Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2C: Ratif. of IGR ActionsEUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of March 17, March 24, March 31, April 7, and April 14, 2005 Meeting Date: May 9, 2005 Agenda Item Number: 2C Department: City Manager's Office Staff Contact: Lisa Klemp www. cl. eugene, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-5619 ISSUE STATEMENT This is an action item to ratify the recommendations of the Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) Committee. 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 to the council. Actions on which the committee is not unanimous are brought before the full council for consideration. There was one action at the March 17, 2005, meeting on which the committee was not unanimous. That action involved Senate Bill 654. There were two actions at the March 31, 2005, meeting on which the committee was not unanimous. Those actions involved House Bills 2620 and 2621. There were five actions at the April 7, 2005, meeting on which the committee was not unanimous. Those actions involved House Bill 2617, 2618, 2625, 2643, and 3052. There were 12 actions at the April 14, 2005, meeting on which the committee was not unanimous. Those actions involved House Bill 2356, 2356A, 2962, 2963, 2964, 3056, 3383, 3414, 3415, Senate Bills 532, 652, and 1006. 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. L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050509\S0505092C.doc 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Actions on which the committee is not unanimous are brought before the full council for consideration. There were actions at the March 17, March 24, March 31, April 7, and April 14, 2005, meetings on which the committee was not unanimous. Staff recommends these bills be considered by the full council. SUGGESTED MOTION The council may ratify or decline to ratify the IGR Committee's actions as set forth in the minutes of the committee's meeting. ATTACHMENTS A. IGR Committee Minutes of March 17, 2005 B. IGR Committee Minutes of March 24, 2005 C. IGR Committee Minutes of March 31, 2005 D. IGR Committee Minutes of April 7, 2005 E. IGR Committee Minutes of April 14, 2005 F. Legislative Tracking System printout of the House and Senate bills on which there was no unanimity FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Lisa Klemp Telephone: 682-5619 Staff E-Mail: Lisa. T.Klemp~ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050509\S0505092C.doc ATTACHMENT A MINUTES Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations McNutt Room--City Hall March 17, 2005 9 a.m. PRESENT: Gary Pap6, Chair; Bonny Bettman, Betty Taylor, members; Mary Walston, Jason Heuser, Lisa Klemp, City Manager's Office; Larry Hill, Patty Boyle, Central Services Department; Eric Jones, Scott Duckett, Tom Larson, Public Works Department; Kurt Yeiter, Stuart Ramsing, Planning and Development Department; Glenn Klein, City Attorney's Office; Doug Perry, Fire and Emergency Medical Services. 1. Call to Order and Review Agenda Mr. Pap6 called the meeting of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations to order. 2. Review Pending Legislation Ballot Measure 3 7 Mr. Heuser said many Ballot Measure 37-related bills had been introduced at the State legislature. He believed it was likely a comprehensive package would emerge, but that was not clear. He noted that informal meetings had been held in Salem for all stakeholders and interested parties. Mr. Klein provided a further update, noting the passage of legislation in the House of Representatives regarding lots of record. The bill allowed a property owner to construct a house on property where that was allowed prior to the adoption of land use laws. The chair of the Senate committee, Senator Charles Ringo, was not interested in such a standalone bill but could include it in a package. Regarding the stakeholders meetings, Mr. Klein said the first meeting focused on the process for claims. A bill had been drafted for a claims processing system that included all the elements of the ordinance adopted by the Eugene City Council. The meetings then moved onto other, more contentious issues and were subsequently suspended when they were not judged productive. Mr. Klein said another work group was focused on the assumptions appraisers must make to come up with an appraisal for property hampered and unhampered by regulation. That work was ongoing, and would result in a recommendation to the legislature for inclusion in a broader package. Such things as waivers, compensation funding, and other policy issues remained to be resolved. He anticipated that at some point in the next two to four weeks, a comprehensive rewrite of Ballot Measure 37 would be offered to the legislature. Most of the bills before the committee this week were unlikely to make any progress, but they did provide the legislature with some education on what needed to be addressed. MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 17, 2005 Page 1 Ms. Bettman preferred to leave the matter to the courts, but she suggested the committee take a Priority 2, Oppose position to all pending legislation. She indicated support for legislation related to the private cause of action, Senate Bill (SB) 633. Ms. Taylor concurred. Mr. Pap6 preferred to wait and not waste any staff resources. Ms. Bettman did not think the resource would be wasted if the bills were stuck in committee; at least the committee would be on record. Mr. Heuser advised a neutral position on the legislation that had been introduced. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to take a position of Priority 1, Support on SB 633. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to take a position of Priority 2, Oppose, to all Ballot Measure 37-related legislation except SB 633. Mr. Pap6 was concerned about the potential of wasting time and energy and offending legislators. Ms. Bettman interpreted the motion as directing Mr. Heuser to take a vocal position against anything but a comprehensive package. Mr. Heuser indicated that would not be a problem. The motion passed unanimously. Priority 1 Bills The committee had no questions about Priority 1 bills. Priority 2 Bills Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman about the purpose of House Bill (HB) 2214, related to public contracting, Mr. Klein indicated the bill included technical corrections to legislation passed in 2003. It was filed pre-session by the request of the Attorney General's Office. The City Attorney's Office had reviewed the bill and had seen no problems with it. He was unsure of the effect the bill would have on the City's public contracting code. Ms. Bettman suggested the bill be changed to a lower priority. Mr. Heuser did not object, noting he was aware of no opposition to the bill. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the priority of HB 2214 to Priority 3. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Bettman referred to HB 2220, related to collusion in bidding on public contracting, and expressed concern about the staff recommendation to take a neutral position on the bill. Mr. Jones noted that the staff recommendations differed. Only minor changes would be required to City practices. He deferred to the committee's position on the bill. Mr. Heuser reported that no hearing was scheduled on the bill. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of liB 2220 from Neu- tral to Support. The motion passed unanimously. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor regarding HB 2533, which imposed a "beverage cost recovery fee" on malt beverages, Mr. Hill indicated the fee in question was a wholesale tax. Ms. Taylor preferred to take a position in opposition to the bill as she interpreted the fee as a sales tax on a poor person's drink. Mr. MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 17, 2005 Page 2 Heuser noted the tax had not been raised since 1977 and there was considerable support at the legislature for the bill, which was sponsored by Senator Bill Morrisette. Ms. Bettman noted her support for the bill. She determined from Mr. Hill that he was recommending an amendment stipulating that the tax not be tied to a specific use. While she agreed that the tax was a tax on poor people, she opposed using such an amendment as a new source of revenue because it was regressive, while tying the revenue to treatment was justifiable. Ms. Bettman moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 2 without amendments. Mr. Hill noted the added independent auditing requirements the bill imposed on all recipients of the revenues that would be realized by passage of the bill. He said the approach was proscriptive, which the City tended to resist because staff believed its home rule authority gave it the ability to make local decisions about the use of revenues. He said that such bills make it very difficult for cities to accomplish local goals, and in such instances the legislation was proposing to replace the council's judgment with its own. Ms. Bettman pointed out that it was well-established that the community needed services for drug and alcohol treatment. She perceived the bill as a public safety measure that would have a big impact on the City, although she acknowledged that generally such services were funded through the Human Services Commission. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Hill said that staff would have to track the costs of the audit annually. The City was guaranteed about one percent of the revenue from the bill, and would have to use it for law enforcement purposes related to drug addiction. The City could do that because it did provide services related to law enforcement and mental health, such as CAHOOTS. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Hill reiterated that one of his concerns was the proliferation of such bills, which increasingly took power away from local governments. Ms. Bettman repeated her remarks about the City's lack of funding for mental health and addiction services. She said she did not hear complaints that the gas tax was dedicated to the construction of new roads. Mr. Pap~ pointed out that was a constitutional restriction. Ms. Bettman asked if the auditing function was an additional expense. Mr. Hill did not characterize it as an additional expense as much as an additional obligation. The City would have to contract for an independent audit. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Hill said he did not know how much the tax would add to the price of a bottle of beer. The proposed tax was ten cents per 12 ounce for large retailers or manufactur- ers and five cents per 12 ounce beverage tax for smaller producers. Mr. Heuser reported that the bill had not yet had a hearing, but he believed one would be scheduled. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor indicated that her opposition to the bill was based in part to her dislike of earmarked funds. Mr. Pap~ determined there was no second to the motion, and it died. Ms. Taylor referred to SB 2569, related to motor vehicle accidents involving law enforcement officials, and MINUTES--Council Committee on INtergovernmental Relations March 17, 2005 Page 3 asked about the purpose of the bill. Mr. Cushman explained the current policy related to contacts between law enforcement vehicles and fleeing suspect vehicles. He said that the Department of Motor Vehicles had asked the Attorney General for an opinion as to whether such contacts constituted an accident and required the filing of a report, and the Attorney General cited cases that indicated it was under current law. The bill was an attempt to change that. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the status of SB 0897, which would declare the Statewide planning goals related to transportation to be advisory in na- ture, to Priority 1. Mr. Jones did not oppose changing the bill's priority status but questioned whether it was going anywhere. Mr. Heuser did not think so. If it did, he would inform the committee. Ms. Taylor withdrew her motion and Ms. Bettman withdrew her second. Responding to a request for clarification from Ms. Taylor about SB 0907, related to controlled substances, Mr. Cushman overviewed the details of the bill. Ms. Taylor opposed the element related to prenatal exposure to such substances. Ms. Taylor moved to oppose the bill unless it was amended by the deletion of the reference to "prenatal exposure." The motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the status of liB 2487 to Priority 2 and recommended an amendment increasing the proposed tax to two percent. Ms. Boyle explained the details of liB 2487, relating to tax compliance, noting that it compelled the State to collect any locally imposed income tax. She believed that the source of the bill was likely to be Portland because the State had declined to collect Portland's income tax. Portland was doing its own collection, which was less efficient. The tax was not well-complied with by the public. She was concerned about the one percent limitation currently in the bill as the City had discussed different percentages in the past. The motion passed unanimously. Priority 3 Bills The committee requested information regarding HB 2514, relating to tax credits for mental health. Mr. Hill explained this was one of many bills that would expand the tax credit in the state. The bill would expand the definition of those who could claim a tax credit for providing rural health care. He said that many of the bills had social merit as well as a revenue impact. His recommendation to oppose the bill was based on adopted council policy related to State shared revenues. The bill would expand the tax credit without replacing the revenues. Mr. Pap6 observed that the bill seemed fair to him. He did not believe the revenue impact would be that big. Ms. Bettman agreed. She asked where the State was in its examination of what she termed "luxury loopholes." Mr. Heuser said the House and Senate revenue committees had been holding hearings on both expansions and deletions of the existing list. He believed in the end the deletions and additions would cancel each other out. He termed the bill in question "DOA" given the scrutiny the Senate had been giving all such MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 17, 2005 Page 4 legislation. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pap6, moved to change the status of liB 2514 to Support. The motion passed unanimously. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6 regarding SB 0002, relating to seismic safety, Mr. Heuser said staff's recommendation to monitor the bill was based on the lack of funding provided for the bill. The committee agreed to hold the bill over for more information. Ms. Bettman asked why staff did not recommend support for SB 0006, which would prohibit school personnel from administering, promoting, suggesting, or supplying performance enhancing drugs. Mr. Cushman said the department did not see the bill as a public safety issue but he thought the committee might have an interest in the bill from a public policy standpoint, and so included it in the list. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pap6, moved to change the status of SB 0006 from Neutral to Support. The motion passed unanimously. Referring to SB 0546, which would prohibit law enforcement units from requiring peace officers to issue a minimum number of citations, Ms. Taylor suggested if the number of citations could be used in an officer's evaluation, it was as much an incentive as requiring a certain number of citations. Mr. Cushman said that if officers were given no minimum number of citations, law enforcement depended on what the individual officer decided to do. If the bill were passed, an officer could choose to write no citations at all and the department could do nothing about it. Ms. Bettman said the bill simply stated that the number of citations would be taken into account in an evaluation. Mr. Cushman said if the bill passed as written, the department could not do that. Ms. Bettman said Eugene has no reputation for being ;~ticket-happy." Ms. Taylor moved to change the recommendation to support SB 0546 without the proposed amendment. The motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Taylor referred to SB 0550, which would delete the provision in existing law that required the award of attorney's fees to those who prevail in contested cases. She objected to the change because it would penalize someone who had been unfairly accused and prevailed. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Pap6, moved to change the status of SB 0550 by rec- ommending an amendment deleting the provision of the bill that would eliminate current law requiring the awarding of attorney fees to those who prevail in con- tested cases. The motion passed unanimously. Referring to SB 0578, relating to State contracting for services performed within the United States, Ms. Bettman wanted to change the status of the bill from Monitor to Support. The bill encouraged the use of American companies and services but did not prohibit going out of the country for those services, merely required findings. Mr. Heuser noted that the bill had not been scheduled for a hearing. Ms. Bettman asked that the bill be held over to the next meeting. MINUTES--Council Committee on INtergovernmental Relations March 17, 2005 Page 5 Referring to SB 0597, which would require a person residing in the same household as an abused person to report the abuse, Ms. Taylor wanted to see the bill amended to state that if either parent reported abuse by the other parent, the identity of the complaining parent should remain confidential. Mr. Cushman said that somewhere in the process, the identity of the person making the report would be revealed, but he did not object to an amendment holding that information confidential to the degree allowed by the law. Ms. Bettman said that the bill appeared to address situations such as abuse by a stepfather when the mother fails to report the abuse. Once the abuse was discovered, the mother could be held responsible as a witness to the abuse. She questioned what position WomenSpace had on the legislation. She said the bill should exempt parents who were victims of abuse as well and afraid to report. Mr. Klein indicated that generally, State agencies do not release such information unless compelled to do so. Mr. Heuser reported that the bill had not been scheduled for a hearing. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Support with an amendment related to an affirmative defense for those afraid to report. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of SB 0654, related to compensation for the Oregon Forest Practices Act, to Priority 2, Support. Mr. Klein said the bill would amend Ballot Measure 37 to prohibit claims resulting from restrictions imposed by the Oregon Forest Practices Act. Mr. Pap~ expressed concern that the measure was passed in part because of appeals from families who were unable to divide their land for use by other family members. Mr. Klein said the forest managers who supported the measure did not like the operational restrictions imposed by the act. He asked how strongly the committee wanted Mr. Heuser to push the bill as opposed to delivering the message that Ballot Measure 37 should not be addressed on a piece-meal basis. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Heuser indicated no public hearing had been scheduled for the bill. Mr. Klein suggested that Mr. Heuser forward the message that in the absence of a comprehensive package, the City wanted to see the bill pass, and the bill would be assigned a Priority 1 status. Ms. Bettman accepted that as a friendly amendment to her motion. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pap~ voting no. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to drop SB 0804 from further consideration as being outside the committee's purview. The motion passed unanimously. Referring to SB 0863, relating to replacement dwellings in the exclusive farm use, Ms. Bettman asked that staff bring the bill back if it began to make progress. Referring to SB 0990, which related to the membership of the Board on Police Safety Standards and Training, Ms. Taylor asked about the impact of the bill and why the City was taking a position in opposition MINUTES--Council Committee on INtergovernmental Relations March 17, 2005 Page 6 to the bill. Mr. Cushman said the Board on Police Standards and Training sets mandatory standards for police and fire training for cities. His major concern was in regard to the reduction of management representation on the board. While it was important to have line officers on the board, in the end Police Chief Administrators were charged with ensuring police services were properly delivered. Reducing the number of managers would tend to skew the balance that existed on the board now. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Perry indicated he had not yet reviewed the bill. The committee agreed to hold the bill until the next meeting pending comment from the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department on the bill. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Cushman said that he did not know the police union's position on the legislation, but suspected that the union would support it. Mr. Pap~ asked for information about the current make-up of the board. The committee discussed SB 0727, related to materials used in residential structures. Ms. Bettman expressed concern about the exposure of workers to arsenic in new construction and demolition. Mr. Ramsing said the bill did not prohibit a person from having a bottle of arsenic in their garage. The bill did not remove arsenic from the home environment, and created challenges as how to get it out of the home as City staff was not trained in the identification of arsenic. He was unsure the bill would make a differentce as homebuilders association was trying to kill the bill, and there were alternative products to arsenic available. Arsenic was tending to be phased out as a decay-resisting material. Ms. Bettman suggested that the City did not need to oppose the bill if the homebuilders were already opposing it. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of SB 0727 from Op- pose to Neutral. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to forward the committee's recommendations on the City's legislative positions to the City Council. The motion passed unanimously. 3. Salem Report Ms. Bettman reminded staff that the City opposed legislation that removed a municipality from having a voice in the formation of special districts. Mr. Heuser reported that staff was lobbying against a bill that eliminated the Lane County Local Govern- ment Boundary Commission. He reported that former State representative Lee Beyer had agreed to lobby against the bill. Mr. Heuser had met with Kurt Yeiter and Susan Muir of the Planning Division to review a set of talking points. He said staff would expedite the committee's review of the bill. 4. Other Legislative Concerns This item was not addressed. The meeting adjourned at 10:45 a.m. MINUTES--Council Committee on INtergovernmental Relations March 17, 2005 Page 7 (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Council Committee on INtergovernmental Relations March 17, 2005 Page 8 ATTACHMENT B MINUTES Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations McNutt Room--City Hall March 24, 2005 9 a.m. PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Betty Taylor, Gary Pap~ (via speaker phone), members; Mary Walston, Lisa Klemp, Kelly Brooks, City Manager's Office; Ellwood Cushman, Kristi Wilde, Eugene Police Department; Kristie Hammitt, Municipal Court; Sue Cutsogeorge, Jeff Perry, Carol Pomes, Larry Hill, Central Services Department; Chuck Solin, Human Resources & Risk Services; Susan Muir, Kurt Yeiter, Planning Department; Fred McVey, Sarah Medary, Peter Ruffler, Public Works Department; Tom Larson, Eric Jones, Public Works Department; Jerome Lidz, City Attorney' s Office. 1. Call to Order and Review Agenda Ms. Bettman called the meeting of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) to order. The agenda was accepted as submitted. 2. Approval of Minutes Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to approve the minutes of the CCIGR meetings of February 24 and March 9, 2005, respectively. The motion passed unanimously. 2. Review Pending Legislation SB 0839 EXTENDS PERIOD DURING WHICH PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR MULTIPLE-UNIT HOUSING MAY BE GRANTED. (Priority 1-Support) Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to support the bill with the following amendment: The sunset date coincides with the 2009 Legislative Session. Ms. Bettman requested that staff lobby for a shorter sunset date as noted in the amendment. She explained that due to the changing nature of budgets, as well as the evolving makeup of the City Council, 2016 is too far into the future to set a sunset date. MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 24, 2005 Page 1 She opined that by 2009, the City will be able to gage if this program is in fact a liability or a benefit. The motion passed 2-0. SB 0841 ESTABLISHES RESERVE FUND. REQUIRES TRANSFER OF SPECIFIED AMOUNT OF GENERAL FUND ENDING BALANCE TO RESERVE FUND. ESTABLISHES CONDITIONS FOR USING MONEYS FROM RESERVE FUND (Priority 1-Support) Ms. Bettman questioned if the "up-to-two percent reserve" would be deducted from the General Fund and therefore reduce the appropriations available for services, or, is it a part of the entire budget. Ms. Cutsogeorge explained that monies would be deposited to the reserve fund only if there were funds available at the end of the budget year. She stressed that the budget would not be reduced at the beginning of the fiscal year for this purpose. Ms. Cutsogeorge reiterated that it would not be assumed the money would be available. She also explained that staff interprets City policy to label bills that will add stability to the State's finances with a high priority status. Mr. Pap~ stated it is his understanding there is an interim committee that is putting together a "rainy-day fund" proposal which will include a stipulation that any balance from that fund would be refunded to the voters. Ms. Brooks responded that some of the bills include spending caps, however, some do not. She explained the general idea is that instead of refunding all monies from the kicker, some funds would be retained and put in the reserve fund to stabilize the State budget. Ms. Cutsogeorge confirmed there is a house bill that is a companion to one of the SJR bills which must be put forth to the voters. Mr. Hill clarified that SB974 creates a "rainy day" fund with the principle to stabilize State revenue and if passed will require an amendment to the Constitution. Mr. Pap~ stated he supports the idea of a "rainy day" fund, however, he noted he is also in support of spending limitations on State government and asked that staff provide the committee with the spending-limitation bills to be reviewed at the CCIGR meeting scheduled for March 31. HB2757 CAPS AMOUNT OF SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE PER DWELLING UNIT THAT MAY BE IMPOSED FOR PARKS AND RECREATION CAPTIAL IMPROVEMENTS (Priority 1 Oppose) In response to a question from Mr. Pap~, Ms. Cutsogeorge responded that System Development Charge (SDC) funds were used to purchase a piece of land that is relatively inaccessible to the public. She explained that opponents of this bill question why SDC funds were used for land that cannot be utilized for recreational purposes. S JR0014 PROPOSES AMENDMENT TO OREGON CONSTITUTION TO ELIMINATE DOUBLE MAJORITY VOTING REQUIREMENTS IN PROPERTY TAX ELECTIONS. LIMITS ELECTIONS AT WHICH MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 24, 2005 Page 2 LOCAL PROPERTY TAX MEASURE MAY BE SUBMITTED TO GENERAL ELECTION IN EVEN-NUMBERED YEAR AND SPECIAL ELECTION IN MAY OF ANY YEAR (Priority 1 - Support) Ms. Bettman questioned why staff is of the opinion that removing the March and September special elections from consideration outweighs the positive benefit to pass money measures. Ms. Cutsogeorge opined that the elimination of double majority voting requirements will ease passage of property tax measures. Ms. Taylor opined that important measures should not be put before the voters in March and September as historically those elections result in low turnout; additionally, special elections are more costly. HB2476 MODIFIES HOURS OF LABOR AND OVERTIME REQUIRMENTS ON CERTAIN PUBLIC CONTRACTS (Priority 2 - Monitor) Ms. Pomes explained that this bill is housekeeping in nature as it deletes language regarding labor requirements and the payment of overtime on public contracts and replaces it with new language and requires the City to comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ms. Bettman asked if there was any change in the compensation. Ms. Pomes explained that the bill provides for consistency in the standard practices of compensating employees only. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to support the bill as it articulates what is already noted in law and provides no harm. The motion passed 3-0. HB 2545 PROHIBITS PUBLIC BODY FROM INCLUDING COST OF LEGAL SERVICES IN FEES ESTABLISHED FOR DISCLOSING PUBLIC RECORDS. EXCEPT WHEN PERSON REQUESTS DISCLOSURE OF PUBLIC RECORDS IN MANNER OTHER THAN MANNER IN WHICH PUBLIC BODY MAINTAINS PUBLIC RECORDS, PROHIBITS PUBLIC BODY FROM INCLUDING LABOR COSTS IN FEES ESTABLISHED FOR DISCLOSING PUBLIC RECORDS.- (Priority 2 - Oppose) Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the status of the bill to Support, Priority 1. Ms. Pap~ commented that it should not be made more difficult for the public to obtain public records. Ms. Bettman commented that providing public records to the public, which is a constitutional right, should not be connected to the raising of revenues. Ms. Taylor commented that funds should be spent to ensure that the public's rights to access are protected. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Lidz replied that the City gains access to "trade secret" information from businesses that submit proposals. Additionally, he pointed out that confidential information regarding taxation is also accessed by the City. Mr. Lidz voiced his concern that people have a tendency to request that City staff provide MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 24, 2005 Page 3 all its records pertaining to development permits for the past five years when as a rule they are only interested in one particular item. He pointed out that if there is no fee in connection with records requests, there is no incentive to tailor requests and not impose undue burden for staff. Mr. Pap~ suggested that there be an attorney review of this issue. Mr. Hill pointed out that labor cannot be charged for the collection of information and that the City would be subsidizing large requests. He noted that it also appears the bill would prohibit the City from recovering costs from Measure 37 requests. Mr. Lidz stated that to the extent a claim involves a request of a public record, he is uncertain how many claims there will be in connection with Measure 37 that will in fact require a public records request. Ms. Bettman reasoned it would be prudent to have an amendment that encourages the public to be more specific in their requests; however, she went on to say that if the media asks for all the information regarding a specific issue, those requests should be granted. Mr. Hill pointed out that the City Council can waive cost recovery. Ms. Bettman countered that to include such language in statues supercedes councilor tenures. She revealed that through her tenure on the Police Commission, she has heard complaints from the public as to how difficult it is to retrieve information from the City. Ms. Bettman said she would like to change that perception. Ms. Taylor endorsed Ms. Bettman's comment. Mr. Pap~, seconded by Ms. Bettman, amended the motion to require that the public be more specific in their requests for public records. The amendment passed 3-0. The motion passed 3-0. HB 2731 IMPOSES FEE FOR ISSUANCE, OF FIRST OREGON CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. ALLOCATES MONEYS FROM FEE AMONG DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, COUNTIES AND CITIES.. (Priority 2 - Support with Amendment) Ms. Taylor moved to add an amendment that omits the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) from receiving its share (one third) of the fee that would be received from constituents. The motion failed for a lack of a second. - Ms. Brooks stated she does not expect the bill to move forward as the County is not pushing its passage. She opined that if ODOT is removed from the fees, it definitely will not pass, as it is a coalition effort. Mr. Pap~ stated that he could not support the amendment. Ms. Bettman stated she would not support the bill. Mr. Jones reasoned that with regard to the fee, it would be a stronger argument to start with a position of one-third each and negotiate back to a 50-50 split. Ms. Bettman questioned the number of exemptions that are listed in the bill. Mr. Jones responded that the list of users, who would be exempt from the $100 fee, is consistent MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 24, 2005 Page 4 with those people who currently pay title registration fees. Mr. Jones stated that the revenue collected from these fees would be deposited into the City's Road Fund -- whereby any expenditures are consistent with the Constitution. Ms. Bettman said she could not support the bill as the City has not been disciplined with the money it does have for Operations, Maintenance and Preservation (OMP). She reasoned that the implementation of this bill would only reward bad behavior. Mr. Jones asked if Ms. Bettman could support the bill if the State's language stipulated the money was specifically for OMP. Ms. Bettman said she could support such language; however, she was unsure if the committee could make such a stipulation. Mr. Pap~ reasoned that opposing the bill due to the City's bad behavior is counterproductive. He pointed out that disciplines can be changed and a worthwhile bill should not be penalized. Ms. Bettman pointed out that this bill would increase taxes and she could not agree to raise taxes to bring about more revenue for ODOT and the County and the City to build new projects. Ms. Taylor commented that this bill would be a good source of revenue and is a one-time expenditure. She said she could support a motion to amend the language to stipulate the money is dedicated to OM&P. Mr. Pap~ disconnected from the meeting. Ms. Brooks stated that staff can relay a message to the Legislature that if the bill will not include an amendment that the revenue can only be dedicated to OM&P, the City cannot support it. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to add an amendment to HB 2731, that the revenue received from proposed fees must be dedicated to Operations, Maintenance, and Preservation, and further, that if such amendment cannot be included in the bill, the City will oppose HB 2731. The motion passed 2-0. HB2830 REQUIRES PARTICIPANTS IN ADOPT-A-HGIHWAY PROGRAM TO PAY COSTS OF PARTICIPATION. REQUIRES APPLICANTS TO APPEAR IN PERSON AT PUBLIC MEETINGS. REQUIRES IDENTITIES OF APPLICANTS TO BE PROVIDED TO NEWS MEDIA. APPLIES TO STATE, COUNTY, AND CITY ADOPT-A- HIGHWAY PROGRAMS. - (Priority 2 - Opposed) Ms. Bettman questioned if the costs to provide the signage and administering the program supercede the expense of it. Mr. Jones responded that the only program he is aware of is a small portion of the City's bicycle paths. He said he is not aware if it is programmatically required that the support the City receives from the individuals who adopted that particular section of the bath path at least equal the cost of the signs. In conclusion, Mr. Jones said this bill presents only a minimal cost to the City. MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 24, 2005 Page 5 HB2869 IMPOSES FEE ON RETAIL SALE OF STUDDED TIRES OR ON INSTALLATION OF STUDS IN TIRE - (Priority 2-Support with Amendment) Mr. Jones revealed there is an identical bill before the Senate, SB842, and asked that the position the committee takes on HB2869, extend to this bill. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend HB2869 and SB842 to raise the fee to $25.00, and change the status of the bill to Priority 1. Mr. Jones stated that staff supports a fee of $25.00 as it pays for damage. However, he opined that the bill may have better change of passage if the fee was set lower, i.e., $10.00. Ms. Brooks reported there is a hearing regarding the Senate version of the bill on March 23. She also noted there are four amendments currently under review to ensure its passage. The motion passed 2-0. SB3265 ABOLISHES LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION HAVING JURISDICTION IN LANE COUNTY AND LANE COUNTY LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FUND - (Priority 2 - Oppose) Ms. Taylor opined that the Boundary Commission should be eliminated as it is an extra layer of government. Mr. Lidz reminded the committee that the Council has adopted policy to retain the Boundary Commission. Mr. Lidz also pointed out that City staff would take on additional burdens if the Boundary Commission were to be abolished. Ms. Bettman opined that the Boundary Commission prevents the Lane County Board of Commissioners sole jurisdiction over whether the Urban Growth Boundary is expanded. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 1 Opposed. The motion passed 2-0. SB3301 AUTHORIZES FORMATION OF CUNTY SERVICE DISTRICTS WITH OVERLAPPING JURISDICTION IF DISTRICTS ARE AUTHROIZED TO PROVIDE DIFFERENT SERVICES. EXPANDS PURPOSES FOR WHICH COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT MAY BE FORMED WITHIN JURISDICTION OF LOCAL BOUNDARY COMMISSION. LIMITS AUTHORITY OF CITY OR SPECIAL DISTRICT TO OBJECT TO FORMATION OF COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT. (Priority 2 - Oppose) Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority One Opposed. The motion passed 2-0. MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 24, 2005 Page 6 SB0488 MODIFIES OFFENSE OF VIOLATING SPEED LIMIT BY REQUIRING DRIVER TO DRIVE 20 MILES PER HOUR OR LESS IN SCHOOL ZONE WHEN CHILDREN ARE PRESENT OR FLASHING LIGHT IS IN OPERATION (Priority 2 - Support with Amendment) Mr. Larsen stated that if the goal is to increase safety for children, using the definition put forth in the proposed bill does not achieve that goal. He explained that the amendment changes the language to reduce school zone speeds in effect during default effective times, or during times posted at each school zone. Mr. Larsen shared there are three other bills that address this issue, one of which includes language - all school zones will postposted hours. Mr. Larsen commented that staff would prefer to see a more uniformed posted-hours bill. Ms. Brooks shared that the House bills, which limit to posted hours or flashing lights, are set for hearings in Bend. Mr. Larsen revealed that the City of Portland is arguing for a 6 a.m. to 6 p.m.option, and that House Bill 2740 is proposing a 7 a.m. to 7 p.m option. Mr. Cushman opined that a bill that includes language when children are present is too tightly defined. Mr. Larsen stated that staff has the same opinion for the language noted in House Bill 2365. Ms. Bettman directed IGR staff to communicate to the Legislature that without an appropriately worded amendment, the committee cannot support the bill. Ms. Brooks responded that the City's position will be to support any effort to eliminate the 24-hour position and further how that stipulation is accomplished is up for discussion. Ms. Bettman opined that the proposed bill as written endangers the children as opposed to being an inconvenience to the drivers. She stressed that the City values the safety of the children over the inconvenience to the drivers. SB 0582 LIMITS THE USE OF CELLULAR TELEPHONES FOR DISPATCH BY PUBLIC SAFETY ANSWERING POINT THAT RECEIVES 9-1-1 EMERGENCY CALLS.-(Priority 2 Oppose) Ms. Hammitt explained that staff is concerned this bill limits the public safety dispatchers' options to notify field responders of information pertinent to calls for service. SB681 PROHIBITS STORAGE OR DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS AT SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES ESTABLISHED IN EXCLUSIVE FARM USE ZONES (Priority 2 Oppose) Ms. Taylor questioned why the City would not prohibit the hazardous and radio-active materials. Mr. Ruffler responded that the City is not opposed to that portion of the bill. Rather, he explained that the bill is being sponsored by the Farm Bureau and it is a MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 24, 2005 Page 7 continuation of work that begun in the last Legislative Session which would seek to limit the extension of municipal urban utility activities in exclusive farm use zones. Mr. Ruffler pointed out that the issue with the language in the bill is its definitions of solid waste which specifically includes sewage sludge. Mr. Ruffler said that in the reading of the definition of hazardous substance there is an argument that bio-solids or sewage sludge, if ingested, would make one ill. Ms. Bettman asked if individuals are using the farm use zones to store radio-active material. Mr. Ruffler stated he was not aware of such a practice. Ms. Bettman questioned if the bill could be supported if sewage sludge was exempted. Mr. Ruffler responded that the Farm Bureau has indicated it did not intend to include sewage sludge in its proposal, however, he shared that that statement is suspect throughout the Legislature. Mr. Ruffler added that the regulations already authorize land application of bio-solids when done under a permit issued by DBQ; however in the same sections, prohibitions are noted; therefore, conflicting arguments are present. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the position of the bill to support with an amendment that exempts sewage sludge. The motion passed 2-0. HB2595 RELATING TO PESTICIDE OPERATOR LICENSES; AMENDING ORS 634.116 - Priority 3 Oppose Ms. Bettman voiced her preference to increase the priority from 3 to 2. Ms. Brooks shared that the bill has already passed the House with only one descending vote. Staff explained that the City requires all operators to be licensed and would not apply pesticides anywhere without a license. It was also pointed out that through this bill the government could apply to a home owners' association without a license and merely adds those associations to an existing list. Staff quoted the ORS "Basically we could apply to own lands without an operator's license." and said that from a watershed, general policy direction of the Council to protect the City's water supply, staff opposes this bill... Ms. Brooks surmised there is no opposition from the environmental community to this bill. In conclusion, Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor agreed to leave the priority at 3. HS 2912 PROHIBITS PUBLIC BODY FROM SUBSTANTIALLY BURDEINING PERSON' S FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION, INCLUDING WHEN BURDEN RESULTS FROM APPLICATION OF RULE OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY, UNLESS PUBLIC BODY MEETS BURDENS OF PROVIDING EVIDENCE AND PERSUADING TRIER OF FACT THAT IMPOSITIOIN OF BURDEN FURTHERS COMPELLING GOVERNMENT INTEREST AND IS LEAST RESTRICTIVE MEANS OF FURTHERING THAT COMPELLING GOVERNMENT INTEREST - (Priority 3 Monitor) MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 24, 2005 Page 8 Ms. Bettman questioned if this bill increases the disincentive to address issues within the workplace, as the City could be fined for attempting to create a neutral religion zone within its offices. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 2, Oppose. Mr. Lidz pointed out this is a difficult issue as government supports the free exercise of religion. He said that the question before the City is to what extent does the right to that free exercise require employers to carve out exceptions to their general policies. Mr. Lidz indicated that the burden of proof for the government is not that it has a reasonable policy and apply it even-handedly; rather, it is that government has a compelling interest to restrict free exercise even in the workplace and there are no other alternatives. Mr. Lidz stressed this is an impossible standard to meet under the law. Ms. Bettman opined that the bill adds an additional liability to the City, given that any interpretation or movement on the part of management to point out an impingement to an employee that impacts other co-workers to their right of religious freedom may result in a fine. Ms. Bettman asked that the City's stand on this issue be relayed in the hearing process as it increases the burden on municipalities. The motion passed 2-0. HB 2939 RELATING TO THE FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE OREGON GOVERNMENT STANDARDS AND PRACTICES COMMISSION; APPROPRIATING MONEY; LIMITING EXPENDITURES; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY (Priority 3 Monitor) Ms. Walston explained HB2939 is an allocation bill with a rider that stipulates a limitation of $3,500 as the maximum payment of expenses from fees or other revenues. She surmised that the Legislature is attempting to prohibit over-expenditure. Ms. Brooks reported that the bill is currently in the Ways & Means Committee. Ms. Bettman asked that Ms. Walston undertake additional research on the bill and return it to the committee for further review. SB650 MODIFIES STANDARDS FOR AMENDING EXISTING URBAN GROWTH BOUNDRY (Priority 3 Monitor) Ms. Bettman asked how this bill will impact an urban growth expansion. Mr. Yeiter responded that the bill does not force a change in the rules that currently exist. Rather, he explained that it appears to spread the thought-process out to fit into the State rules, which he surmised is being done anyway. Mr. Yeiter opined that the State rules may change if the bill passes. He said that if the urban growth boundaries were to be MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 24, 2005 Page 9 expanded to accommodate a business or more housing, for example, that expansion could be justified through this bill. Ms. Bettman noted that the bill adds additional thresholds and therefore dilutes the traditional thresholds. She said that there is adequate flexibility with regard to the process already and opined there would not be Council support to lower the threshold to expand the Urban Growth Boundaries. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 1, opposed. The motion passed 2-0. SB962 INCLUDES CERTAIN BROMINATED FLAME RETARDANTS IN DEFINITION OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE (Priority 3 Monitor) Staff explained that this bill will expand some of the brominated flame-retardant chemicals that are listed as hazardous substances. It was shared that the European Union has already banned a number of these chemicals, so their use in toys and garments are limited. Staff said that the bill adds some of the constituents ofbrominated fire retardants to the list of hazardous substances. He opined its passage will have very little impact on the City of Eugene. S JR 0025 PROPOSES AMENDMENT TO OREGON CONSTITUTION TO PERMIT LOCAL TAXING DISTRICTS TO PROPOSE, AND DISTRICT VOTER TO ADOPT, A RATE LIMIT ON PROPERTY TAXES THAT IS LESS THAN DISTRICT'S PERMANENT RATE LIMIT (Priority 3 Support) Ms. Cutsogeorge opined there is currently not an avenue for voters to weigh in on reducing permit tax rates. She pointed out it is now only illegal to supercede the State limit and the City Council can set the tax rate up to that rate limit. MS. Cutsogeorge commented that this bill will allow the City to send the measure to the voters. Ms. Bettman questioned if this bill has any cross-overs with special districts... Ms. Cutsogeorge responded that special districts are a local taxing district. Ms. Brooks opined the bill will not pass. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to "Monitor." The motion passed 2-0. SB0082 ESTABLISHES OREGON TASK FORCE ON LAND USE PLANNING Priority 3 Support w/amendment Ms. Brooks reported there is a public hearing and work session scheduled on this bill. Ms. Muir stated there is concern regarding the composition of the task force and it may need to be balanced. She added however, that there does not seem to be momentum for the passage of the amendment or this bill. MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 24, 2005 Page 10 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 3, Monitor. The motion passed 2-0. Ms. Bettman directed staff to monitor the bill and advise the committee of its status at the next committee meeting. She noted she is inclined to oppose the bill if it moves forward. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to forward the committee's recommendations to the City Council. The motion passed 2-0. Ms. Bettman reported that Hope Marston has drafted a letter to the President and Members of Congress opposing torture and inhumane treatment in extraodinary rendition. She asked that the resolution referring to this issue be included in the committee's next packet. Jason Heuser-- via telephone -- announced that HB2943, the Toxics Bill, has been scheduled for a hearing on Thursday, March 31, at 1 p.m. In conclusion, Ms. Bettman reminded staff that the committee had moved to support the change of the LTD Board from appointed board to elected board, and assigned it a "Priority 1 status. She reported that the public hearing on this matter did not include testimony from the City and questioned why this did not occur. Ms. Bettman stressed that an assignment of"Priority 1 Support" strongly communicates to staff that the City will testify on an issue. She voiced her displeasure that this did not occur. The meeting adjourned at 10:22 a.m. Recorded by Joyce Ogden MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 24, 2005 Page 11 ATTACHMENT C MINUTES Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations McNutt Room--City Hall March 31, 2005 9 a.m. PRESENT: Gary Pap6, Chair; Bonny Bettman, Betty Taylor, members; Mary Walston, Jason Heuser, Lisa Klemp, Kelly Brooks, Lynda Rose, City Manager's Office; Kristi Hammitt, Central Services Department; Eric Jones, Scott Duckett, Public Works Department; Kurt Yeiter, Susan Muir, Planning and Development Department; Jerome Lidz, City Attorney's Office. 1. Call to Order and Review Agenda Ms. Taylor called the meeting of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) to order. Mr. Pap6 and Mr. Heuser joined the meeting via speakerphone. Ms. Taylor added a proposal to forward to the council a resolution based on a letter drafted by Hope Marston to the President and Congress opposing torture to the end of the agenda. 2. Review Pending Legislation The committee discussed House Bill (HB) 3301, related to county service districts, carried over from the previous meeting. Mr. Heuser said he consulted with Mr. Lidz and Paula Taylor, staff to the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission, about the impact of the bill and their analysis indicated it would allow over-lapping service districts. That was not currently allowable, even if the districts were for different purposes. He confirmed, in response to a question from Ms. Taylor, that the bill was introduced at the request of Lane County and was intended to facilitate the formation of a public safety district in Lane County but it would still require buy off from all the cities if they were to be included as well as approval by the boundary commission and the voters. He clarified that Eugene would not have to participate in such a district. Ms. Taylor asked if the bill was likely to pass with amendments. Mr. Heuser believed the amendments that were to be offered to the bill would make it more acceptable to more parties. He did not think the League of Oregon Cities would continue to oppose the bill if it was amended. Ms. Taylor asked if the legislative support for the amended bill depended on Eugene's continued neutrality. Mr. Heuser said he would not put it that way. Seven legislators had agreed to help the County and wanted to be supportive of public safety. He had spent considerable time lobbying against the bill and the legislators in question were attempting to find a compromise. It was difficult to argue against the bill as amended. Ms. Taylor asked if Eugene's opposition would lead to the amendment being dropped. Mr. Heuser did not know. He did not see much good coming from the City's continued opposition. If the City MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 31, 2005 Page 1 continued to oppose the bill, the legislators could take offense and choose to pass the bill without amend- ments. Ms. Bettman asked why the legislators would object to Eugene's opposition. Mr. Heuser said they were trying to create a compromise. Ms. Bettman asked who asked for the compromise. Mr. Heuser said no one asked them for a compromise; legislators try to find compromises. They felt they had eliminated all the sections that Eugene had a problem with through the amendments. Ms. Bettman thought it worth opposing the bill because she did not think the legislature would support a bill that violated home rule authority to such an extent. Ms. Bettman said that the issue for her was that the bill, even as amended, made it easier for Lane County to form a special district. Otherwise the County would not pursue the amendment. Mr. Heuser said that some portions of the bill would make it easier, but there were still hurdles the County would have to overcome. Ms. Bettman indicated her intent to testify against the bill. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Heuser said the bill did not distinguish between different service districts. Under current law, one could not specify a purpose for a special service district. Mr. Pap~ determined from Mr. Heuser that, under the proposed legislation, Eugene could opt out of a special district through a vote of the City Council, with no financial impact on the City. Mr. Pap~ asked if the City could take a position of neutral with amendments, and continue to oppose the bill if it was not amended. Mr. Heuser recommended that course. Mr. Pap~ moved to change the status of HB 3301 to Priority 2, Neutral with amendments. The motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Taylor wanted to change the status of the bill to Priority 2, Oppose. Ms. Bettman believed it was a matter of time before Lane County pursued a special service district if the legislation was passed. It gave the County access to money it would not otherwise have. She noted legislation that had been introduced to remove the double-majority requirement in State law, and suggested it would make it easier for the County to get a ballot measure passed. In addition, she believed it was a matter of time before the County could get the needed five votes of support it needed on the council to go forward with a district. She continued to oppose the bill. Mr. Pap~ asked why the committee should preclude a future City Council, as a representative government body, from supporting such a district. Ms. Bettman was not interested in making it easier for the County to form such a district. She said there were currently hoops the County must go through, and the bill eliminated some of those hoops. It did not mean the County could not form a special district. She did not want to make it easier because she did not think it was a good idea. Mr. Pap~ was concerned about the City's credibility at the legislature if it opposed the bill. Mr. Heuser believed that to oppose the bill at this point would be to set up the City for failure. There was not much left to argue about in regard to the bill. MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 31, 2005 Page 2 Ms. Taylor questioned whether a change in the priority would help; she did not anticipate the staff would do much to actively oppose the bill, but she believed it was a matter of principle. Mr. Pap6 asked if the bill had been amended. Mr. Heuser indicated amendments would be offered to the bill the next day. Ms. Bettman said the council was on record as opposing special districts and it was not willing to support them at this time. The amendment made the bill better but still did not do anything about the underlying issue. Mr. Pap6 recalled a council vote on Ms. Bettman's motion on special districts had been a tie, with the mayor breaking the tie. He offered to bring the item up again to the City Council if the bill was amended. Members agreed. Mr. Heuser left the meeting. Priority 1 Bills Mr. Pap6 referred to Senate Bill (SB) 2709, related to the federal Forest Legacy Program, and asked if special lobbying effort was needed. Ms. Brooks indicated that the Senate version of the bill had passed and had been referred to the relevant House committee. Staff was expanding its lobbying efforts to include other parties, such as the small wood lots association. If the Senate version did not move, the City would start moving the House bill. At that time, staff would request additional lobbying assistance. Priority 2 Bills Mr. Pap6 asked why the City was taking a position on HB 2705, which related to sewer systems in rural areas, and why staff would oppose rural sewer systems, which he believed were better for protecting the environment than drain fields and septic tanks. Ms. Muir responded the City had a policy against diminishing the effectiveness of urban growth boundaries and sprawl. The bill did not indicate that the houses in the cluster being served needed to be close together, and it seemed to be a way to allow for more intense development outside UGBs. Mr. Pap6 pointed out that current land use plans and laws would still remain in effect if the bill were passed. Ms. Muir acknowledged that, but said that it was easier to get exceptions to those land use laws if there was built systems in place and existing patterns of development. She believed it weakened existing restrictions in State law that prevented rural land from being developed. Mr. Pap6 asked about the benefits of such systems as opposed to drain fields and septic tanks. Ms. Muir said she discussed the issue with Peter Ruffler of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC), who believed the bill could provide people with the ability to expand systems that should not be expanded. Mr. Jones believed that the City had a capacity planning issue with the proposed legislation. Mr. Pap6 said that the bill did not discuss connections to the MWMC. It would allow a cluster of houses that would be allowed to install sewer systems. Ms. Muir said the bill also mentioned an alternative sewage disposal system, which she interpreted the bill as allowing such connections to existing sewer systems. Mr. Pap6 pointed out that could not occur without the approval of the MWMC. MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 31, 2005 Page 3 Mr. Pap6 moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 2, Neutral. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Pap6 suggested a higher priority for HB 2768, which would allow persons with a concealed hand gun license to buy a firearm without undergoing a criminal history record check. Mr. Cushman did not object to changing the priority but did not see the bill as going anywhere. He was unsure how much movement such bills would have in the current legislature. Mr. Pap6 was not opposed to retaining the current priority and suggested the bill be monitored. Ms. Brooks indicated staff would return with the bill if it gained traction. Mr. Pap6 determined from Ms. Muir that HB 3135, related to energy facility siting, did not specify the type of energy facility in question. Ms. Walston concurred. She said that the bill was intended to give local governments an opportunity to comment on energy facility siting. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 1, Support. The motion passed unanimously. Priority 3 Bills Ms. Bettman opposed SB 2418, related to the requirements for forming a special district, as she perceived it would diminish the authority of the boundary commission. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the priority of the bill to Priority 2, Oppose. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Bettman suggested the status of liB 2544, related to the appellate rule of proceedings before the Land Use Board of Appeals, be changed to Support with amendments given that the bill gave legal counsel more time to respond to issues. Staff had no objection. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to change the status of the HB 2544 to Sup- port with amendments. The motion passed unanimously. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor about the staff position on the HB 2586, related to increased penalties for right-of-way offenses, bill, Ms. Hammitt explained that Judge Wayne Allen was opposed to the fact that the bill called for suspension and a minimum suspension period, which removed judicial discretion. He supported an amendment allowing for that discretion. The committee made no changes to the staff recommendation. Ms. Taylor wanted to change the status of liB 2603, related to business registry fees, to Priority 2. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~ about the progress the bill was making, Ms. Brooks indicated no hearings had been held on the bill. Ms. Bettman suggested the committee retain the existing status given the lack of progress. There was general concurrence. Mr. Pap~ asked if HB 2619, related to the designation of rural development zones for economic develop- ment, was sponsored by Governor Ted Kulongoski. Ms. Brooks indicated the bill was sponsored by the Oregonians in Action. Ms. Taylor suggested a higher priority be assigned to the bill. MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 31, 2005 Page 4 Ms. Muir noted that there was already a State process in place to accomplish what the bill attempted to accomplish; the bill simply removed a step in the process. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 2. The motion passed unanimously. The committee discussed HB 2620, which would prohibit the inclusion of a lot, parcel, or tract in an exclusive farm use (EFU) zone unless the property was capable of providing a gross annual income in excess of a specified amount. Ms. Bettman opposed the bill. She noted that the Region 2050 growth scenarios forecast that 30 percent of new job growth in the region would be attributable to agriculture, which was an important economic engine for the area. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 2, Oppose. Mr. Pap~ asked why the City would oppose the bill given the lack of EFU zones in the city. Ms. Bettman agreed Eugene lacked such zones, but said the City had an interest in agriculture as an economic driver immediately outside the city limits. She said that the bill made it more difficult for someone with a little organic farm selling at Saturday Market to meet the threshold, increasing pressure to develop the property. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pap~ voting no. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the status of HB 2621, related to standards for the establishment of dwellings in a natural resource zone, to Priority 2. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Ms. Muir said that the bills could potentially allow small lots to be sold off and developed as single-family home sites. That was not allowed now because it created conflicting uses that impacted farmers negatively. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pap6 voting no. The committee considered HB 2652, which would overhaul the State land use system. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the status of liB 2652 to Priority 2, Oppose. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Bettman asked the status of the mixing zone bill. Ms. Brooks said the bill had a hearing and was not dead. The Oregon Student Research Interest Group (OSPIRG) was pushing the bill on the Senate side. No further hearings had been scheduled at this time.. Mr. Pap6 asked about the potential application of liB 2704, relating to land use planning for large urban parks, to Eugene. Mr. Duckett indicated the bill was specific to Forest Park in Portland, but it described a large urban park as a park of more than 1,000 near a UGB. Mr. Pap6 suggested the bill be monitored. Ms. Brooks noted that a hearing had been held on the bill the previous day. She agreed that the sponsors were focused on Forest Park. Mr. Pap6 asked that the bill be held over for further examination to determine if it had an impact on Eugene. There was concurrence. MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 31, 2005 Page 5 Mr. Duckett noted that the bill allowed the legislature to provide grant funds for park management plans. Ms. Bettman wanted to support HB 2939, relating to the financial administration of the Oregon Government Standards and Practices Commission, if it increased funding for the commission. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pap6, moved to change the status of liB 2939 to Priority 2, Support. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Taylor questioned the proposed expenditure of funds called for in HB 2977, which established a law enforcement medal of honor. Mr. Cushman believed the bill was structured to allow the State to solicit funds from private parties. Mr. Pap6 briefly left the meeting. Ms. Bettman asked why the City would support HB 3157, which gave counties discretion to inspect correctional facilities they did not operate, given that it was a County work load issue. Mr. Cushman did not object to dropping the bill. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to drop HB 3157. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Pap6 returned to the meeting. The committee discussed HB 5026, held over from a previous meeting for more information. Mr. Duckett reported that the bill in question was the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) budget bill. He had requested information from the agency about how the budget compared to previous budgets, and learned the Lane Regional Air Pollution Agency (LRAPA) would receive $28,000 less in pass through revenue as a result, and several of DEQ's air quality monitoring programs would be cut. He said in addition, that customer service for wastewater and storm water permits had been reduced, and the bill would increase fees on permit holders to help fund additional staff to properly administer the program. The City would pass through increases on through its rates. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Ms. Brooks said she could not say what other areas of State government would be affected if the DEQ budget was increased. She said budget bills were generally very fluid and as they moved through the process, numbers changed. Mr. Pap6 supported the staff recommenda- tion to monitor the bill because of the lack of information about its impact. The committee concurred. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the status of SB 100 to Priority 2. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6 regarding the status of the bill, Ms. Brooks indicated the bill was a "message" bill, which was why it was assigned the same number as Oregon's initial major land use bill. The bill was not going to pass, although it might receive a hearing. The motion passed unanimously. As Mr. Pap6 had to leave the meeting early, the committee then discussed the letter on torture prepared by MINUTES--Council Committee on INtergovernmental Relations March 31, 2005 Page 6 Ms. Marston. Ms. Taylor proposed that the committee prepare a resolution in keeping with the letter to forward to the full council for action. Mr. Pap~ questioned whether it was in the purview of the committee to be involved in United States military and international policy. Ms. Bettman indicated the committee would direct staff to draft a resolution to forward to the council. Mr. Pap~ did not think the proposal should come from the committee. He preferred to leave the matter to each individual councilor as to whether to sign a letter of opposition. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct staff to draft a resolution to return to the council. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pap~ voting no. Mr. Pap6 referred to SB 0170, related to alterations of waters of the state, and determined from Mr. Duckett that the bill did not impact the City. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Duckett said SB 0542, which created an "environmental justice task force," would direct State agencies to take into account the needs of the disadvantaged when making decisions, citing as an example the siting of a garbage dump next to a low-income housing community. He interpreted the bill as calling for one State task force with input from a variety of different stakeholders. Ms. Bettman referred to SB 0588, which would remove the legal requirement that photo radar equipment be operated by uniformed police officers and asked if staff believed that was appropriate. Mr. Cushman was not sure as he was not familiar with how such systems worked. However, in theory the bill would allow the City's senior volunteers, for example, to operate such equipment. The committee confirmed that its position on SB 0725, relating to the governing bodies of service districts, was Priority 3, Oppose. Ms. Bettman asked if the bill authorized a district to be formed. Mr. Lidz said the bill did not change the formation process. The only change was that the governing body could be separately elected rather than the County commissioners. Mr. Pap~ questioned why staff did not support SB 0847, which would reactivate property tax exemptions for single-unit housing in distressed areas. Ms. Brooks indicated the bill had a hearing on March 29 and it was her understanding that Mr. Weinman, the staff contact for the bill, considered the bill to be Portland- specific. Portland had been pushing for the tax exemption for the last two sessions but it had been waylaid by more controversial proposals twice. Mr. Pap~ interpreted the bill as allowing the City to use the incentive. The committee agreed to hold the bill over for further consideration pending more information. Mr. Pap~ left the meeting. Referring to the staff recommendation to oppose SB 0772, relating to medical marijuana, Ms. Bettman said that medical marijuana really worked for certain conditions, such as those going through chemotherapy, and she favored its use. It was nontoxic and did not have a long-lasting effect. She asked what three ounces looked like compared to seven ounces. She feared it would be an obstacle to treatment for someone to have to continually secure marijuana for their condition, and she did not want to make it more difficult for patients to secure it because of someone's philosophical opposition to its use. Ms. Bettman said she would support taking a neutral position with amendments related to the membership of the proposed State advisory MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 31, 2005 Page 7 committee and the administration burden mentioned in the staff recommendation. She thought that the definition of "licensed health care professional" was already in State law. Ms. Taylor supported the bill. She thought marijuana should be legal. Ms. Bettman did not think the bill was a City issue, which was why she did not advocate for support of the bill. She thought it a medical health issue. Mr. Cushman said the departments' concern was striking the balance between those who need marijuana and were authorized to use it, and those who were growing without that approval. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Neutral with amendments. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Lidz indicated his recommendation about SB 0790, related to remedies for whistle blowers, was because of his concern about the potential impact of punitive damages against a public body. Punitive damages were intended to punish a wrong doer and went beyond the actual damages a person experienced, and when one punishes a public body beyond the harm it caused, it reduced the funding available for public services and gave it to a private party. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman about whether the City ever experienced a whistle blower case, Mr. Lidz did not know. He pointed out that the State law already protected whistle blowers. Ms. Bettman said that it was expensive and traumatic to sue, and punitive damages might be the only thing that gave an individual incentive to pursue a lawsuit. People would still have the burden of proving their case. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill from Oppose to Support. The motion passed unanimously. 3. Salem Report This item was not addressed. 4. Other Legislative Concerns This item was not addressed. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 a.m. (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 31, 2005 Page 8 ATTACHMENT D MINUTES Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations McNutt Room--City Hall April 7, 2005 9 a.m. PRESENT: Gary Pap6, Chair; Bonny Bettman, Betty Taylor, Mary Walston, Jason Heuser, Lisa Klemp, Greg Rikhoff, City Manager's Office; Ellwood Cushman, Trent Spralding, Eugene Police Department; Kristi Hammitt, Larry Hill, Myrnie Daut, Patty Boyle, Central Services Department; Eric Jones, Scott Duckett, Sarah Medrey, Peggy Kepler, Tom Larson, Public Works Department; Kurt Yeiter, Susan Muir, Richie Weinman, Planning and Development Department; Jerome Lidz, City Attorney's Office. 1. Call to Order and Review Agenda Mr. Pap6 called the meeting of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) to order. There were no changes to the agenda. 2. Approval of Minutes Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Pap6, moved to adopt the minutes of March 17 and March 24, 2005. Ms. Bettman noted her name was misspelled in the minutes of March 24. Ms. Bettman referred to the minutes of March 17, and asked that the last sentence in paragraph 3 on page 3 be changed to refer to the Human Services Commission rather than Lane County. Ms. Bettman referred to the sentence at the top of page 2 of the minutes of March 24 and asked that the word "bill" be replaced by the word "program." The minutes were adopted as amended by a unanimous vote. 3. Public Comment Ken Tollenaar, 1522 Russett Drive, spoke in favor of liB 2638, concerning instant runoff voting. He recalled that in September 2001, at the request of the Citizen Charter Review Committee, the council referred a proposal to amend the charter to the voters providing for the adoption of a charter amendment allowing for instant runoff voting. He believed that at the time, voters rejected the measure because the State elections director and County elections director had suggested that a legal obstacle existed in the lack MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 7, 2005 Page 1 of expressed statutory authority for the State to conduct such elections. That gave residents the impression there was something wrong with the approach. Mr. Tollenaar said the bill in question would provide counties and cities with the authority to hold instant runoff elections. He asked that the committee recommend support of the bill, with amendments, to the council. He said the chair of the committee to which the bill was referred was %itting" on the bill, although he received a positive communication from the vice chair of the committee, Representative Paul Holvey. Mr. Tollenaar believed the committee's support would help the bill pass. Mr. Tollenaar referred to Section 3 of the bill, which stated that ifa county or city decided to use instant runoff voting, it would have to pay the costs of the election. He suggested the bill be amended by deleting that provision. He did not think instant runoff voting would be used in every election. Of 57 most recent council elections, only seven involved runoff elections, which was not indicative that a large cost was involved. He termed the instant runoff method a ~far superior" way to elect candidates. 4. Grant Proposal Review Mr. Spradling joined the committee to discuss a Eugene Police Department-Lane County Sheriff's application for a Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) in the amount of $137,797, of which Eugene would receive $68,000. Mr. Spradling reviewed the proposal and noted how the funds would be spent by the City of Eugene. Ms. Bettman determined from Mr. Spradling that the $12,000 to be allocated for the Public Safety Coordinating Council (PSCC) staffing and support was for a single year. Ms. Bettman questioned the use of grant funds for ongoing positions, as well as the proposed funding for the taser pilot project and exercise equipment in the light of the fact the Police Commission had dropped the taser policy work for the time being and there was a need to fund the in-car video effort and a civilian review board. She could not support the grant proposal in light of other funding needs. Mr. Spaulding said in the case of the funds for the pilot program, the funds could be redirected. In regard to the exercise equipment, he said the equipment must be updated and maintained as a safety and liability issue. He said the PSCC funding was an ongoing issue, and $12,000 was the lowest level of support provided by the City to this point. If the City decided to drop that support, it could redirect the $12,000. Ms. Bettman hoped the council discussed the PSCC issue at its next process session. She asked if the committee could approve the pursuit of the grant funds and the use of the funds could be discussed later. Ms. Taylor indicated she shared Ms. Bettman's concerns. She questioned the value of the Public Safety Coordinating Council. Mr. Spaulding indicated that the expenditure list was developed in a short period of time because of rule changes at the federal level. He also indicated that the CCIGR only needed to approve pursuit of the grant funds at this time; the precise expenditures could be decided later. The money would not be received until October 2005, and there was a four-year period during which the funds could be spent. Mr. Pap6 agreed there might be question as to the value of the Public Safety Coordinating Council, but he believed that issue should be deferred to the council. He supported the grant application and agreed with the MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 7, 2005 Page 2 remarks of Mr. Spradling about the importance of exercise equipment to keep officers in condition to do their jobs. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to pursue the grant money with the stipula- tion that the CCIGR's comments regarding the proposed expenditures were forwarded to Eugene Police Chief Bob Lehner. The motion passed unanimously. 4. Review of Legislation Priority 1 Bills HB 2832 Mr. Pap6 questioned the City's position on House Bill (HB) 2832, which would provide a special assess- ment for property tax purposes for certain renovations of real property. Mr. Hill said the bill would allow the Department of Revenue to determine the value of a building's renovation, and the structure would be frozen at that value it went onto the tax rules. The bill would encourage property renovation. However, it represented an unfunded mandate from the State, which was contrary to current legislative policies. Mr. Pap6 suggested that the bill could resuk in renovations that improved the community. Mr. Hill acknowl- edged that possibility, and said that might be worth the lost revenue. When he made his recommendation, he had considered whether a special assessment program encouraged renovation in the community, or would it occur anyway. It was a judgment call. Ms. Bettman said given the vagueness of the bill in regard to what was to be renovated, she supported the staff recommendation. Ms. Taylor agreed. Mr. Pap6 noted his support for the bill, and indicated he would have offered a motion to change the staff recommendation from opposition to support had he thought he would receive a second. HB 2998 Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman regarding the bill, which extended the period during which a multi-unit property tax exemption may be granted, Mr. Weinman indicated a Senate committee met and included a ten-year sunset in the Senate version of the bill. Mr. Heuser indicated the bill was not likely to make progress. Ms. Bettman questioned the priority assigned the bill if that was the case. Mr. Weinman indicated the staff recommendation was written before a similar bill had been passed by the Senate. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to support the bill with an amendment pro- viding for a six year sunset. The motion passed unanimously. House Joint Resolution (HJR) 14 Mr. Pap6 asked why the City would not wish to eliminate the double-majority requirement entirely. Mr. Heuser said a compromise was offered to make the bill more palatable to House Republicans. He said that the Speaker of the House indicated opposition to the elimination of the double-majority requirement. He said the League of Oregon Cities strongly supported the bill. Ms. Taylor liked the way the bill was MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 7, 2005 Page 3 structured to provide for elections at times when people traditionally expected them to happen. SB 0801 Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman regarding the status of the bill, Mr. Heuser indicated that Senate Bill (SB) 0801, related to taxation, would likely be ~dead" by Friday. He noted that April 8 was the deadline for Senate committees to have moved bills out of committee; bills that had not moved by that time were dead unless they had permission from the Senate President to do so. Ms. Bettman questioned why the bill had such a high priority. Priority 2 Bills HB 2608 Mr. Pap6 noted the staff recommendation to oppose the bill, which would require a person to be a citizen of the United States or be legally in the country to secure a driver's license, and asked why the State should not make that requirement. Mr. Cushman said it was a philosophical debate, but the police preferred that people have a driver's license to demonstrate their ability to drive a vehicle safely. If people did not have a driver's license, they would drive anyway without insurance, creating a hazard to others. Mr. Rikhoff suggested that the bill was not the right way to make immigration policy. He said the issue was, once people were here, how to make the best of the situation as opposed to creating a subclass of people who will continue to drive but about whom the community had less knowledge. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Rikhoff said the bill included those holding green cards. Mr. Cushman noted that the bill also required those Oregon citizens renewing their licenses to prove their citizenship. Mr. Pap6 asked if a constitutional issue existed in regard to the bill. Mr. Lidz said no. Mr. Pap6, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Support with an amendment deleting the requirement related proof of citizenship for Oregon citizens re- newing their licenses. The motion passed, 2:1; Ms. Bettman voting no. HB 2638 There was brief discussion of the priority assigned to the bill, which would allow cities and counties to conduct instant run-off elections. The committee agreed to retain the status of Priority 2, Support with the amendment proposed earlier by Mr. Tollenaar. Ms. Walston noted that City Recorder Mary Feldman assigned the bill a status of Priority 2 because she believed the City already had the authority to conduct instant runoff elections. Mr. Heuser said the bill had been referred to a committee but no hearing had been held. He asked what the City's position would be if it could not secure the amendments, adding that the chair of the committee was not supportive of the bill and was likely to resist the amendments. Ms. Bettman asked the financial magnitude of the City paying for the elections. Mr. Lidz noted that review MINUTES--Council Committee on INtergovernmental Relations April 7, 2005 Page 4 of the bill did not make it clear if the City would pay the full cost of an instant runoff election. He added he did not think the issue was how many times instant runoff voting was used, but rather the additional costs created by the need to tally ballots using a different system. Mr. Heuser indicated he would research whether additional costs were incurred by other communities using the system. The CCIGR agreed that Mr. Heuser would talk to the sponsors of the bill about the chances of secureing amendments to the bill and provide an update at the next meeting. HB 2654 Ms. Taylor wanted to change the status of the bill to Oppose because she did not think participation in a diversion program should count against a person, and the bill would count that participation toward a later felony charge. Mr. Cushman indicated the staff position was based on its support for diversion for first-time offenses of driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUll). In the case of repeat offenders, under current law an offender must be convicted three subsequent times for a higher penalty to be triggered. The bill would enhance the higher penalty. Mr. Heuser noted that there was considerable support for the bill at the legislature. HB 2811 Ms. Bettman said she liked the underlying bill, which would expand the types of devices that could not be used in a moving motor vehicle, but agreed with staff that it needed to be amended to avoid unintended consequences to the Eugene Police Department. She determined that the staff recommendation meant that without amendments, the City would oppose the bill. HB 2855, HB 2858 Ms. Bettman asked why HB 2855, which would appropriate money from the State General Fund for the State School Fund, was not assigned a higher priority. She determined from Mr. Heuser that the bill was a compromise between the House Republicans and the governor. Mr. Heuser did not think the City's position would make much of a difference given the level at which discussions were occurring, but he did not object to raising the priority of the bill. Ms. Boyle explained the differences between the two bills and suggested the CCIGR might want to recommend support of liB 2858 to the council as it deleted a provision in HB 2855 that required the Department of Administrative Services to estimate the savings to be realized from pooled insurance. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of liB 2858 bill to Pri- ority 1, Support. The motion passed unanimously. HB 3272 Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Jones clarified that the staff recommendation was to support the bill, with amendments. HJR 35 MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 7, 2005 Page 5 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the HJR 35 to Prior- ityl. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Ms. Boyle said the resolution would establish a basic level of education and require it be funded for all students. Local governments could decide on an enhanced level of education and request property tax increases for local purposes. The bill restored local control to school districts and removed the Ballot Measure 5 cap for schools. It would have no effect on cities in regard to the cap. Ms. Boyle noted that typically, the City assigned Priority 2 support to school-related bills unless the districts requested support. Mr. Heuser said those opposing the bill argued that it would benefit wealthier communities and create an increasing funding divide between poor and wealthy school districts. Ms. Bettman supported the bill because it gave communities the choice to invest in schools as an economic development strategy. It removed an existing disincentive. She believed the local school option levy demonstrated the community's support for its schools and hence, the bill. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Heuser indicated he did not think the bill was going to make any progress in the House of Representatives. The motion passed unanimously. SB 0993 Ms. Taylor questioned whether the bill, which related to trafficking of persons, is needed. Mr. Cushman said staff was not aware that it was an issue in Eugene, but he understood it was a problem in Portland and other parts of the country. Given the egregious nature of the crime, he believed it was good to have a law directed at it. Mr. Pap6 noted the changed staff recommendation for HB 2428, reflected in a memorandum provided to the CCIGR. The committee indicated acceptance of the staff recommendation. Priority 3 Bills HB 2617 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 2. Mr. Yeiter noted the staff normally did not assign above a Priority 3 to bills that addressed land outside the urban growth boundary. The bill in question was directed at counties. Ms. Bettman acknowledged that but pointed out the bill was counterproductive to the City's efforts to density within the urban growth boundary to preserve farm and forestland outside the boundary. Mr. Heuser indicated the bill had opposition from the Farm Bureau and was likely dead. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pap6 voting no. HB 2618 MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 7, 2005 Page 6 Ms. Bettman asked why Planning Director Susan Muir characterized the bill, related to standards for establishing farm dwellings in exclusive use zones, as mild. Mr. Yeiter said that was because it did not allow housing to the extent other bills did. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 2. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Papd voting no. HB 2625 Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 2, Support. Responding to a question from Mr. Papd, Mr. Hill said the current minimum corporate tax was $10, and the bill in question would increase that in a relatively progressive manner. The new minimum tax on revenues of less than $100,000 annually would be $100; the new minimum tax on revenues of $1 million or more would be $5,000. Mr. Papd opposed the bill as it did not take into account whether a firm was making a profit. Mr. Hill noted that staff had taken a neutral position on the bill because the City had no policy addressing an increase in State revenues at such a magnitude. Ms. Bettman supported the bill, even if it was only to give a message to the legislature about the imbalance between what businesses pay and what residents pay. Mr. Papd clarified that the only companies paying the minimum tax were those not making money. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Papd voting no. Responding to a question from Mr. Papd, Mr. Heuser said if the bill was in the Senate, it might have a chance. The Republican caucus had been very effective in holding the line against new taxes. Ms. Bettman asked about the fate of ~Connect Oregon." Mr. Heuser did not think it would pass. HB 2643 Ms. Bettman perceived the bill, relating to development on rural lands, as another assault on Oregon land use system. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 2. Responding to a question from Mr. Papd, Mr. Heuser said the bill had a hearing but no further progress had occurred. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Papd voting no. HB 2676 MINUTES--Council Committee on INtergovernmental Relations April 7, 2005 Page 7 Mr. Pap6 asked why staff did not recommend support for the bill, which would raise witness fees, as he did not think it would have much financial impact but could get people to testify in criminal trials without the need for a judge to issue a bench warrant. Mr. Hill said the cost would be less than $3,000 annually. The current payment for witnesses in other than criminal proceedings was $30; in criminal proceedings it was $5 a day. While he believed it was warranted to raise the fee, he recommended a neutral position because the bill represented an unfunded mandate. Mr. Pap6, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 3, Support. The motion passed unanimously HB 2729 Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 2. Mr. Duckett reported that the bill, which would authorize a community to create a Community Forest Authority, would soon be amended to apply only to Forest Park in Portland. Ms. Bettman suggested that the City may acquire sufficient parkland in the future to qualify for the benefits of the bill. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Ms. Bettman asked that the bill be brought back if it was amended. HB 2750 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 2, Oppose. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Ms. Bettman said the bill removed current standards for determining a parcel's eligibility for development. Mr. Heuser indicated the bill was not scheduled for a hearing. The motion passed unanimously. HB 2755 Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Kepler explained the purpose of the bill, saying the City would have to seek the approval of the utilities before doing a subdivision or partition. In Eugene, the utilities had a review role already. The bill did not include wastewater or stormwater utilities. Ms. Bettman believed the City would want to oppose the bill. Ms. Kepler said staff recommended a position of Oppose with amendments. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to change the status of the bill to Priority 2, Oppose with amendments. MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 7, 2005 Page 8 HB 2962 Ms. Bettman observed that pseudophedrin was a fairly common drug and was available both over-the- counter and through prescriptions. She questioned how it impacted the privacy of doctors and their patients. Mr. Cushman said that pseudophedrin was used to manufacture methamphetamine; the bill attempted to create a data base so people who buy in small quantities at many stores could be tracked. He said that the bill applied to anything containing the substance, and he was unsure how much involved over-the-counter as opposed to prescription drugs. Ms. Bettman wanted the bill amended to apply only to over-the-counter drugs. She believed it would be challenging for pharmacists to track the medications prescribed by doctors. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to support the bill with amendments to focus the bill on over-the-counter drugs. Ms. Bettman expressed concern about the underlying agenda of those who might be behind the bill and may be attempting to undo Oregon's assisted suicide law. Mr. Heuser said the bill had another problem in the lack of funding for such a system. He anticipated the bill would die on that basis. Ms. Bettman asked that staff return with more information about the bill. The committee agreed to hold the bill over. HB 3052 Ms. Bettman asked why the City opposed the bill, which would increase the mandatory minimum for community service hours. Ms. Hammitt said staff opposed the bill because of its mandatory nature and because of its potential impact on jail beds. In addition, the required monitoring and follow-up would take considerable administrative effort. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to change the status of the bill to Support with amendments changing the mandatory nature of the text from "shall" to "may." The motion passed, 2:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. HB 3060 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Support. Mr. Jones believed the emphasis of the bill, which authorized the issuance of lottery bonds for rail improvement projects, was on freight rail but he acknowledged there was interdependence between freight and passenger rail. The motion passed unanimously. HJR 12 Ms. Bettman supported the resolution if it was amended so what it proposed could be accomplished statutorily rather than through an amendment. The resolution proposed to amend the Oregon Constitution to prohibit paying or receiving compensation based on the number of signatures obtained for the purpose of registering people to vote. MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 7, 2005 Page 9 Mr. Heuser indicated the resolution could not be amended because it regarded a constitutional amendment. Ms. Bettman moved to change the status of the resolution to Neutral. The motion died for lack of a second. SB 847 Mr. Cushman said the bill would reactivate a tax exemption now used in Portland. It was not currently employed in Eugene. Mr. Weinman indicated the bill neither helped nor harmed Eugene. Ms. Bettman suggested the bill might be of assistance to Eugene in offering more low-income opportunities, particularly for condominiums. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Papd, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 3, Support. The motion passed unanimously. Responding to a question from Mr. Papd, Mr. Heuser indicated his belief that Eugene could take advantage of the tax exemption in question. SB 890 Responding to a question from Mr. Papd, Mr. Hill indicated the bill established a clean energy facility tax credit for businesses engaged in research and development. He had recommended opposition because he did not think the bill would be effective in incurring significant investment in alternative energies, although it would reward the investment. Mr. Heuser said the bill had a hearing but nothing had happened for some times. He believed it was possible the bill would die by April 8. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Neutral. The motion passed unanimously. SB 837 The committee considered SB 837, held over from the previous week for more information. Ms. Daut reviewed the bill, saying it created a new category of self-insurance for pools of three or more public bodies. She said some school districts in eastern Oregon had become involved in a pool set up by an agent in Washington, and it had no financial backing. The bill was introduced at the request of the special districts association to address what the association perceived as abuses. The bill had no impact on Eugene. 6. Reconsideration of liB 2390 The committee reconsidered HB 2390. Mr. Cushman reviewed the elements of liB 2390, asking that the CCIGR take a neutral position on the bill and allow the staff to seek amendments as outlined in a memoran- dum to the committee from Chief Bob Lehner. He noted that currently, there was no statutory requirement MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 7, 2005 Page 10 that a person identify his or herself; if that did not occur, the City could not issue a citation. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Neutral with amendments. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to forward the recommendations of the committee to the full City Council. The motion passed unanimously. The committee discussed some bills held over. HB 2840 Mr. Cushman noted the staff recommendation to support the bill with amendments. There was no objection. HB 2389 Mr. Heuser said he discussed the bill with Representative Paul Holvey, who indicated the bill would be redrafted to allow rural residents to form their own library districts. The bill would not benefit those who lived inside an urban growth boundary. Ms. Bettman asked that staff continue to monitor the bill, as it also appeared to allow for overlapping service districts. The committee agreed to hold the bill over to the next meeting. 7. City Hall Day Mr. Heuser indicated that he had secured appointments with members of the Lane County legislative delegation for the committee. He said the City needed to demonstrate its opposition to the telecommunica- tions bill, which was a gross violation of local authority. He suggested a general discussion of district formation might be useful as well, and if time allowed, discussion of the toxics program could also occur. He indicated he would prepare a list of topics as well as bullet points for committee members. 8. Salem Report Mr. Heuser said the freight ronte bill may be dead. He said that Chris Henry of the Public Works Department had done a good job testifying against the bill. Mr. Pap6 indicated he had asked staff to provide the CCIGR with copies of the amendments to HB 3301. The next committee meeting was scheduled for April 14, 2005. The meeting adjourned at 11 a.m. (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 7, 2005 Page 11 ATTACHMENT E MINUTES Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations McNutt Room--City Hall April 14, 2005 9 a.m. PRESENT: Gary Pap6, Chair; Bonny Bettman, Betty Taylor, Mary Walston, Jason Heuser, Lisa Klemp, Greg Rikhoff, City Manager's Office; Ellwood Cushman, Trent Spralding, Eugene Police Department; Kristi Hammitt, Larry Hill, Myrnie Daut, Patty Boyle, Central Services Department; Eric Jones, Scott Duckett, Sarah Medrey, Peggy Kepler, Tom Larson, Public Works Department; Kurt Yeiter, Susan Muir, Richie Weinman, Planning and Development Department; Jerome Lidz, City Attorney's Office. 1. Call to Order/Review Agenda Mr. Pap6 called the meeting of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations to order. He thanked staff and Ms. Taylor for their work at City Hall Day in Salem the previous day. Ms. Taylor said it appeared progress could be made on the Forest Legacy Program issue. 2. Review Pending Legislation Priority 1 Bills' HB 3056 Ms. Bettman questioned the recommended position to oppose House Bill (HB) 3056, related to urban renewal districts, as it did not impact the City's existing urban renewal districts. Ms. Cutsogeorge said during the council's discussion of amendments to the downtown district plan, there was discussion of the potential of expanding the district in 2009. The bill could impact those plans. Ms. Bettman preferred to take a neutral position on the bill, given that the expansion date was pretty far out. Ms. Brooks pointed out the bill gave the County veto authority over the formation of urban renewal districts. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the status of the bill to Neutral. Mr. Pap6 opposed the motion for the reasons stated by staff. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pap6 voting no. The committee agreed to the bill would be dropped from lobbying given the neutral status assigned it. MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 7, 2005 Page 1 Priority 2 B~lls HB 2356 Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Keppler said there were other bills that would accomplish the same thing as the bill in question. HB 2356 would allow the City to process final plats as Type I applications rather than Type II applications. Ms. Keppler said that amendments had been made to the bill that appeared to have tightened the language. Ms. Bettman believed the bill was inconsistent with the City's Land Use Code and its passage meant the code would have to be amended. She did not understand why the City would support something that was inconsistent with its code. Ms. Muir clarified the City would not have to amend its code. The bill gave jurisdictions the option of processing such application as Type I applications. She said that the bill was consistent with the way the City had previously done such plats. The code had been amended because of a court decision. Ms. Keppler noted that once a tentative plat was approved, the law stipulated the approval could not be reversed and the conditions of approval could not be changed. She thought it seemed to be an unnecessary added process to run it through the same land use process again. The final plat must be consistent with the tentative plat. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of liB 2356 to Neutral. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Papd voting no. HB 2356A The similarities between this bill and the previous bill were noted by Ms. Bettman. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of liB 2356A to Neu- tral. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Papd voting no. HB 2540 Mr. Jones indicated that no hearings or work sessions had been held on the bill, which would prohibit a contracting agency from canceling, rejecting, delaying, or suspending contract activity because a bidder was engaged in a labor dispute. Ms. Brooks noted that the bill had not gotten out of committee. She indicated the deadline for House bills to get out of committee was May 6. HB 3033 Mr. Papd questioned the mandatory nature of the bill, which would require diesel fuel sold in Oregon to contain a certain percentage of bio-diesel fuel. He expressed concern about the potential of creating a competitive disadvantage with other nearby states. Mr. Davis said there was currently a five-cent margin between regular diesel and bio-diesel. The mandated amount was quite small. He said there were manufacturers hoping to manufacture bio-diesel fuels in Oregon, which would bring the costs down. One such facility was under construction. However, supplies were not a problem. He noted that Washington had adopted a similar bill and California was in the process of doing so. It seemed to be the trend in the northwest. MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 7, 2005 Page 2 HB 3081 Mr. Pap6 requested more information about the impact of the bill, related to unlawfully divided tracts. Ms. Keppler explained that the bill would allow lots that were divided illegally to become legal if a governing body had approved a development permit for that portion of a lot after its unlawful division. The bill would eliminate the City's current approach, which was to examine the lots in question and ensure that even if the other property owner was not participating in the division, the lot met City standards. Mr. Pap6 asked what occurred if the lot did not meet City standards. Ms. Keppler said the City required the two property owners to work together to resolve the issue, whether through a lot line adjustment or easement. Mr. Pap6 questioned how the City could force the property owners to work together. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Lidz said the purpose of the bill was to allow the lots to be developable, but the remedy in the bill seemed to be to eliminate all existing rules. For that reason, staff recommended the City oppose the bill unless it was amended. Ms. Keppler noted that the City reviewed less than one such application annually. Ms. Bettman suggested that number could increase if people knew their illegal lots could be legal. She indicated opposition to the bill with or without amendments, stating "if it's illegal, it's illegal." Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of liB 3081 to Oppose. Mr. Pap6 determined from Mr. Lidz that typically, such lots were annexed into the City from the county. He said that generally, property owners did not go through any development or land use procedure; they simply created a deed and filed it. The goal of the bill was to make such lots legal and developable. He reiterated that staff's concern was the elimination of land use rules. Ms. Brooks noted that the bill was introduced by Representative Smith of the House Land Use Committee at the request of two constituents. She asked if the committee was willing to let staff talk about the bill to see if the problems she was attempting to fix could be solved in another way. Ms. Bettman did not know how that could occur. She perceived the bill as a means to subdivide a property illegally and circumvent the State's land use rules. Mr. Pap6 expressed concern about the property owners involved, who may not be aware of the problem. He asked if there was anything in a deed record to alert a potential buyer to the problem. Ms. Keppler did not think most purchasers would be aware of the fact. She noted that the land use process began with a form that asked the property owner to verify the lot was legal. It was the property owner's responsibility to check that fact. Mr. Lidz added at that point, it was too late for the purchaser of the lot to remedy the fact the lot was not legal. Mr. Pap6 asked if the bill could be amended to include the controls were now proposed for elimination. Mr. Lidz thought so. Ms. Bettman indicated that if the bill was amended, the bill could be brought back to the committee. Ms. Brooks noted a hearing occurred the previous day. Mr. Pap6 requested that the bill be brought back to the committee. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pap6 voting no. MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 7, 2005 Page 3 HB 3092 Mr. Pap~ suggested the bill, which would exempt complex structure plumbing system plans designed and stamped by an engineer or architect from City review for code compliance, would lessen the City's expense and place the burden on the builder. Mr. Ramsing concurred. However, if the bill was passed, Eugene could not do plans review or require field changes for a project. That worked if a system was well-designed, but the plan review process existed because the best engineers make mistakes that were routinely found in the process. It also eliminated the City's ability to work with the engineer. HB 3383 Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the status of liB 3383 to Support. The committee had questions about HB 3383, which would require contractors on public works contracts to pay prevailing wage rates to workers who manufacture nonstandard items made to order for public works, whether the work is done on or off the site. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Pomes said there was no definition of ~nonstandard" in the bill, so she did not know how to determine what was and was not standard. Ms. Bettman asked who sponsored the bill. Ms. Brooks said the bill was sponsored by Representative Shiffier. No hearing had been scheduled, but she anticipated it could be one of a series of public contracting bills that would be considered soon. Mr. Svendsen said one question for staff was whether, for example, duct work manufactured and assembled in Sweden meant the definition in the bill. Ms. Bettman suggested the City could support the bill with amendments to address that type of issue. Mr. Svendsen said if the bill was amended to eliminate such extraterritorial issues, one was essentially back to the current law. Ms. Bettman asked what problem the bill was intended to address. Mr. Jones believed the bill's sponsor was representing the interests of sheet metal workers in the Portland area who felt unfair competition from a contractor who was not employing their services but instead purchasing material from a third-party source. The bill was an attempt to control the economic effect of that by bringing those third parties under State contracting law. Ms. Bettman thought that a laudable intent. Mr. Jones said the administrative burden of enforcing a prevailing wage rate on another state or country would be very problematic. Ms. Bettman suggested those third-party manufacturers could be certified by another party. Mr. Svendsen said another approach used in such situations was local preference. He pointed out that it was difficult to know whether a manufacturer in a third-world country paid the prevailing wage in that location. He said the issue the bill was attempting to address was one of economic competition rather than wage control. Ms. Bettman said the bill would provide an incentive for governments to use local manufac- turers because it would be easy to determine if they paid the prevailing wage. Mr. Svendsen agreed, but pointed out that local preference was a more direct approach. Ms. Pomes said the burden would fall less on local government than on the general contractor it was likely to slow the contracting process. Ms. Bettman was sure that after a couple of years there would be a list of approved manufacturers in place. She perceived there to be a disconnection between legislative attempts to create local jobs while bleeding jobs out of the state if something like the bill was not in place. MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 7, 2005 Page 4 Mr. Jones noted that the City of Portland, Clackamas County, and local manufacturer Spec Pipe were concerned about the bill because of the administrative issues involved and because certain materials were not necessarily available locally. Mr. Papd believed the bill would generate lawsuits and depress public contracting jobs. In addition, it could force local governments to use one or two suppliers in the state and limit competition. Ms. Bettman questioned whether Mr. Pap~ had a conflict of interest in regard to the bill. Mr. Pap~ said no. Mr. Pap~ asked about any related federal constitutional issues, such the Commerce Clause. Mr. Lidz indicated he had not read the bill, but did not think so. He indicated there were Commerce Clause issues with direct local preference. Ms. Bettman asked about the likelihood the bill would pass. Ms. Brooks pointed out that the bill had been introduced into the House, which was not inclined to support such bills. It had been referred to the House Business Committee, and would likely get a hearing the following week. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pap~ voting no. SB 0532 Ms. Taylor asked why staff recommended opposition to Senate Bill (SB) 532, which would prohibit the Environmental Quality Commission from establishing water quality standards that are less stringent than those previously established, Mr. Ruffler said the federal government required the states to review their standards every three years. In that process, the states examine new science and new understanding of how pollutants work in the environment. From time to time the standards change, and become more or less stringent depending on the data. The bill would prevent the State from either aligning with the federal standards or taking into acocount information that could be unique or specific to Oregon. Mr. Ruffler said the bill sounded good on its face, but it could result in situations where the City would be treating wastewa- ter to no beneficial environment. Ms. Brooks indicated the bill was likely dead. It had no hearing and had not moved out of committee before the "drop-dead" date of April 8. However, it was important to follow such bills in case special permission was granted to move them forward. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Support. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Ms. Bettman said she wanted the City to support the bill if it was not yet dead. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pap6 voting no. HB 0652 Ms. Brooks said the bill, which would direct the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to create a program for testing toxic substances in fish, had a hearing on April 4. MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 7, 2005 Page 5 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Support. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Papd no. SB 0653 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Support. Ms. Brooks indicated the bill, which would direct the DEQ to establish a testing program for the Willamette River and its tributaries, was likely dead. Mr. Duckett noted that he and Mr. Ruffler had approached the bill from different points of view. The Parks and Open Space Division supported the priority given the Willamette River and the fact lottery dollars would be redirected to Willamette Greenway acquisitions. Mr. Ruffler said the intent of the bill was good, but it did not indicate any additional State resources would be allocated and DEQ would have to reallocate its existing resources, and the agency was already fiscally strained. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Papd no. SB 1006 Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6 about the staff recommendation to oppose the bill, which would require contracting agencies to document the determination of lowest responsible bidder on a form submitted to the Bureau of Labor and Industries, Ms. Pomes said there was nothing in the bill about how the information that would be gathered would be used. There was already a process in place that required the City to document that it awarded bids to the lowest bidder. Ms. Bettman suggested the bill was an attempt to create a statewide data base and allow someone to determine if local agencies were complying with the law. She believed given the minimal amount of work, the bill should be supported. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Support. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pap6 voting no. Priority 3 Bills' HB 2100 The committee considered HB 2100, which would establish regional land use commissions. The staff recommended opposition to the bill. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the priority of the bill to Priority 2. The motion passed unanimously. HB 2268 Mr. Lidz noted that the bill, which would modify the rules governing appraisal exchanges in condemnation actions, had been slightly amended by a word change. MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 7, 2005 Page 6 HB 2704 The committee considered the bill, held over from a previous meeting. Ms. Brooks indicated the bill had no impact on Eugene and in fact had been further amended to apply only to Forest Park in Portland. Ms. Bettman suggested the City could take a position to amend the bill to allow it to apply to Eugene. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 3 support so it could apply to parks in the City's system. The motion passed unanimously. HB 2956 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 1, Oppose. Mr. Pap6 asked if the bill, which would authorize industrial development in buildings of any size and type on industrial lands outside urban growth boundaries, helped or hindered the governor's effort to identify prime industrial lands. Ms. Muir said no. There was a separate, related bill the committee would consider the following week. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Brooks noted the bill was scheduled for a hearing on April 18. HB 2962 The committee considered the bill, which was held over from a previous meeting. The bill would require the State Board of Pharmacy to establish an electronic database for information related to the sales of pseudophedrine. Ms. Bettman said the bill did not appear to impact doctors prescribing such medication, so she had no further concerns. Mr. Cushman said he now recommended the City take a position of Neutral unless amended because there was a section in the bill precluding the use of the data for criminal or civil enforcement. Ms. Taylor noted her opposition to the creation of more crimes. Mr. Pap6, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved the status of the bill be changed to Priority 2 Support with amendments. The motion passed, 2:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. HB 2963 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 1. Mr. Pap6 thought the goals of the bill, which would require local governments with urban growth boundaries to maintain short- and long-term supplies for industrial and commercial land, were laudable, but he questioned whether they could be accomplished. He did not support the higher priority proposed by Ms. Bettman. MINUTES--Council Committee on INtergovernmental Relations April 7, 2005 Page 7 The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pap5 voting no. HB 2964 Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the status of the bill to Support. Ms. Bettman indicated she tended to support bills that increased funding for education. Staff acknowledged conflicting legislative policies in the case of the bill. Ms. Cutsogeorge clarified that the bill would impact the City's current urban renewal districts. Mr. Pap5 asked if the funds would only be available for school buildings. Ms. Boyle said yes. Ms. Brooks recalled that Senator Brown had suggested there may be constitutional issues in carving out a single exempt tax district. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap5, Ms. Cutsogeorge said that schools can seek bonding outside the property tax cap, but the types of projects were limited. She believed the funding that would be available would be more flexible than general obligation revenues. Ms. Bettman pointed out that general obligation bonds competed with each and for operating funds. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pap5 voting no. HB 3019 Ms. Bettman questioned how "facilities" was defined in the bill, which would add railroad facilities to the list of infrastructure a city may own, operate, and maintain. Mr. Jones said that Mike Sullivan of Planning and Development Department believed the bill was aimed at cities like Prineville, which owned short-haul railroads and may want additional authority for switching areas and structures related to their operation. Ms. Bettman suggested the City might want to buy track and the associated right-of-way at some time or operate a downtown trolley. Mr. Jones was unsure the bill would apply to a trolley system, suggesting the answer depended on a legal definition. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 3, support. The motion passed unanimously. HB 3090 Ms. Walston believed the bill, which created new provisions for elections, was written to address the potential of a situation such as that of 2000 Florida presidential vote. Because the bill did not directly affect City of Eugene operations, City Recorder Mary Feldman had recommended the bill be monitored. Ms. Brooks noted that a hearing had been held, and the bill had encountered considerable opposition from elections workers because of the extra administrative burden it would place on counties. She acknowledged the privacy concerns expressed by advocates. Ms. Bettman questioned what regulations currently existed in regard to the opening of secrecy envelopes. Mr. Lidz said currently, the law allowed a county clerk to open ballots in preparation for counting on MINUTES--Council Committee on INtergovernmental Relations April 7, 2005 Page 8 election day seven days prior to the election; the bill would change that to no sooner than 8:30 a.m. the day of the election. Ms. Bettman asked who supported the bill. Ms. Brooks said that it was sponsored by representatives Crummel, Thatcher, and Flores. She said organizations such as Common Cause might be in support of the bill. She noted it had not been scheduled for a hearing at this time. Mr. Pap6 suggested the bill be held over to the next meeting. Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor concurred. Ms. Walston indicated staff would consult with County Clerk Annette Newingham regarding her position on the bill. HB 3105 Ms. Bettman said the bill, which would direct the Department of Justice to distribute funds to local governments for specific purposes related to methamphetamine, appeared to have a big budgetary impact on the State's General Fund, and she questioned the funding split proposed for the City and County. Mr. Cushman clarified that the funds allocated to the County would go to fill the gaps in prosecutorial staff, which was currently a major problem. In addition, some of the funding was targeted toward treatment and education. He acknowledged concerns about the source of the funding, which was why staff recommended the City monitor the bill. HB 3206 Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Pomes said the bill would prohibit contracting agencies from awarding contracts to nonresident educational service districts but would not limit the number of such districts in the state. She believed it was aimed at a situation involving public improvements and public works contracting in Portland, in which a Vancouver educational service district was contracted to do some work for some Portland school districts. Ms. Pomes noted that the bill had been introduced on the behalf of the General Associated Contractors. For some reason, personal services contracts were also included. She said the bill would limit Eugene's ability to enter into a personal services district with an educational service district outside Oregon. Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation for the clarification. HB 3364 Ms. Bettman suggested a higher priority be assigned to the bill, which created a crime of making a false accusation of sexual abuse. Mr. Cushman noted the staff recommendation to oppose the bill, and indicated it had not been scheduled for a hearing. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 2. The motion passed unanimously. HB 3370 Ms. Taylor moved to change the status of the bill to Oppose. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Cushman noted the current implied consent law did not include blood or urine tests; the bill merely MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 7, 2005 Page 9 brought them into the statute. He clarified that the person charged with the crime must have already been placed under arrest for driving under the influence of intoxicants for the law to apply. HB 3414/HB 3415 Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Jones indicated staff supported the two bills if a study or re-appropriation took into account funding for operations, preservation, and maintenance or the Oregon Transportation Commission's 2006 priorities, which would likely include operations, preservation, and maintenance. If the study or reappropriation was directed only at the seven projects on the May 2002 OTC priority list, staff was recommending that the City at most stay out of the way. Ms. Brooks added that it was her sense from reading the bill that it represented a protest regarding the Oregon Department of Transportation's failure to move on projects of statewide significance. She did not think it had anything to do with Eugene. Ms. Bettman disagreed. She believed "there were dollar signs in their eyes"; those supporting the bill believed the Oregon Transportation Improvement Act money could be made available for those projects. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bills to Oppose with an amendment that funding go to operations, maintenance, and preservation. Ms. Brooks suggested that for Eugene to take a position on the bill was essentially to be commenting on the transportation priorities of other jurisdictions around the state. Ms. Bettman said some of the money for the projects was being raised from Eugene taxpayers, who were paying increased registration fees. She asked why Eugene residents should pay such fees without the City having input into how the money was spent. Mr. Jones believed that the League of Cities and Association of Oregon Counties would not take a position on the bill because all the cities have different interests. Those cities and counties with projects on the statewide significance project list were likely to be very supportive of the bill. Ms. Brooks added she did not think the bills were going anywhere. The bills were not scheduled for hearings. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pap~ voting no. HJR 0028 Ms. Brooks noted that the resolution had a single sponsor, and been referred to committee in mid-March. She did not think it would make further progress. The committee agreed to hold the resolution over for further information. Ms. Brooks suggested that if a school education funding resolution moved forward, it was likely to be HJR 0035. It had more sponsors, and had been referred to the Revenue Committee. She recalled that the committee had voted to support that resolution. SB 0649 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of SB 0649 to Priority 1. Mr. Pap~ determined from Mr. Lidz that the bill did not eliminate the 20-year land supply requirement. The motion passed unanimously. MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 7, 2005 Page 10 3. Salem Report Mr. Pap6 noted that Intergovernmental Relations Director Jason Heuser was unable to attend the meeting because he was testifying that day on the bill proposing to eliminate the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission. He commended the work done by the committee and staff with the assistance of George Poling, who took the place of Ms. Bettman when she was unable to attend, during City Hall Day on April 13. He said the committee had been able to secure more support for its position against the boundary commission bill. In regard to the State budget, Mr. Pap6 reported the legislature had agreed to limit State spending to $12.4 billion over the biennium. The question was whether revenues would be adequate. Mr. Pap6 said that SB 1000, the civil unions bill, would be considered by the committee the following week. The meeting adjourned at 10:40 a.m. (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 7, 2005 Page 11 ~ 0~ ~ C ~ ~ '~ ! ATTACHMENT F REPORT ID: CELEG3 LEGISLATIVE TRACKING PAGE: 1 RUN BILLS AND RESPONSE DETAIL DATRU~29 TIME: 5:03: PM BILLS SENT DUE DATE SUBJECT PRIORITY RECO~4ENDATION SB 0654 2/22/2005 3/8/2005 FOREST/TIMBER PRI 2 SUPPORT RELATING CLAUSE RELATING TO COMPENSATION FOR OREGON FOREST PRACTICES ACT; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. TITLE REQUIRES OWNER OF PRIVATE REAL PROPERTY ZONED FOR FOREST USE OR MIXED FARM AND FOREST USE TO COMPLY WITH PROVISIONS OF OREGON FOREST PRACTICES ACT AS IN EFFECT ON DECEMBER 2, 2004. BARS CLAIM ~ FOR COMPENSATION UNDER CHAPTER 1, OREGON LAWS 2005, BASED ON LAND USE REGULATION THAT IS PART OF OREGON FOREST PRACTICES ACT AS IN EFFECT ON DECEMBER 2, 2004. DECLARES EMERGENCY, EFFECTIVE ON PASSAGE. CONTACT RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT UPDATED PRIORITY POLICY POL NUM RECO~4ENDATION JEROME LIDZ JERRY LIDZ ATTORNEY 3/2/2005 PRI 3 YES V.C.1 SUPPORT COMMENTS: AGREE WITH S. MUIR COMMENTS. IN ADDITION TO CLARIFYING/LIMITING MEASURE 37, THIS BILL WOULD REDUCE NUMBER OF FOREST DWELLINGS LIKELY TO RESULT FROM MEASURE 37. NO DIRECT EFFECT ON CITY. SCOTT SCOTT PW-POS 3/22/2005 PRI 3 SUPPORT DUCKETT DUCKETT COMMENTS: AGREE WITH SUSAN MUIR & JERRY LIDZ'S RECOMMENDATION. SUSAN MUIR PDD-PLAN 2/28/2005 PRI 3 YES V.C.1 SUPPORT COMMEN~S: THIS BILL EXEMPTS THE FOREST PRACTICES ACT FROM M37 CLAIMS. WON'T IMPACT EUGENE BUT CLARIFIES M37. http://ceonline/celeg/reports/BillsDetail.asp 4/29/2005 ~Ot('-'(_.{/X,. '~i ~ 6 /2...,, Page l ofl REPORT ID: CELEG3 LEGISLATIVE TRACKING PAGE: 1 RUN BILLS AND RESPONSE DETAIL DATRU~29 TIME:5:04: PM BILLS SENT DUE DATE SUBJECT PRIORITY RECO~4ENDATION HB 2620 3/8/2005 3/22/2005 EXCLUSIVE FARM USE ZONE PRI 2 OPPOSE RELATING CLAUSE RELATING TO EXCLUSION OF UNPROFITABLE LAND FROM EXCLUSIVE FARM USE ZONE; CREATING NEW PROVISIONS; AND AMENDING ORS 215.203. TITLE PROHIBITS INCLUSION OF LOT, PARCEL OR TRACT IN EXCLUSIVE FARM USE ZONE UNLESS LOT, PARCEL OR TRACT IS CAPABLE OF PROVIDING GROSS ANNUAL INCOME IN EXCESS OF SPECIFIED AMOUNT FROM SALE OF FARM PRODUCTS USING ACCEPTED FARM PRACTICES. CONTACT RESPONDENT DEPA/~T~NT UPDATED PRIORITY POLICY POL NUM RECO~4ENDATION SUSAN MUIR PDD-PLAN 3/14/2005 PRI 3 YES V.C.5 MONITOR COMMENTS: (APPLIES ONLY OUTSIDE CITY OF EUGENE) THIS BILL PROHIBITS EXLCUSIVE FARM USE ZONING IF THE PROPERTY CANNOT MEET THE ~INCOME TEST~ FOR A DWELLING. HB 2621 3/8/2005 3/22/2005 LAND USE PLANNING PRI 2 OPPOSE RELATING CLAUSE RELATING TO STANDARDS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF DWELLINGS IN A NATURAL RESOURCE ZONE; CREATING NEW PROVISIONS; AMENDING ORS 197.065, 197.650, 215.213, 215.263, 215.283, 215.284 AND 215.304; AND REPEALING ORS 215.262 AND 215.780. TITLE ELIMINATES MINIMUM LOT OR PARCEL SIZE REQUIREMENT FOR LAND DIVISIONS IN RESOURCE ZONES. PROHIBITS LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FROM ESTABLISHING INCOME GUIDELINE FOR DETERMINING WHETHER PROPOSED DWELLING IS USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH FARM USE. CONTACT RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT UPDATED PRIORITY POLICY POL NUM RECO~NDATION SUSAN MUIR PDD-PLAN 3/14/2005 PRI 3 YES V.C.5 OPPOSE COMMENTS: THIS DOES AWAY WITH THE ~INCOME TEST~ RELATED TO SITING A DWELLING IN FARM ZONES, WOULD WEAKEN PROTECTIONS ON FARMLAND. http://ceonline/celeg/reports/BillsDetail.asp 4/29/2005 ~)Y'i / '-~ 1~:~ Page 1 of 4 REPORT ID: CELEG3 LEGISLATIVE TRACKING PAGE: 1 BILLS AND RESPONSE DETAIL RL DATEU~ TIME: 5:1 PM BILLS SENT DUE DATE SUBJECT PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION HB 2617 3/14/2005 3/28/2005 LAND USE PLANNING PRI 2 OPPOSE RELATING RELATING TO ESTABLISHMENT OF DWELLING IN FARM USE ZONE; CREATING NEW CLAUSE PROVISIONS; AND AMENDING ORS 215.203 AND 215.293. TITLE DIRECTS COUNTY TO ALLOW ESTABLISHMENT OF SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING ON LOT OR PARCEL LOCATED IN FARM USE ZONE IF SPECIFIED CONDITIONS ARE MET. AUTHORIZES COUNTY TO IMPOSE CERTAIN CONDITIONS ON ESTABLISHMENT OF DWELLING. POL CONTACTRESPONDENT DEPARTMENT UPDATED PRIORITY POLICYNuMRECOI~iENDATION SUSAN PDD- 3/25/2005 PRI 3 YES V.C. OPPOSE MUIR PLAN COMMENTS: APPLIES OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS BUT GENERALLY ALLOWS ANOTHER WAY TO DEVELOP A DWELLING ON RESOURCE LANDS. THIS APPLIES WHAT IS CALLED THE 'TEMPLATE TEST' (WHICH ORIGINATED IN THE FOREST ZONES) TO THE FARM ZONES. THE CONCEPT BEHIND THE TEMPLATE TEST APPLIES TO NUANCES WITH FOREST PRODUCTION, DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE TO APPLY IT IN THE FARM ZONES. SPONSORED BY OREGONIANS IN ACTION. EXCLUSIVE FARM USE HB 2618 3/14/2005 3/28/2005 PRI 2 OPPOSE ZONE RELATING RELATING TO STANDARDS FOR ESTABLISHING FARM DWELLINGS IN EXCLUSIVE FARM CLAUSE USE ZONES; AMENDING ORS 215.213 AND 215.283. TITLE REQUIRES LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, WHEN ESTABLISHING STANDARDS FOR AUTHORIZATION OF DWELLING IN CONJUNCTION WITH FARM USE, TO ADOPT RULES FOR AUTHORIZATION OF DWELLINGS IN AREAS ZONED FOR EXCLUSIVE FARM USE THAT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION CAPABILITY OF LOT OR PARCEL, INCLUDING SIZE AND SOIL CLASS, AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES ON ADJACENT LOTS OR PARCELS AND OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS. POL CONTACT RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT UPDATED PRIORITY POLICY ~ RECOI~V/ENDATION SUSAN PDD- 3/25/2005 PRI 3 YES V.C. OPPOSE MU I R PLAN COMMENTS: THIS IS A FAIRLY MILD BILL THAT REQUIRES THE LCDC TO USE SOIL TYPE IN FACTORS FOR A DWELLING IN FARM ZONES (GENERALLY OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS). TAXAT I ON, HB 2625 3/14/2005 3/28/2005 PRI 2 SUPPORT CORPORATE RELATING RELATING TO CORPORATE MINIMUM TAXES; CREATING NEW PROVISIONS; AMENDING CLAUSE ORS 317.090; PRESCRIBING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND PROVIDING FOR REVENUE RAISING THAT REQUIRES APPROVAL BY A THREE-FIFTHS MAJORITY. http ://ceonline/celeg/reports/BillsDetail.asp 4/29/2005 Page 2 of 4 TITLE INCREASES CORPORATE MINIMUM TAXES APPLICABLE TO C CORPORATIONS AND S CORPORATIONS. APPLIES TO TAX YEARS BEGINNING ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2005. TAKES EFFECT ON 91ST DAY FOLLOWING ADJOURNMENT SINE DIE. POL CONTACT RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT UPDATED PRIORITY POLICY NuMRECOMMENDATION LARRY LARRY CS-FMS 3/24/2005 PRI 3 YES III.A.2 NEUTRAL HILL HILL http ://ceonline/celeg/reports/BillsDetail.asp 4/29/2005 Page 3 of 4 REPORT ID: CELEG3 LEGISLATIVE TRACKING PAGE: 2 BILLS AND RESPONSE DETAIL RE DATEt.~ TIME: 5:1 PM BILLS SENT DUE DATE SUBJECT PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION COMMENTS: BILL WOULD INCREASE STATE REVENUE BY RAISING COORPORATE MINIMUM TAXES AND WOULD HELP ADDRESS $800 MILLION STATE BUDGET SHORTFALL. THIS WILL HELP ASSURE THAT STATE SHARED REVENUE DISTRIBUTED TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS REMAINS INTACT, AND THAT EDUCATION AND IMPORTANT STATE SERVICES ARE ADEQUATELY FUNDED. HOWEVER THE CITY HAS NO LEGISLATIVE POLICY SUPPORTING STATE GENERAL FUND TAX INCREASES SO I'M RECOMMENDING A NEUTRAL POSITION. HB 2643 3/14/2005 3/28/2005 ZONING PRI 2 OPPOSE RELATING RELATING TO RURAL LANDS; CREATING NEW PROVISIONS; AMENDING ORS 94.508, CLAUSE 197.015, 197.020, 197.065, 197.277, 197.445, 197.505, 197.610, 197.825, 215.243, 215.253, 215.284, 215.296, 215.304, 215.316, 215.402, 215.417, 215.720, 215.740, 308A.071, 321 TITLE REQUIRES LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO ADOPT REGULATIONS TO ZONE CERTAIN FORESTLAND AND EXCLUSIVE FARM USE LAND AS SECONDARY LAND. PROVIDES EXCEPTIONS. REQUIRES LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO ADOPT ZONING ORDINANCES FOR SECONDARY LAND THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH LAND USE PLANNING GOALS RELATING TO URBANIZATION. PROVIDES THAT SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING MAY BE ESTABLISHED ON SECONDARY LAND WITH SPECIFIED EXCEPTIONS. SETS SCHEDULE FOR AMENDMENT OF STATE AND LOCAL GOALS, RULES AND PLANS. PROVIDES THAT SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS ARE ALLOWED ON LAND THAT MEETS STATUTORY CRITERIA PRIOR TO AMENDMENT OF STATE AND LOCAL GOALS, RULES AND PLANS. PROVIDES THAT ALL EXISTING STATE AND LOCAL GOALS, RULES AND PLANS NOT CONSISTENT WITH STATUTE HAVE NO LEGAL EFFECT AS OF EFFECTIVE DATE OF STATUTE. PROVIDES THAT LAND ZONED SECONDARY LAND RETAINS CERTAIN SPECIAL TAX ASSESSMENT PROVISIONS IN SPECIFIED INSTANCES. MAKES RELATED CHANGES. POL CONTACT RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT UPDATED PRIORITY POLICY P, ECOI~4ENDATION SUSAN PDD- 3/25/2005 PRI 3 YES V.C.5 OPPOSE MUIR PLAN COMMENTS: THIS BILL REVIVES THE LONG RUNNING DISCUSSION ABOUT 'SECONDARY LANDS' GENERALLY WEAKENS PROTECTION OF RESOURCE LANDS OUTSIDE UGB'S. HB 3/16/2005 3/30/2005 ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES PRI 3 SUPPORT/AM 3052 RELATING RELATING TO ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES; AMENDING ORS 471.410. CLAUSE TITLE CHANGES MINIMUM PENALTY FOR THIRD OR SUBSEQUENT CONVICTION FOR PROVIDING LIQUOR TO PERSON UNDER 21 YEARS OF AGE TO $5,000 FINE AND 300 HOURS COMMUNITY SERVICE. CONTACT RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT UPDATED PRIORITY POLICY PoLRECOI~AV/ENDATION http://ceonline/celeg/reports/BillsDetail.asp 4/29/2005 Page 4 of 4 KRISTIE KRISTIE CS- 4/8/2005 PRI 3 YES VI.A.2 OPPOSE HAMMITT HAMMITT MUNI COMMENTS: REQUIRES MANDATORY MINIMUM FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE HOURS FROM 30 DAYS TO 300 HOURS. THIS WILL INCREASE THE PERCENTAGE OF DEFENDANTS WHO FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THEIR SENTENCE THUS RESULTING IN MORE WARRANTS AND INCREASED DEMAND FOR JAIL BED SPACE. MUNICIPAL COURT WOULD SUPPORT THE BILL IF AN AMENDMENT WAS MADE IN SECTION I(4)REMOVING "SHALL IMPOSE..." TO "HAY IMPOSE..." THIS BILL ALSO MINIMIZES JUDICIAL DISCRETION. http ://ceonline/celeg/reports/BillsDetail.asp 4/29/2005 REPORT ID: CELEG3 LEGISLATIVE TRACKING PAGE: 1 BILLS AND RESPONSE DETAIL RL DATRt.~ TIME: 5:1 PM BILLS SENT DUE DATE SUBJECT PRIORITY RE COI~4ENDAT ION HB 2356 1/26/2005 2/9/2005 LAND USE PLANNING PRI 2 NEUTRAL RELATING RELATING TO APPROVAL OF LAND DIVISION; AMENDING ORS 92.100, 94.508, CLAUSE 197.015, 197.825 AND 205.350. TITLE MODIFIES PROCEDURE FOR APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION PLAT OR PARTITION PLAT. POL CONTACT RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT UPDATED PRIORITY POLICY RECOI~qENDATION PEGGY PEGGY PWE 2/22/2005 PRI 2 YES V.C.2 SUPPORT KEPPLER KEPPLER COMMENTS: ALLOWS THE CITY TO PROCESS FINAL PLATS AS TYPE I APPLICATION INSTEAD OF TYPE II. ORS CH. 92 DOES NOT ALLOW DENIAL OR CHANGES TO APPROVED TENTATIVE PLANS AND PROCESSING FINAL PLATS AS A TYPE II APPLICATION CAN BE MISLEADING IN THE CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT. TENTATIVE PLANS WOULD STILL BE PROCESSED AS TYPE II APPLICATIONS AND PROVIDE FULL CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT. SUSAN STEVE PDD- 3/2/2005 PRI 3 YES V.C.2 MONITOR MUIR NYSTROM PLAN COMMENTS: WE SUPPORT THE CONCEPT OF THE BILL. TO IMPLEMENT THIS CHANGE, THE CITY WOULD WOULD HAVE TO AMEND THE LAND USE CODE. ALTHOUGH THE BILL DOES NOT COMPEL THE CITY TO AMEND ITS CODE, IT COULD ULTIMATELY SAVE US RESOURCES THROUGH STREAMLINING THE PROCESS. WOULD ALLOW US TO APPROVE FINAL PLATS THROUGH TYPE I PROCESS RATHER THAN TYPE II. HB 2356A 3/22/2005 4/5/2005 LAND USE PLANNING PRI 2 NEUTRAL RELATING RELATING TO APPROVAL OF LAND DIVISION; AMENDING ORS 92.100 AND CLAUSE 197.015; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. TITLE MODIFIES PROCEDURE FOR APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION PLAT OR PARTITION PLAT. { + DECLARES EMERGENCY, EFFECTIVE ON PASSAGE. + } POL CONTACT RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT UPDATED PRIORITY POLICY NuMRECOI~4ENDATION PEGGY PEGGY PWE 3/25/2005 PRI 2 YES V.C.2 SUPPORT KEPPLER KEPPLER COMMENTS: ALLOWS CITY TO REMOVE SUBDIVISION AND PARTITION PLAT REVIEWS FROM THE LIST OF TYPE II APPLICATIONS. SUSAN STEVE PDD- 4/4/2005 PRI 3 YES V.C.2 SUPPORT MUIR NYSTROM PLAN COMMENTS: FIXES LEGAL AMBIGUITY REGARDING PROCESSING OF FINAL PLATS. WOULD GIVE LOCAL JURISDICTIONS THE OPTION TO http://ceonline/celeg/reports/BillsDetail.asp 4/29/2005 Page 2 of 14 PROCESS FINAL PLATS AS A TYPE 1 DECISION. HB 3/15/2005 3/29/2005 DATA BASE PRI 2 SUPPORT/AM 2962 RELATING RELATING TO STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. CLAUSE http://ceonline/celeg/reports/BillsDetail.asp 4/29/2005 Page 3 of 14 REPORT ID: CELEG3 LEGISLATIVE TRACKING PAGE: 2 BILLS AND RESPONSE DETAIL RL DATRU~ TIME: 5:1 PM BILLS SENT DUE DATE SUBJECT PRIORITY RECOi~4ENDATION TITLE REQUIRES STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY TO ESTABLISH ELECTRONIC DATABASE FOR INFORMATION REPORTED BY DRUG OUTLETS REGARDING SALE OF CERTAIN PSEUDOEPHEDRINE PRODUCTS. RESTRICTS ACCESS TO AND LIMITS USE OF INFORMATION IN DATABASE. DIRECTS STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY TO RECLASSIFY METHAMPHETAMINE FROM SCHEDULE II TO SCHEDULE I. DECLARES EMERGENCY, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2005. POL CONTACT RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT UPDATED PRIORITY POLICY ~ RECOI~4ENDATION ELLWOOD L. EPD-ADM 4/4/2005 PRI 3 NO SUPPORT CUSHMAN THOMING COMMENTS: WE SUPPORT THIS BILL, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY TO CREATE A STATEWIDE DATABASE TO TRACK RETAIL SALES OF PSEUDOEPHEDRINE, USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF METH. SUCH A DATABASE WOULD HELP TO DETECT INDIVIDUALS WHO MAKE NUMEROUS SMALL PURCHASES FROM DIFFERENT VENDORS TO AVOID DETECTION. THE ONLY "DOWN SIDE" TO THIS BILL IS THAT IT WILL CREATE A REPORTING RESPONSIBILITY FOR RETAILERS AND A NEW (APPARENTLY UNFUNDED) RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE BOARD OF PHARMACY. HB 3/15/2005 3/29/2005 LAND USE PLANNING PRI 1 OPPOSE 2963 RELATING RELATING TO SUPPLY OF LAND FOR BUSINESS USE. CLAUSE TITLE REQUIRES LOCAL GOVERNMENT WITH URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY TO PROVIDE FOR AND MAINTAIN LONG-TERM AND SHORT-TERM SUPPLIES OF LAND WITHIN URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY FOR INDUSTRIAL OR COMMERCIAL USE. POL CONTACT RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT UPDATED PRIORITY POLICY NuMRECOMMENDATION SUSAN PDD- 3/25/2005 PRI 3 YES V.C.3 OPPOSE MUIR PLAN COMMENTS: THIS BILL REQUIRES THE 20 YEAR BUILDABLE LAND SUPPLY TO BE UPDATED EVERY 5 YEARS, UNFUNDED MANDATE, CURRENTLY HANDLED THROUGH PERIODIC REVIEW. HB 2964 3/15/2005 3/29/2005 SCHOOL FINANCE PRI 3 SUPPORT RELATING RELATING TO SCHOOL FINANCE; CREATING NEW PROVISIONS; AMENDING ORS CLAUSE 327.013, 457.010 AND 457.440; AND PROVIDING THAT THIS ACT SHALL BE REFERRED TO THE PEOPLE FOR THEIR APPROVAL OR REJECTION. http://ceonline/celeg/reports/BillsDetail.asp 4/29/2005 Page 4 of 14 REPORT ID: CELEG3 LEGISLATIVE TRACKING PAGE: 3 BILLS AND RESPONSE DETAIL RL DATB'U~ TIME: 5:1 PM BILLS SENT DUE DATE SUBJECT PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION TITLE ELIMINATES OFFSET FROM STATE SCHOOL FUND GRANT FOR PROPERTY TAXES OF SCHOOL DISTRICT THAT ARE IMPOSED ON NEW CONSTRUCTION OR OTHER EXCEPTIONS TO GENERAL RULE DETERMINING ASSESSED VALUE OF PROPERTY. ELIMINATES OFFSET FOR TWO TAX YEARS FOLLOWING DETERMINATION OF ASSESSED VALUE UNDER EXCEPTIONS. SPECIFIES THAT TAXES IMPOSED BY SCHOOL DISTRICT ON EXCEPTION VALUE BE DISTRIBUTED TO SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTEAD OF URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT IF EXCEPTION VALUE ALSO CONSTITUTES INCREMENT VALUE IN URBAN RENEWAL AREA OF CERTAIN URBAN RENEWAL PLANS. REQUIRES THAT MONEYS DISTRIBUTED TO SCHOOL DISTRICT UNDER ACT BE USED FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS. APPLIES TO TAX AND FISCAL YEARS BEGINNING ON OR AFTER JULY 1, 2007. REFERS ACT TO PEOPLE FOR THEIR APPROVAL OR REJECTION AT SPECIAL ELECTION HELD ON SAME DATE AS NEXT PRIMARY ELECTION. POL CONTACT RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT UPDATED PRIORITY POLICY RECOMMENDATION LARRY SUE CS-FMS 3/15/2005 PRI 3 YES III.B.2 OPPOSE HILL CUTSOGEORGE COMMENTS: THIS BILL WOULD REDUCE REVENUES IN THE DOWNTOWN URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT AND WOULD REDUCE REVENUES IN THE RIVERFRONT DISTRICT IF THE PLAN IS EVER SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDED IN THE FUTURE. COUNCIL POLICY OPPOSES REDUCTION IN URBAN RENEWAL REVENUE. PATTY PATTY CS-FMS 3/15/2005 PRI 3 YES VII.A NEUTRAL BOYLE BOYLE COMMENTS: THE IGR COMMITTEE HAS ESTABLISHED POLICIES THAT IN THIS CASE CONFLICT. HB 3/16/2005 3/30/2005 URBAN RENEWAL PRI 1 NEUTRAL 3056 RELATING RELATING TO URBAN RENEWAL; CREATING NEW PROVISIONS; AND AMENDING ORS CLAUSE 457 . 105 . TITLE REQUIRES APPROVAL OF URBAN RENEWAL PLAN BY EACH CITY OR COUNTY WITH TAX REVENUES THAT WILL BE REDUCED UPON ADOPTION OF URBAN RENEWAL PLAN. APPLIES TO URBAN RENEWAL PLANS ADOPTED OR SUBSTANTIALLY AMENDED ON OR AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF ACT. POL CONTACT RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT UPDATED PRIORITY POLICY NuMRECOMMENDATION LARRY LARRY CS-FMS 4/8/2005 PRI 1 YES III.B.2 OPPOSE HILL HILL COMMENTS: I AGREE WITH SUE CUTSOGEORGE. THIS WOULD GIVE A COUNTY VETO POWER OVER URBAN RENEWAL PLANS THAT ARE WHOLLY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF A CITY. http ://ceonline/celeg/reports/BillsDetail.asp 4/29/2005 Page 5 of 14 MIKE PDD-DEV 3/29/2005 PRI 1 NO OPPOSE SULLIVAN COMMENTS: I AGREE WITH SUE CUTSOGEORGE AND RICHIE WEINMAN RICHIE RICHIE PDD-DEV 3/17/2005 PRI 1 YES OPPOSE WEINMAN WEINMAN COMMENTS: I AGREE WITH SUE CUTSOGEORGE'S COMMENTS. SHE SHOULD BE LEAD ON THIS BILL. SUE SUE CS- 4/8/2005 PRI 1 YES III.B.2 OPPOSE CUTSOGEORGE CUTSOGEORGE FMS http://ceonline/celeg/reports/BillsDetail.asp 4/29/2005 Page 6 of 14 REPORT ID: CELEG3 LEGISLATIVE TRACKING PAGE: 4 BILLS AND RESPONSE DETAIL RL DATRt.~ TIME: 5:~ PM BILLS SENT DUE DATE SUBJECT PRIORITY RECOPA~ENDATION COMMENTS: THIS BILL WOULD MAKE IT MORE DIFFICIULT TO ADOPT OR AMEND URBAN RENEWAL PLANS. IN ADDITION, IT COULD RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT REVENUE LOSS TO THE URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICTS. HB 3383 3/23/2005 4/6/2005 PREVAILING WAGE PRI 2 SUPPORT RELATING RELATING TO PAYMENT OF PREVAILING WAGE RATES FOR WORK PERFORMED OFF THE CLAUSE SITE OF A PUBLIC WORKS; A/qENDING ORS 279C.840. TITLE REQUIRES CONTRACTOR OR SUBCONTRACTOR ON PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT TO PAY PREVAILING WAGE RATES TO WORKERS WHO MANUFACTURE OR FABRICATE NONSTANDARD ITEMS MADE TO ORDER FOR PUBLIC WORKS, WHETHER WORK IS DONE ON OR OFF PUBLIC WORKS SITE. POL CONTACT RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT UPDATED PRIORITY POLICY RECOIV~4ENDATION CAROL CAROL CS-FCS 4/6/2005 PRI 2 YES IX.B. OPPOSE POMES POMES COMMENTS: DEFER TO PW AND FACILITIES. THIS BILL WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO APPLY IN THE PUBLIC BIDDING PROCESS. ERIC ERIC PWA 3/28/2005 PRI 2 YES IX.B. OPPOSE JONES JONES COMMENTS: THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS BILL ARE DIFFICULT TO QUANTIFY, BECAUSE IT IS DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE HOW FAR REACHING IT WOULD BE. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE ADDITIONAL COST OF PUBLIC WORKS INFRASTRUCTURE (I.E. STREETS, SEWERS, ETC.) FOR PUBLIC AGENCIES COULD INCREASE UP TO 10%, DEPENDING ON THE AMOUNT OF PREFABRICATED MATERIAL PROVIDED AND WHAT THE COURTS DECIDE REGARDING THE MEANING OF "NONSTANDARD." FOR A PUBLIC BUILDING, HOWEVER, WHERE ALL OF THE MATERIALS ARE PREFABRICATED, AND IN MANY CASES COULD BE CONSIDERED NONSTANDARD (E.G. THE CITY'S NEW LIBRARY, AUTZEN STADIUM EXPANSION, THE UO LAW LIBRARY), THE ADDITIONAL COSTS WOULD LIKELY BE MUCH HIGHER. ADMINISTRATIVELY, THIS PROPOSED NEW LAW WOULD BE EXPENSIVE AND DIFFICULT, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE, TO ENFORCE FOR CONTRACTORS, SUPPLIERS, LOCAL AGENCIES AND FOR BUREAU OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES. MOST PREFABRICATED ITEMS ARE NOT MANUFACTURED IN EUGENE, AND MANY ARE NOT MANUFACTURED IN OREGON, SO TO TRACK DOWN AND DETERMINE WHO SHOULD BE PAID PREVAILING WAGES AND TO ENFORCE IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY TIME CONSUMING, AND, FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE. REVIEWED BY PAUL KLOPE, WITH INPUT FROM PUBLIC WORKS OFFICIALS FROM PORTLAND AND CLACKAMAS COUNTY AND A LOCAL PRIVATE SUPPLIER. PAUL KLOPE IS A GOOD RESOURCE TO GATHER TESTIMONY ON THIS BILL. http://ceonline/celeg/reports/BillsDetail.asp 4/29/2005 Page 7 of 14 GLEN GLEN CS-FAC 4/6/2005 PRI 2 OPPOSE SVENDSEN SVENDSEN http://ceonline/celeg/reports/BillsDetail.asp 4/29/2005 Page 8 of 14 REPORT ID: CELEG3 LEGISLATIVE TRACKING PAGE: 5 BILLS AND RESPONSE DETAIL RL DATEt~ TIME: 5:1 PM BILLS SENT DUE DATE SUBJECT PRIORITY RECOI~HENDATION COMMENTS: THIS BILL WOULD CREATE SIGNIFICANT ADMINISTRATIVE AND ENFORCEMENT PROBLEMS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, AND COULD INCREASE THE COST OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS, PERHAPS SUBSTANTIALLY. BY EXTENDING OREGON PREVAILING WAGE LAW TO "THE FABRICATION OF NON-STANDARD ITEMS MADE TO ORDER" FOR BUILDING PROJECTS, A NUMBER OF ISSUES ARE CREATED. FIRST, THERE IS NO DEFINITION IN THE BILL OF WHAT "NON-STANDARD" MEANS. A NUMBER OF BUILDING ELEMENTS AND SYSTEMS ARE POTENTIALLY "NON-STANDARD", AS THEY ARE DESIGNED AND FABRICATED FOR A SPECIFIC, UNIQUE INSTALLATION, EVEN THOUGH SOME COMPONENTS OF THESE ELEMENTS MAY BE STANDARDIZED ITEMS. EXAMPLES ARE HVAC DUCTING AND EQUIPMENT CONNECTIONS, LIGHTING SYSTEMS, GLAZING SYSTEMS, FURNITURE SYSTEMS, ETC. ANOTHER ISSUE IS THAT THESE BUILDING ELEMENTS MAY BE CONSTRUCTED OUTSIDE OF THE REGION, OUTSIDE OREGON, AND IN SOME CASES, OUTSIDE THE U.S. THERE IS NO INDICATION HOW OREGON PREVAILING WAGE REQUIREMENTS WOULD APPLY TO THESE SITUATIONS. FINALLY, ENFORCEMENT OF PREVAILING WAGE REQUIREMENTS ARE TYPICALLY DONE BY THOSE MANAGING THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, THROUGH PAYROLL REVIEW AND INTERVIEWS WITH WORKERS. IT IS NOT CLEAR HOW THE PREVAILING WAGE REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE MONITORED AND ENFORCES FOR THE OFF-SITE FACRICATION OF BUILDING COMPONENTS. HB 3/23/2005 4/6/2005 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION PRI 3 OPPOSE/AM 3414 RELATING RELATING TO A REPORT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. CLAUSE TITLE REQUIRES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO REPORT TO INTERIM COMMITTEE ON FUNDING OPTIONS FOR HIGHWAY PROJECTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE. POL CONTACT RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT UPDATED PRIORITY POLICY NuMRECOP~ENDATION ERIC ERIC PWA 4/8/2005 PRI 3 YES IV.A.1 SUPPORT/AM JONES JONES COMMENTS: LIKE HB 3515, THIS BILL SEEKS TO IMPLEMENT SEVEN PROJECTS THAT APPEARED ON THE OTC'S PRIORITY LIST IN MAY 2002. IN THIS CASE, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION WOULD OCCUR THROUGH AN ODOT STUDY DESIGNED TO FIND WAYS TO FUND THESE PROJECTS. THE MAY 2002 OTC LIST INCLUDES NO PROJECTS IN LANE COUNTY AND DOES NOT DESIGNATE FUNDING FOR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM OMP. THEREFORE, RECOMMEND THE CITY OF EUGENE SEEK AN AMENDMENT TO UPDATE THE POTENTIAL PROJECT LIST (POSSIBLY TO INCLUDE PROJECTS IN LANE COUNTY) AND/OR INCREASE THE PRIORITY OF OMP PROJECTS FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE INTERIM STUDY. http://ceonline/celeg/reports/BillsDetail.asp 4/29/2005 Page 9 of 14 RECOMMEND NEUTRAL POSITION WITHOUT THE AMENDMENTS. HB 3/23/2005 4/6/2005 BONDS AND UNDERTAKINGS PRI 3 OPPOSE/AM 3415 RELATING RELATING TO PROCEEDS OF CERTAIN BONDS. CLAUSE TITLE REQUIRES THAT BOND PROCEEDS EARMARKED BUT NOT SPENT BY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR REPLACEMENT OR REPAIR OF BRIDGES INSTEAD BE SPENT ON HIGHWAY PROJECTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE. POL CONTACT RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT UPDATED PRIORITY POLICYNuMRECOFAHENDATION ERIC ERIC PWA 4/8/2005 PRI 3 YES IV.A.1 SUPPORT/AM JONES JONES http ://ceonline/celeg/reports/BillsDetail.asp 4/29/2005 Page 10 of 14 REPORT ID: CELEG3 LEGISLATIVE TRACKING PAGE: 6 BILLS AND RESPONSE DETAIL RL DATRU4~ TIME: 5:1 PM BILLS SENT DUE DATE SUBJECT PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION COMMENTS: A GREAT DEAL OF CONCERN HAS BEEN VOICED STATEWIDE OVER THE INABILITY TO FUND HIGH-PRIORITY TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS. OTIA III WAS REALLY INTENDED TO GENERATE MONEY FOR STATE PRIORITIES SO IT WOULD STAND TO REASON THERE SHOULD BE AT LEAST AN INITIAL EFFORT TO ADD TO THE STATE'S PRIORITY LIST (I.E., THE MAY 2002 OTC PROJECT LIST). IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THERE ARE SEVEN PROJECTS ON THE OTC LIST, NONE IN LANE COUNTY AND NONE OF DIRECT BENEFIT TO EUGENE. THERE IS, OF COURSE, THE ISSUE OF CAPITAL PRESERVATION AND WE SHOULD MAKE THE PITCH BUT IT MIGHT BE DIFFICULT POLITICALLY FOR THE LEGISLATURE TO MAKE A SUBSTANTIAL SHIFT IN THAT DIRECTION GIVEN THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE BILL. STILL, IT MAY BE WORTHWHILE TO LOBBY FOR AN AMENDMENT THAT WOULD TRANSFER UNEXPENDED BRIDGE MONEY TO CITIES AND COUNTIES FOR OMP. ADDITIONALLY, AN AMENDMENT COULD BE SOUGHT THAT BROADENS THE SET OF PROJECTS FROM THE MAY 2002 OTC LIST TO SOMETHING THAT MAY MORE ACCURATELY REFLECT CURRENT PRIORITIES, INCLUDING PROJECTS IN LANE COUNTY. RECOMMEND A NEUTRAL POSITION WITHOUT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO INCREASE THE LOCAL BENEFIT. -- REVIEWED BY KURT COREY SB 2/16/2005 3/2/2005 WATER QUALITY PRI 2 SUPPORT 0532 RELATING RELATING TO WATER QUALITY; AMENDING ORS 468B.048. CLAUSE TITLE PROHIBITS ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION FROM ESTABLISHING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS THAT ARE LESS STRINGENT THAN STANDARDS PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED. POL CONTACT RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT UPDATED PRIORITY POLICY Ni3MRECOI~ENDATION PETER PETER PWW 3/1/2005 PRI 2 YES VIII.B.1.E OPPOSE RUFFIER RUFFIER COMMENTS: THIS BILL PROHIBITS ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION FROM ESTABLISHING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS THAT ARE LESS STRINGENT THAN STANDARDS PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED. MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO OPPOSE THIS BILL BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT ALLOW THE DEQ TO REVISE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS BASED UPON NEW DATA OR SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE MECHANISMS AND ACTIONS OF TOXICITY AND POLLUTION IMPACTS. THE FEDERAL CLEAN WATER REGULATIONS MANDATE THAT THE STATES REVIEW AND UPDATE THEIR WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ON A TRIENNIAL BASIS. THIS REVIEW IS COMPLEX AND TIME CONSUMING, AND CONSIDERS ANY ADDITIONAL DATA GENERATED FROM TOXICITY STUDIES OR BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS. IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES THE U.S. EPA REVISES http://ceonline/celeg/reports/BillsDetail.asp 4/29/2005 Page 11 of 14 NATIONAL WATER QUALITY CRITERIA, AND THIS IS ALSO CONSIDERED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OR REVIEW OF APPROPRIATE STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS. AS AN EXAMPLE, THE U.S. EPA REVISED THE NATIONAL WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR AMMONIA SEVERAL YEARS AGO BASED UPON NEW DATA AND A MORE PRECISE UNDERSTANDING OF HOW AMMONIA EXERTS A TOXIC IMPACT ON AQUATIC SPECIES. THIS NEW DATA RESULTED IN A HIGHER LIMIT FOR AMMONIA. IF SB 0532 GOES INTO EFFECT, THE STATE WOULD BE PREVENTED FROM REVISING THE STATE STANDARD TO MATCH THE NATIONAL CRITERIA, AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT WILL HAVE TO BE CONDUCTED TO MEET LOWER LIMITS FOR AMMONIA THAT WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT. THERESE THERESE PWE 4/19/2005 WALCH WALCH COMMENTS: DEFER TO PETER RUFFIER SB 2/18/2005 3/4/2005 FISH AND WILDLIFE PRI 2 SUPPORT 0652 RELATING RELATING TO TESTING OF FISH. CLAUSE http ://ceonline/celeg/reports/BillsDetail.asp 4/29/2005 Page 12 of 14 REPORT ID: CELEG3 LEGISLATIVE TRACKING PAGE: 7 BILLS AND RESPONSE DETAIL RL DATRt~ TIME: 5:1 PM BILLS SENT DUE DATE SUBJECT PRIORITY RE COlV~4ENDAT I ON TITLE DIRECTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TO CREATE PROGRAM FOR TESTING FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES IN FISH FOUND IN WATERS OF STATE. POL ~N__T~RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT UPDATED PRIORITY POLICY N_u/~RECOI~4ENDATION PETER PETER PWW 3/1/2005 PRI 2 YES VIII.B.1. MONITOR RUFFIER RUFFIER COMMENTS: THIS BILL WOULD REQUIRE THE DEQ TO ESTABLISH A MONITORING PROGRAM FOR STATEWIDE TESTING FOR TOXINS AND OTHER HARMFUL CHEMICALS OR COMPOUNDS IN FISH FOUND IN THE WATERS OF THE STATE. ADDITIONAL DATA ON THIS WOULD BE VERY BENEFICIAL IN TARGETING POLLUTION CONTROL ACTIVITIES AND DETERMINING APPROPRIATE CONTROL LEVELS. IT IS QUESTIONABLE WHETHER THE DEQ IS THE APPROPRIATE STATE AGENCY TO CONDUCT SUCH TESTING HOWEVER, AS IT IS MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE MISSION AND PRACTICES OF THE ODFW. THE PROGRAM WOULD BE EXPENSIVE AND, IF IMPLEMENTED, SHOULD BE FUNDED WITH ADDITIONAL RESOURCES TO THE DEQ AND NOT FROM EXISTING PROGRAM RESOURCES. SCOTT SCOTT PW-POS 4/14/2005 PRI 3 YES VIII.B.3 MONITOR DUCKETT DUCKETT COMMENTS: THIS COULD ASSIST THE CITY OF EUGENE IN DETECTING POLLUTION SOURCES RELATED TO FISH KILLS IN OUR STREAMS AND RIVERS. THERESE THERESE PWE 4/19/2005 WALCH WALCH COMMENTS: DEFER TO PETER RUFFIER SB 1006 3/14/2005 3/28/2005 PUBLIC CONTRACTS PRI 2 SUPPORT RELATING RELATING TO AWARD OF PUBLIC CONTRACTS BASED ON COMPETITIVE BIDS; CLAUSE CREATING NEW PROVISIONS; AND AMENDING ORS 279C.375 AND 279C.835. TITLE REQUIRES PUBLIC CONTRACTING AGENCIES TO DOCUMENT DETERMINATION OF LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER ON FORM PRESCRIBED BY COMMISSIONER OF BUREAU OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES AND SUBMIT FORM TO COMMISSIONER. POL CONTACT RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT UPDATED PRIORITY POLICYNuMRECOI~4ENDATION CAROL CAROL CS-FCS 4/6/2005 PRI 2 III.A.3 OPPOSE POMES POMES COMMENTS: DEFER TO PWE AND FACILITIES POSITION. THIS BILL ADDS A NEW FORM (PRESCRIBED BY BUREAU OF LABOR)TO BE SUBMITTED TO BOLI DOCUMENTING THAT THE CITY EVALUATED BIDS AND AWARDED TO THE LOWEST REAPONSIBLE BIDDER. http://ceonline/celeg/reports/BillsDetail.asp 4/29/2005 Page 13 of 14 THERE IS NO NEED FOR THIS OVERSIGHT. ERIC ERIC PWA 3/23/2005 PRI 3 NO NEUTRAL JONES JONES COMMENTS: THIS BILL IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF BOLI. IT WILL ADD A SMALL D/MOUNT OF COST TO CITY PROJECTS TO FILL OUT THE FORM AND MAIL IT IN. IT SEEMS LIKE AN UNNECESSARY STEP, BECAUSE THE PURPOSE OF THE FORM IS JUST TO DOCUMENT THAT THE PUBLIC AGENCY COMPLIED WITH EXISTING LAW. GLEN GLEN CS-FAC 4/6/2005 PRI 3 NEUTRAL SVENDSEN SVENDSEN http://ceonline/celeg/reports/BillsDetail.asp 4/29/2005 Page 14 of 14 REPORT ID: CELEG3 LEGISLATIVE TRACKING PAGE: 8 BILLS AND RESPONSE DETAIL RL DATE'L,~ TIME: 5:1 PM BILLS SENT DUE DATE SUBJECT PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION COMMENTS: CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER ARE ALREADY IN PLACE. THIS PROVISION WOULD REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL FORM TO BE FILED WITH BOLI ON PREVAILING WAGE PROJECTS AT THE SAME TIME AS AN EXISTING FORM ON FIRST-TIER SUBCONTRACTORS IS REQUIRED. INCREASED WORK SHOULD BE MINIMAL. http://ceonline/celeg/reports/BillsDetaihasp 4/29/2005