mr. Poling could not vote unless he was present. Mayor Piercy noted that Mr. Poling was not exactly on leave and that it was her understanding that Councilor Poling could still act if he showed up for a City Council meeting and could still vote if he was polled by email if email was within the normal process. She agreed, however, that actions at the CIGR meetings were not in his purview if he was not present. Ms. Taylor stated she was fine with Councilor Poling acting if he the issue was not before the CCIR at a meeting and the poll was within the normal procedure of the committee. Ms. Ortiz recommended that councilors discuss the issue of absences further at the next process meeting. Ms. Taylor expressed concern that too much was being undertaken by emailing and that the CCIGR probably needed to meet more often. Ms. Wilson indicated that this raised another issue since grants did not happen on a regular or monthly basis; for instance, often grants had short timelines. She said at times staff did not even apply for a grant because of the time constraints. She had requested that the City Attorney review the rules regarding the CCIGR and the attorney determined that there was no requirement in the Resolution or the IGR Operating Agreements for a unanimous vote on a grant application. She explained that currently if the vote in the CCIGR was not unanimous, the practice was to take the item before the full City Council for a vote. This had caused at least one grant to be dropped by staff because it could not be approved by the full City Council in time to meet the grant application deadline. She asked if the CCIGR wished to continue this practice, given that it was not required by the language in the IGR Operating Agreements or the Resolution. Ms. Taylor felt that having two people approve a grant application was enough, but wanted to make sure that everyone on the full City Council was notified of the grant application. In response to a question from Ms. Ortiz about the IGR Operating Agreements requirement for a unanimous vote, Ms. Wilson clarified that the IGR Operating Agreements addressed what happens if a vote on legislation is not unanimous and was silent on what happens when a vote on a grant was not unanimous. She explained that a non-unanimous vote on legislation was required to go to the full City council and no MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 23, 2008 Page 2 such requirement existed for grants. Ms. Ortiz stated she understood and was fine with CCIGR voting on grants requiring two rather than three votes. Mayor Piercy agreed that everyone on the council should be notified of all grants, even the ones that did not require a CCIGR vote. Ms. Wilson related that another item raised regarding the Resolution language. She noted that the Resolution did not require all funding requests to go through the CCIGR for approval; that the Resolution only required notice of all grants and grants that were contrary to council policy should not be applied for by staff. She noted as an example that recently the council had directed staff to pursue funding through a grant and then the grant had been brought back to the CCIGR. She asked if this was the council’s intent. Ms. Ortiz averred that once an item had been vetted at the council there did not seem to be a need to revisit it in the CCIGR. Ms. Taylor and Mayor Piercy agreed. Ms. Wilson asked if there were other ideas to make the grant application process simpler. Ms. Ortiz asked how they could ensure that there would be 100 percent compliance citywide. Ms. Wilson responded that she had recently met with city executives and discussed the grant application process. She stated that one of the issues brought up at that meeting was that because of the short timeline for some grants, there sometimes was not enough time to bring them before the council. She wanted to know if the CCIGR was comfortable with staff providing notice to all of the councilors of a grant without first seeking approval. Ms. Ortiz expressed her concern about controversial grants. She stated she wanted to know about grants where the issue was controversial and was concerned that council would not know about those grants. MS. Wilson responded that the council would still need to be given notification of all grants that were applied for and that the Resolution prohibited staff from applying for any grant contrary to city policy. Ms. Taylor averred that if matching funds were required a grant application should come before the council. Ms. Wilson asked how the CCIGR members felt about grants that did not require matching funds. She noted again that the Resolution directed that grants that were contrary to city policy could not be applied for. She also asked how a situation in which one staff member applies for a grant and then another one applies for the same grant later should be considered. She brought up a recent grant application situation where one city department had submitted a grant application request to the CCIGR which was approved; then about a month later another city department notified the CCIGR that they were also applying for the same grant. She stated this resulted in a first-come, first-serve situation and took the decision for approving the grant application out of the hands of the CCIGR and left it to who ever applied first. She noted that Councilor Poling had weighed in and indicated that his preference would be to let staff submit both applications and let the granting authority decide. The other options were to wait until right before the application deadline, which she stated was a bad idea since this would further impact the application process due to tight time constraints; or to leave it on a first-come, first-serve basis. Ms. Taylor stated she preferred the first-come, first serve basis. Ms. Ortiz stated she did not have a problem with different departments applying for the same grant. She felt that whoever wrote the best grant should be able to show how they would best spend the funds and let the MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 23, 2008 Page 3 granting authority decide who had the better application. Her largest concern was that in a recent situation the council had been left out of the loop. Ms. Taylor reiterated that it would be sufficient to notify the council in cases where there were no matching funds in lieu of actually bringing an application to a council meeting. Ms. Taylor indicated she would like notification as soon as possible and for the CCIGR to meet more regularly. Ms. Wilson ascertained that the CCIGR’s directive on the grant application process was that grant applications requiring matching funds would continue to come before the CCIGR and that for all other grant applications, the council would receive notice from staff of the grant application; that the vote for grant applications did not need to be unanimous; that whenever possible the IGR would meet to discuss a grant application; and that for grants to the same granting authority, if approval is required and is given, that multiple city grants could be submitted. 4. Discuss Legislative Policies Document Ms. Wilson related that given the short legislative session it had been agreed that if she could not obtain direction from the council she should consult the Legislative Policies Document. She noted that bills were moving very fast with over 100 bills going through both legislative houses in 10 days. She also noted that Ms. Bettman had expressed concern at a recent council meeting that the document was too vague to be relied upon and could be misinterpreted. Ms. Wilson stated that since we actually give the document to our legislative delegation and tell them that it represents our legislative policies on a number of issues, we need to be sure what we want the document to represent. She went on to state that if the city wants it to mean something, then they needed to decide how it could be most meaningful. Ms. Wilson thought the document was onerous and difficult to go through and was not helpful if one was not a member of the city staff. She noted that the book was provided to the legislative delegation, but she did not think it was useful for them and that they were certainly not reading it. She wanted to know if the CCIGR had ideas on how to make it more useful, not only to our legislative delegation, but also to city staff and our community. Ms. Wilson said some things were clear, such as preemption of local authority, but that most of it was repetitive. Mayor Piercy commented that preemption of local authority was not something legislators were looking for, rather it was a reason something would be opposed, not as a reason of what we intended to do. Everyone agreed. Ms. Wilson thought the document could be set up so that it would say what the City wished to accomplish in the legislative session. She acknowledged that this would be a lot of work for city staff but felt that once this exercise had become part of the pattern, and she suggested that it be undertaken every two years, it would become easier to do this. She showed a suggested example of how this could look in an attachment with the heading Emergency Communications: Extension of the 9-1-1 Tax. She said it had been known that the 911 emergency communication tax was going to sunset. She related that they had asked staff to review the bill when it came out. She averred that in these cases, where we know something is going to come up during the session, we can develop an objective of what we want to do regarding the issue. She stated that it might be more helpful to place something like the attachment into the document. She thought instead of having a “long book,” the City could limit the document to those issues it really cared about. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 23, 2008 Page 4 Ms. Wilson noted that since preemption was a given, that perhaps it didn’t need to have a half of a page in the book. Ms. Taylor thought the language regarding local preemption could be truncated to an introductory paragraph and thinks that the rest of the book could be shortened. Ms. Taylor also pointed out a mistake on page four of the book, where it states that the City supports repeal of the real estate transfer tax. She stated that she thought that we supported a ban on the real estate transfer tax. Ms. Wilson said she would look into this issue. Mayor Piercy said they should ask councilors to let them know where their legislative interests lay at the front end. Ms. Taylor agreed but thought we could have some suggestions for the council at first. She then listed some of her concerns, which included a repeal of the ban on inclusionary zoning. She also thought the State should “do something” about homeless shelters. She related that some people felt that budgetary problems could be eliminated by getting rid of all business tax exemptions. Ms. Wilson related that the City of Eugene introduced four bill concepts in 2007. She wanted the City to be more proactive. She averred that the City needed to be able to shape its future and the things that were important needed to be in the document. Ms. Taylor was also interested in pursuing institution of a local car registration which would be a change from the current countywide registration. Ms. Wilson affirmed that this and other items were on the list of options for the upcoming legislative session where transportation funding was concerned. She noted that she sat on the League of Oregon Cities committee on transportation, chaired by Mayor Sid Leiken, and transportation funding options are a priority for the committee. She remarked that the counties would likely have their own ideas on how to pursue funding. She felt it would behoove the City to start out early with the county and see where they are since they will compete with what cities may be considering. Ms. Wilson predicted it would be difficult in 2009 legislature. She said when the City started to talk about what it wanted in terms of funding packages it needed to consider what was going on at the state and federal levels, especially given that reauthorization of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act – a Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) was upcoming. Ms. Taylor averred that they should also work on getting other transportation funds opened for use for preservation and maintenance. Mayor Piercy said not to forget about field burning. Ms. Ortiz said she would like to see some language on hate crimes. She noted that the Human Rights Commission was doing scoping work in regard to hate crimes legislation. Ms. Taylor questioned language in regard to urban renewal exemptions on page 11 of the Legislative Priorities document. Ms. Wilson reiterated that this particular version of the document was not useful and she would not rely upon it as a reference for a narrow issue. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 23, 2008 Page 5 In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Wilson stated that it would be good to have the document revised by early fall at the very latest so we can start having conversations with our legislative delegation. She thought she could make a first stab at putting together the policy issues and legislative concepts that need to be looked at and discussed in the next six weeks. Ms. Taylor wants to discuss the urban renewal issue. Ms. Ortiz also wanted to include a railroad quiet zone on the list. They discussed the conversation between Congressman DeFazio and Mr. Obie regarding federal funding. Ms. Wilson responded that she had been discussing this issue with several parties regarding this funding issue. She has discovered at present there was no federal funding available. She has determined that the 50 percent closing requirement is not in state law and is looking into the offer that ODOT has sent to us regarding the Section 130 funding. Mayor Piercy declared that the City should get its “ducks in a row” for the United Front lobbying effort. She felt that sometimes things were taken forward on the trip that had not been vetted within the community. She noted that the Lane Transit District (LTD) had been “so successful” it was in trouble as it could not move the amount of people who needed to be moved around the City. She related that LTD had been told by Congress to go to the State. She averred that the City needed to understand that supporting LTD in this was in agreement with the City’s goals. She felt that major issues having to do with city goals that aligned with the City’s major partners’ interests needed to be identified. Ms. Wilson concurred. She said she was meeting with the local partners to check in with them and know what they were doing. Mayor Piercy wanted to keep the bus pass program as fully as possible and she also wanted to work with Congress and the State to ratchet up the full roll out of the EmX. Ms. Wilson said she would bring a legislative policy outline and a list of legislative concepts in draft form to the CCIGR before staff discusses the items. She stated that right now they are separate items, and although they may eventually be combined, these issues needed to be vetted out since the legislative concepts are proactive and the policy outline is more reactive. Mayor Piercy noted that if our council decides that the issue she just talked about is a Priority 2 and the LOC transportation committee and we know what they are thinking about, then we need to have a conversation on how all of that comes together and how to take the best advantage on how to get people into public transportation. Ms. Taylor indicated an interest in off-road bike paths, like in the Crest Drive area. Ms. Ortiz requested easier access to the IGR Operating Agreements and the Resolution. She suggested that those be placed in the Legislative Policies Document. The group discussed this and decided that the grant application discussion could be set out in a memo so that the process was clear. 5. Items from Committee and Staff/United Front Trip Ms. Wilson stated that Kurt Bailey from Smith Dawson Andrews would come in the next week for a discussion of the SAFETEA-LU reauthorization. Eugene and its legislative partners would be participating in the discussion. She said the United Front partners were discussing possible legislative concepts on policy changes to SAFETEA-LU to make it easier to obtain federal funding. She noted that there had been MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 23, 2008 Page 6 discussion on the hill that indicated that they were only looking for technical changes to it and not conceptual changes. She said the CCIGR and subsequently the full City Council would have to put forth its ideas for the reauthorization. She thought Mr. Bailey’s visit would provide an opportunity to debrief the trip to Washington, D.C. in order to improve the endeavor. Ms. Taylor said knowing which person would discuss each item ahead of time. She stated she was not sure who was to take the lead in each meeting while they were in Washington D.C. Ms. Wilson noted that this was done in two ways: the lead person opens up the discussion and then each jurisdiction gives their presentation; or if we are in an agency meeting, then it is up to the elected official, since the presentation comes across better from the elected official rather than staff. She noted it would be helpful if we had the schedule of meetings before or could meet prior to the meetings. Ms. Taylor also noted that Gerry Gaydos, chair of the LTD Board, had been listed as an elected official. She wanted to clarify that he was not elected. She felt he had been lead too much. Ms. Ortiz wanted to know who Kirk Bailey was. Ms. Wilson stated he was an associate of the federal lobbying firm that the United Front contracted with for the pasts 20 or so years and was very familiar with the city’s projects, especially since he was from this area and had once worked for the University of Oregon. She noted that there had been a discussion on sending out the Request for Proposals (RFP) for lobbying firms and that it had been decided to wait to do so until after the SAFETEA-LU reauthorization because of Smith Dawson’s in-depth knowledge of transportation issues and their good relationship with Mr. DeFazio’s office. Smith Dawson knows this is coming. Ms. Wilson said the City needed to hone its process in terms of coming with a “huge list” of things and letting the CCIGR decide what appeared to be important and then getting feedback from Smith Dawson on what was possible and why. Mayor Piercy averred that the City should have a sense of the context from which it was taking things forward from Eugene. She said in West Eugene they were looking at transportation and land use in tandem and felt that the City should “look through that lens” when setting priorities. She stated that she didn’t think we were taking into consideration over-arching policies when determining what our federal priorities would be. Ms. Wilson states she agreed and for example, felt that there was not a regional transportation planning process and this created difficulties. She said it would be good to determine regional priorities for a particular issue and see how well this would work. Mayor Piercy emphasized the importance of considering the environmental context and land use issues in tandem with transportation projects. Ms. Taylor noted that it had been said that grant monies were not available for shuttle buses. She felt grants should be available for shuttle buses for people who live up in the hills as part of the LTD system. She declared that transportation was needed all over the city. Mayor Piercy said they should think about whether more people from the CCIGR could participate in the United Front trip. She felt it would help the people who did not have experience with the United Front to understand it. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 23, 2008 Page 7 The next meeting was tentatively scheduled for May 28. Ms. Ortiz indicated she could not make it at that time. Ms. Wilson stated that Ms. Mumme would send an email confirming the meeting time and date. The meeting adjourned at 2:35 p.m. (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 23, 2008 Page 8 ATTACHMENT B EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS EXTENSION OF THE 9-1-1 TAX Objective: Extend the sunset of the 9-1-1 Emergency Communications Tax which is due to expire at the end of 2007. Support legislation to make this tax Permanent and index it to the Consumer Price Index every five years. Issue: During one of the 2002 special sessions, the legislature extended the 9-1-1 tax to 2007. Receipts from this surcharge represent X percent of our emergency communication’s operating budget and if allowed to expire, would result in a budget reduction of $X.X million. If the surcharge is not extended or made permanent the result will be that the level of service currently provided to the citizens of Lane County will be seriously compromised.