Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2C: Ratif.of IGR ActionsEUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of June 7, 2005 Meeting Date: June 27, 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 were 2 actions at the June 7, 2005, meeting on which the committee was not unanimous. Those actions involved House Bills 3301B and HB 3415A. RELATED CITY POLICIES Ratification of IGR Committee actions is the making or affirming of the City of Eugene's policy with respect to Federal and State legislative issues, or such other matters as may come to the council from the committee. COUNCIL OPTIONS The council may ratify or decline to ratify the IGR Committee's actions as set forth in the minutes of the committee's meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Actions on which the committee is not unanimous are brought before the full council for consideration. There were actions at the June 7, 2005, meeting on which the committee was not unanimous. Staff recommends these bills be considered by the full council. L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050627\S0506272C.doc 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 June 7, 2005 B. Legislative Tracking System print-out 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\M050627\S0506272C.doc ATTACHMENT A MINUTES Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations McNutt Room--City Hall June 7, 2005 9 a.m. PRESENT: Gary Pap6, Chair; Bonny Bettman, Betty Taylor, members; Mary Walston, Jason Heuser, Lisa Klemp, City Manager's Office; Sue Cutsogeorge, Central Services Department; Jerome Lidz, City Attorney's Office; Ruth Obadal, Tom Tallon, Fire and Emergency Medi- cal Services Department; Chuck Tilby, Eugene Police Department; Tom Larson, Eric Jones, Public Works Department; Kurt Yeiter, Alex Cuyler, Planning and Development Department. 1. Call to Order and Review Agenda Mr. Pap6 called the June 7 meeting of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations to order. There were no changes made to the agenda. 2. Approval of Minutes Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to approve the minutes of May 26, 2005. The motion passed unanimously. 3. Grant Approval: SAFER Grant Chief Tallon was present for the item to answer any questions the committee had about the 2005 SAFER (Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response) grant application for fire fighter staffing. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to approve the 2005 SAFER grant applica- tion. The motion passed unanimously. 4. Grant Approval: Buffer Zone Protection Captain Tilby was present for the item. Ms. Bettman questioned the selection of Valley River Center as a key resource, as stated in the memoran- dum prepared by staff. Mr. Tilby indicated the key resources were selected at the State level and the stadium was considered a key asset by the State. It was common for large shopping centers such as MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations June 7, 2005 Page 1 Washington Square in Clackamas to be on the list. Lane County had two key resources on the list: Autzen Stadium and Valley River Center. He noted that the award was for $50,000 per site. Ms. Bettman thought a case could be made for other key resources. Mr. Tilby concurred. Ms. Bettman was concerned the grant application was being approved retroactively. Mr. Tilby indicated it was staff's failure to bring the application before the committee earlier. Ms. Taylor asked if the funding was really needed. Mr. Tilby said whenever a large number of people congregate at a location at any given time the problem of preventing against a terror act grew exponentially. The purpose of the grant was to allow the department to detect problems at such sites sooner because staff would have a better eye on the situation. For example, the security system at Autzen Stadium would be enhanced, particularly on the perimeter. Ms. Taylor asked what the department would look for at the site. Mr. Tilby indicated the department would be on the lookout for such things as vehicles parked in the wrong place. Responding to a follow-up question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Tilby said he believed the grant was needed. Ms. Taylor asked what the department would look for at the Valley River Center. Mr. Tilby said the grant would help the department look for explosive devices more precisely and avoid the need for mass evacua- tions. Ms. Taylor asked if Mr. Tilby thought such an incident was likely to happen. Mr. Tilby said no; however, he thought the department would be remiss not to do what was reasonable and available to protect the 30,000 people who traveled through the center each day. Responding to a follow-up question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Tilby said additional surveillance was not proposed at the center. Mr. Pap~ had some of the same concerns as Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor. He asked if there was a site- selection process. Mr. Tilby said yes. He noted that the year previous, only Valley River Center was on the list. He indicated he would do further research about how key resources were identified. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to approve the buffer zone grant. The motion passed unanimously. 6. Review Pending Legislation Priority 2 Bills HB 2214A Mr. Jones indicated that House Bill (HB) 2214A, which made technical corrections to existing public contracting statutes, had been signed into law. HB 2472A Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to "Oppose." The motion passed unanimously. HB 3038A MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations June 7, 2005 Page 2 Ms. Taylor moved to change the status of the bill to ';Oppose." Mr. Jones said there was no effect on the City of Eugene from the bill, which related to municipal water right permit extensions. He said that the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) supported the bill and it was a high priority for the League of Cities. Mr. Heuser indicated a compromise was being worked out by the interested parties. Ms. Taylor asked the purpose of extending the date for completing construction on works pursuant to a water rights permit. Mr. Heuser attributed it to the time needed for planning. Ms. Taylor withdrew her motion. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status to Priority 3, Support. The motion passed unanimously. HB 3415A Mr. Jones said he interpreted the bill as allowing up to 25 percent of the Oregon Transportation Improve- ment Act (OTIA) moneys to go to freight route improvements. He did not know if Lane County would benefit because he had been unable to locate the list of affected freight routes. Ms. Bettman moved to change the status of the bill to "Oppose." Responding to a question from Mr. Papd about the reasons for her opposition to the bill, Ms. Bettman expressed concern that the money was collected because of a bridge condition crisis and now it was being proposed for reallocation to other projects. She thought such an approach gave government a bad name. She would have supported a bill that allowed the distribution of such funds to State and city projects related to system preservation. In addition, the bill provided no benefit to Eugene. Mr. Heuser suggested seeking amendments to the bill might be a better approach. He said that many Senators did not want to take up the bill because of concerns the bridges of concern previously had not been adequately addressed. He did not think the bill, in its present form, would make it out of the Senate committee to which it had been assigned. Ms. Bettman withdrew her motion. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to ~Oppose with amendments." Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Jones was unsure of the proportion of the OTIA moneys to be reallocated; the bill referred to any unexpended balance. Mr. Pap~ questioned when the bridge projects would be completed. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pap~ voting no. MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations June 7, 2005 Page 3 HB 2507A Ms. Bettman asked why the City was not supporting the bill, which would require any person operating a wrecking business to deploy or remove any air bag containing sodium azide before a vehicle was wrecked. Mr. Cuyler said had discussed the issue with a shredder operator, who indicated that air bags would be shredded as well as other parts of an automobile. The shredded material was quite toxic, but once detonated it was pretty much gone due to the volatility of the material used in air bags. Mr. Cuyler had no objection if the committee wished to change the status of the bill. Mr. Heuser indicated the bill was still alive. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the status of the bill to Support. The motion passed unanimously. HB 3301B Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 2, Op- pose. Mr. Heuser recalled the council had changed the committee's position on the bill, which authorized the formation of county service districts with overlapping boundaries, from "Oppose" to '~Neutral." He said the bill in question had been very slightly modified since that time. Ms. Bettman suggested that the council's vote on special districts superceded the council's previous vote on the bill. Mr. Papd noted that vote related to county service districts. He determined from Mr. Heuser that the bill passed the House and was in the Senate Rules Committee. Mr. Heuser did not think an oppose position would do much good at this time, and pointed out that further discussions would have to occur. He said the entire Lane County delegation was in favor of the bill. Ms. Bettman acknowledged her position was a debatable point, and said it made her less inclined to change the bill's status. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Lidz said the existing special district could be terminated with the agreement of all parties. Ms. Bettman thought the bill facilitated the formation of a special service district affecting the city. Mr. Cuyler noted his long-held contention a public garbage authority similar to the Metropolitan Wastewa- ter Management Commission would be useful. Ms. Bettman indicated interest in having a discussion about such an authority at some point in time. Ms. Bettman asked what technical change was made in the bill since the council's action. Mr. Heuser indicated that text related to water and energy districts had been removed and would be retained in the original statute. Mr. Heuser said that the bill appeared to have nothing to do with the proposed power facility in Coburg. He believed it was a technical change. Ms. Taylor asked if Mr. Heuser thought the bill would pass. Mr. Heuser indicated the bill passed in the MINUTES--Council Committee on INtergovernmental Relations June 7, 2005 Page 4 House by a wide margin; its ultimate fate depended on whether the Senate was able to get to it. The bill addressed the issue of local control and many people in the legislature supported it with the belief there were plenty of safeguards at the local level. Ms. Bettman continued to object to the bill as what it sought to accomplish could be done now without a statutory change. Mr. Heuser said that was not the County's position. Ms. Taylor, with the concurrence of her second, Ms. Bettman, changed the motion to reflect a status of Priority 3, Oppose. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pap6 voting no. SB 0412A Mr. Papd asked about the status of Senate Bill (SB) 0412A, noting the committee had considered the bill previously. Ms. Cutsogeorge said amendments were being discussed. She said her recommendation to monitor the bill was based on the fact the City had the ability to allow a special district to opt out from an urban renewal district. Schools were not included in the list of special districts allowed to opt out but their inclusion was being discussed. Mr. Papd, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 3, Op- pose. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to forward the committee's recommendations on to the full council. The motion passed unanimously. The committee scheduled the next meeting for June 21 at 9 a.m. 7. Salem Report The committee discussed the status of legislation related to Ballot Measure 37. Mr. Heuser indicated the Senate bill was dead and another bill was likely to be ~gutted and stuffed" to implement the measure. He said the contents of the bill were not likely to be known until the end of the week. He questioned whether a bill would come out of this legislative session. The committee agreed to discuss the issue again at the next meeting. Mr. Pap~ said his efforts to get the Forest Legacy Program were rebutted by the chair of the committee to which the bill was assigned, who indicated the committee was closed and no further action would occur. Mr. Heuser said that Gresham had discussed the issue with House Chair Karen Minnis, who indicated the bill was not a priority and could possibly be raised at the next session. He said the votes for the bill were in place, but it was never allowed to move forward by those in positions of power. Mr. Heuser said the Republicans came to the session with a minimalist agenda and, having accomplished that agenda, were prepared to wrap up the session. Mr. Heuser reported that committees were being closed down while the budget process was in the process of MINUTES--Council Committee on INtergovernmental Relations June 7, 2005 Page 5 being completed. Mr. Heuser reported the Senate bill included two trains, while the House version had only one. He said that was his highest priority for the coming week. He noted that Representative Debi Farr was working on the issue on behalf of the City. He indicated he would request written support from the full council for two trains. Mr. Heuser reported no further action had been taken on bills related to telecommunications taxes. The meeting adjourned at 9:55 a.m. (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations June 7, 2005 Page 6 ATTACHMENT B REPORT ID: CELEG3 LEGISLATIVE' TRACKING PAGE: 1 BILLS AND RESPONSE DETAIL RL DATEt~ TIME: 8:; AM BILLS SENT DUE DATE SUBJECT PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION HB 3301B 5/18/2005 5/27/2005 SERVICE DISTRICTS PRI 3 OPPOSE RELATING RELATING TO COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICTS; AMENDING ORS 198.835, 451.010, CLAUSE 451.472 AND 451.575. TITLE AUTHORIZES FORMATION OF COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICTS WITH OVERLAPPING JURISDICTION IF DISTRICTS ARE AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE DIFFERENT SERVICES. EXPANDS PURPOSES FOR WHICH COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT MAY BE FORMED WITHIN JURISDICTION OF LOCAL BOUNDARY COMMISSION. POL CONTACT RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT UPDATED PRIORITY POLICYNuMRECO~NDATION JASON JASON CMO-IGR 5/18/2005 PRI 3 NEUTRAL HEUSER HEUSER COMMENTS: NO SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES, SIMPLE DELETION OF PERIPHERAL LANGUAGE INCLUDED IN HB 3301A, MADE AT THE REQUEST OF WATER AUTHORITIES. SUSAN KURT PDD- 5/19/2005 MUIR YEITER PLAN COMMENTS: SEE JASON'S COMMENTS HB 5/18/2005 5/27/2005 BONDS AND UNDERTAKINGS PRI 2 OPPOSE/AM 3415A 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 { + AND FREIGHT PROJECTS + }. POL CONTACT RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT UPDATED PRIORITY POLICY RECOMMENDATION ERIC ERIC PWA 5/25/2005 PRI 2 YES IV.A.1 MONITOR JONES JONES COMMENTS:AMENDED BILL (PASSED BY HOUSE 52-6) CHANGES DISTRIBUTION FORMULA TO 75% FOR "HIGHWAY PROJECTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE THAT ARE ON THE LIST ADOPTED BY THE OREGON TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION IN MAY 2002" AND 25% FOR "FREIGHT PROJECTS THAT THE FREIGHT ADVISORY COMMITTEE CONSIDERED UNDER SECTION 11 (1) (A), CHAPTER 618, OREGON LAWS 2003." STILL TRYING TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY FREIGHT PROJECTS ARE IN THIS AREA. http://ceonline/celeg/reports/BillsDetail.asp 6/16/2005