Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3D: Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of October 17, 2006, and October 26, 2006 Meeting Date: December 11, 2006 Agenda Item Number: 3D Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Mary Walston www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5406 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 no actions on which the committee was not unanimous. The minutes being considered are for the October 17, 2006, and October 26, 2006 meetings. 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. On November 8, 2006, the City Council approved the Legislative Policies for the 2007 Oregon Legislative Session. COUNCIL OPTIONS The council may ratify or decline to ratify the IGR Committee’s actions as set forth in the minutes of the committee's meeting. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends ratification of the IGR Committee's actions as set forth in the minutes of the committee's meeting. L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M061211\S0612113D.doc SUGGESTED MOTION Move to ratify the IGR Committee's actions as set forth in the minutes of the committee's meeting. ATTACHMENTS A. IGR Committee Minutes of October 17, 2006 B. IGR Committee Minutes of October 26, 2006 FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Mary Walston Telephone: 682-5406 Staff E-Mail: mary.f.walston@ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M061211\S0612113D.doc M I N U T E S Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations Les Lyle Room, Public Works 858 Pearl Street October 17, 2006 12:00 noon PRESENT: Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Chris Pryor, members; Jessica Cross, Alex Cuyler, Jason Heuser, Mary Walston, City Manager's Office staff. 1. Call to Order and Review Agenda Ms. Bettman called the meeting of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) to order. There were no changes to the agenda. 2. 2007 General Legislative Outlook Mr. Heuser reviewed potential membership of the Eugene/Springfield legislative delegation, based upon his prognostication of the November election. He expects a split chamber, with the Senate controlled by the Democrats and the House controlled by the Republicans, although anything was possible. Mr. Heuser reviewed several ballot measures that would have significant impacts on the City of Eugene: ? Ballot Measure 39—Restricted the use of eminent domain, was very broad and went beyond the Supreme Court case from New London, Connecticut. ? Ballot Measure 48—Would establish a spending cap that could result in reduction of services at the state level, which could be shifted to local governments without funding. ? Ballot Measure 41—Alteration in federal income tax deductions for state income taxes had major implica- tions for school districts by decreasing funding for education. Mr. Heuser said Washington and California had gone from local to statewide telecom franchising, and opined there would be pressure from the telecom industry to do the same thing in Oregon. He said this would have a significant impact on consumer issues and authority to regulate the right of way. Mr. Heuser asserted there would be another run at the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission (LCLGBC, and did not have a prediction on what would occur. Ms. Taylor said the local delegation took a wait and see attitude during the last session, adding she no longer had a strong opinion. Ms. Bettman asked if Mr. Heuser foresaw a bill being introduced on the LCLGBC. Mr. Heuser opined Senator Vicki Walker may be willing to introduce legislation if asked to do so. He added the special districts association introduced the legislation in 2005 and may be interested in doing so again. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental October 17, 2006 Page 1 Relations Mr. Heuser stated people opposed to annexation were well organized and would likely be vocal during the next session, noting there was no organized effort to support annexation. Mr. Heuser said the Oregon Housing Trust Fund (OHTF) Investment advocates would actively promote affordable housing through legislation to increase transfer fees and closing costs by a modest sum that could raise $50 million annually for investment in the OHTF. The proposal was supported by the Home Builders Association, the realtors were neutral and the mortgage brokers had been silent on the issue. He said Eugene’s support could make a difference on this issue, particularly in collaboration with Portland. Mr. Heuser reported it was likely that the American Lung Association and the American Heart Association would introduce legislation for a statewide smoking ban, as had been adopted in Washington and California. Mr. Heuser said legislation on historic neighborhoods could come back during the next session, adding the federal government had turned the issue back to states and local governments. Mr. Heuser opined if the Democrats assume control of both houses, organized labor, trial lawyers and the environ- mental lobby would have proposals they would strongly support. Additionally, education funding would be a big ticket item for this session. Mr. Heuser suggested the governor could support Connect Oregon II which would address passenger rail issues. He added the governor had a major renewable energy call in which the state would secure 25 percent of its energy requirements from renewable energy. In response to a question regarding Systems Development Charges (SDCs) from Mr. Pryor, Mr. Heuser said parks SDCs had always been vulnerable, due to questions about how they were assessed and used. He said the Home Builders Association had favored restrictions on how parks SDCs could be used in the past. Mr. Heuser stated during the 2005 session, legislation had been introduced that would trade school SDCs for caps on existing SDCs, and the issue could come back during the 2007 session. This had been supported by the Washington County delegation in 2003. Ms. Bettman said it made no sense to trade school SDCs for caps on existing SDCs. 3. Overview and Discussion of 2007 Legislative Policies Document Mr. Heuser facilitated a review of the City of Eugene Legislative Policies for 2007 Legislative Session document. Ms. Bettman inquired about the procedure for modifying the document for the target audience. She said the document was too big and too difficult to use as a resource for legislative advocacy. Mr. Heuser replied it could be modified by the CCIGR and/or at the City Council. Ms. Taylor suggested condensing the document to make it more readable. Mr. Heuser suggested making the Legislative Policy document a set of principles in the future, and having a separate agenda for advocacy. He opined that the priority issues would rise to the surface. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental October 17, 2006 Page 2 Relations Mr. Pryor said it was useful to have a document such as the Legislative Policy document which presented the City’s position on important issues, with recommendations but not specific tasks. He also suggested a companion briefing documents with specific information about specific issues. Ms. Walston said the Legislative Policies document would go to the City Council on November 8, 2006. The committee commenced its review of the document beginning with the Introduction. I. Executive Summary Preserving Livability in Transportation and the Environment Ms. Bettman proposed adding the following: The City supports removal of the prohibition of SDCs for schools, police, fire, library, while preserving existing SDCs. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to accept the revised language. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. II. Home Rule and the Region B. Regional Partnerships: Eugene’s Intergovernmental Partners Ms. Taylor proposed revising the text to read: Our partners include: 1. University of Oregon 2. Eugene Water & Electric Board 3. League of Oregon Cities 4. City of Springfield and Lane County 5. Lane Transit District 6. 4J and Bethel School Districts Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to accept the revised language. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. III. Financing State and Local Government B. Property Taxes Ms. Bettman suggested adding the following: 1. Exemptions a. Recommendations 4. Support removal of corporate minimum tax. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to accept the revised language. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. C. Other Local Budget Concerns MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental October 17, 2006 Page 3 Relations Ms. Bettman suggested the following correction: 1. State-Shared Revenue Correct “cigarette, bear & wine” to “cigarette, beer and wine”. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to accept the revised language. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. 8. Repeal of Local Real Estate Transfer Tax Preemption Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to delete the last sentence in the paragraph. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. 9. Local Flexibility for Enterprise Zone Criteria Change second sentence to read: However, flexibility is needed to afford local governments the opportunities to tailor enterprise zone proposals in a way consistent with important and specific city goals and values. Recommendations: 1. Change to read: Support efforts to allow local flexibility to enterprise zone criteria for qualifying businesses. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to accept the revised language. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. IV. Transportation A. Funding for Streets, Highways and Transit Ms. Taylor suggested the following: Change paragraph 1, sentence 3 to read: Present funds do not allow the City of Eugene to preserve its current investment in maintaining existing transportation infrastructure or address the increased safety and seismic needs of the people and business in our community. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to accept the revised language. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Ms. Bettman suggested the following: Change paragraph 2 to read: In the fall of 2000, the City Council requested that the Citizen Subcommittee of the Eugene Budget Committee review local funding options to address these needs. The subcommittee concluded that the most critical capital funding need currently facing the City is in addressing the backlog of preservation work for both streets and off-street bike paths. In order to meet this goal of preserving Eugene’s transportation infrastructure, adequate funds are also required for operating and maintaining the system. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental October 17, 2006 Page 4 Relations Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to accept the revised language. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Correct paragraph 3, sentence 2 to read: Interstate 5 bridges locally, over the McKenzie and Willamette Rivers, are two highlighted examples of the state’s investment in replacing and strengthening bridges essential to the statewide transportation system for both commer- cial and general use transit. There was consensus to accept the correction. Recommendation: Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Bettman, moved to revise 1. d. to read: supports the development mechanisms to fund transit, including access for elderly and disabled people. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved delete to 1. e. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to revise 1. f. to read: supports the coordination of land use and transportation planning and implementation. The mo- tion passed unanimously, 3:0. Mr. Pryor proposed deferring the review of the balance of the Legislative Policies document to the next meeting. 4. 2006 United Front Update Mr. Heuser offered an update of the 2006 United Front efforts. He said Congress had not yet finished the 2007 budget, and had recessed to go home to campaign for the November elections. He added only two of thirteen federal budget bills had been completed, leaving the status of City projects unknown at the present time. He explained Congress would convene for a lame duck session in November at which time it would finish the budget and pass an omnibus spending bill. He suggested not adding or deleting any projects from the existing list. TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS West Bank Trail Extension: No action this year. NATURAL RESOURCE PROJECTS West Eugene Wetlands Education Center: Land transfer legislation: SB 150 and HB 4784 passed out of committee. Senators Smith and Wyden, and Congressman DeFazio indicated they would support action to include the land transfer in the omnibus spending bill. In response to Ms. Bettman, Mr. Heuser said Smith Dawson Andrews would be in Eugene in November, and he expressed optimism that they would provide advice on proceeding. Forest Legacy: Included in the Senate bill, optimistically would be included in the conference. Senators Smith and Wyden, and Congressman DeFazio were supportive. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental October 17, 2006 Page 5 Relations In response to Ms. Bettman, Mr. Heuser said there currently were no rail initiatives. Amtrak continued to hemor- rhage from continued funding cuts. Mr. Heuser said the United Front trip would be either the last weekend in February or the first weekend in March. Delta Ponds and Springfield Mill Race: The Water Resources Development Act had passed the Senate, and the House expected to move forward during the lame duck session. 5. Preview of Possible 2007 United Front Agenda Deferred to next meeting 6. Endangered Species Act Resolution Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to forward the resolution supporting the Endangered Species Act to the City Council. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. The next meeting was scheduled for October 26, 2006 at noon at a location to be determined. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. (Recorded by Linda Henry) MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental October 17, 2006 Page 6 Relations M I N U T E S Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street, Eugene, Oregon October 26, 2006 Noon PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Betty Taylor, Chris Pryor, members; Mary Walston, Jessica Cross, Alex Cuyler, City Manager's Office; City Engineer Mark Schoening; Gregory Watkins, Public Works Department. 1. Call to Order and Review Agenda Ms. Bettman called the meeting of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) to order. Ms. Walston added consideration of a Renewal Energy Feasibility Grant application to the agenda. 2. 2007 Legislative Policies Document The committee resumed its review of the Legislative Policies Document, commencing with page 23 of the draft provided for the October 17 meeting. Transportation The committee accepted a suggestion from Mr. Pryor that the text in Recommendation 2 under the section heading Oregon Transportation Plan be revised to mirror Recommendation 1 while not creating any potential conflict between State and City policies, as follows: “Support the State’s partnership, including funding, in efforts to implement projects on state highways in Eugene that address the goals of the Oregon Transportation Plan which are consistent with the City’s growth management polices.” Ms. Bettman asked that a policy related to having elected rather than appointed officials serve on the Lane Transit District Board of Directors be added to this section. Ms. Taylor asked why the issues listed under the section Rail Service were not advocated for through the United Front. Ms. Walston noted the concern. Ms. Bettman suggested the answer was a new track dedicated to passenger service. She said the committee might propose a policy in support of that, but she did not think it under consideration. Planning and Community Services Referring to the section entitled Streamlining Ms. Bettman noted the recommendation to work with the Oregon Building Officials Association and International Code Council in that effort, but said she had no idea what those organizations advocated for or what their objectives were. She recommended that A and B MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations October 26, 2006 Page 1 be deleted under 2, Streamlining, and replaced with a new recommendation that read “Support improve- ments to State Building Codes that streamline without jeopardizing health, safety, or integrity of infrastruc- ture.” There was no objection. Referring to the section entitled Use of Surcharge Dollars for Training and Education, Ms. Bettman questioned the inclusion of Recommendation 2, which called for monitoring to ensure no disproportionate State funding was allocated to the Portland-Metro area, as it appeared to have no relationship to Eugene. She suggested that the recommendation be eliminated. There was no objection. Referring to the section entitled Minimum Review Time Lines, Ms. Bettman proposed that the committee add a recommendation that read “Support time lines that protect plan quality and do not unnecessarily expand work volume or increase administrative costs while ensuring timeliness.” There was no objection. Ms. Bettman noted the lack of a staff recommendation under the section entitled Building Codes Division Oversight and suggested the following recommendation be added: “Do not support legislation that would restrict local programs or restrict local authority.” There was no objection. Ms. Bettman referred to the section entitled Removal of Regulatory Barriers to Low-Income Housing on page 31 of the draft and asked why the City would propose to broaden program eligibility requirements for housing assistance for families making between 40 and 80 percent of the median income when not all the needs of the very low income population could be served. Ms. Walston suggested that the policy would put the City in a position to meet those needs in case more resources became available. Ms. Taylor favored the retention of the statement in question. Ms. Bettman feared that if the City supported legislation that supported assistance for higher income brackets, it would come at the expense of lower income brackets Mr. Pryor suggested that the policy be revised to indicate that if eligibility was to be broadened, it would not come at the expense of those in lower income brackets. Ms. Taylor pointed out that those just above the poverty level frequently had many needs and no one was helping them with anything, where those below a certain level for eligible for all kinds of assistance. Ms. Bettman suggested that the statement be revised to read “The City also supports broadening the eligibility requirements for housing assistance, without compromising the existing low-income assistance funding.” Ms. Bettman recommended that the committee delete the second bullet on page 32 as it was a statement of fact rather than a statement of support and was already included in a box. There was concurrence. Ms. Bettman asked that the new second bullet on page 32 be modified by deleting the phrase “in the core area” as the City wanted to promote density in all parts of the community. There was no objection. Ms. Bettman referred to Recommendation 2 under the section entitled Land Use Application Review Process and suggested that there were two different concepts incorporated in the recommendation. She proposed to separate the concepts by placing a period after the phrase “rather than be reprinted in the code” and by adding a new Recommendation 3 that read “Support local discretion in standards for needed housing.” The committee agreed, and further accepted a recommendation from Ms. Bettman to delete existing Recommendation 3 in this section as she was did not currently perceive a threat to home rule in this area. Ms. Bettman suggested the committee add a recommendation under the section entitled 20-Year Land Supply that read “Support legislation that would require an assessment of rural residential development’s impact on housing capacity within the urban growth boundary.” There was no objection. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations October 26, 2006 Page 2 Referring to the section entitled Annexation, Ms. Bettman determined from staff that in the absence of the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission, the Board of County Commissioners would process all annexation requests and district formation and dissolution questions. The boundary commission was currently supported by a mix of application fees and assessments to local governments, and the budget was approximately $100,000 annually. The boundary commission had a single staff person, who provided services through Lane Council of Governments under a contract with the State. The government appointed the members of the boundary commission. Ms. Taylor noted that Lane County was the only county in Oregon with a boundary commission. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Walston recalled that the council had supported the continuation of the boundary commission in past legislative sessions. Ms. Bettman asked that staff flag the subject of the boundary commission for further discussion by the City Council, and suggested that boundary commission staff be invited to be present at that time. Ms. Bettman recommended that the committee add a recommendation under Oregon Land Use Planning Program and Land Conservation and Development Commission that read “The City will continue to oppose proposals for intensification of use in rural areas outside city urban growth boundaries.” Public Safety Referring to the section entitled Law Enforcement Mandates, Ms. Bettman suggested that the new Police Auditor be asked to propose text for this section given her past involvement in data collection in Massachu- setts. Referring to the section entitled Reimbursement for Negligent or Reckless Behavior, Ms. Taylor asked how the City would recover its costs in the event of a rescue operation triggered by such behavior and how such behavior was adjudged reckless or negligent. Ms. Walston suggested that the person committing the negligent act would be sent a bill. Ms. Bettman said the document did not do a good job of defining such behavior, but suggested that when the committee saw an actual bill it could evaluate the definition used. Mr. Pryor noted that there were legal definitions of those terms that could be referred to. Ms. Taylor referred to the section entitled Fleeing From Police Officers and questioned the recommendation to expand the law to pedestrians and bicyclists. Mr. Pryor supported the expansion of the law as the police needed to stop and question such people. Ms. Bettman pointed out the recommendation mentioned such stops if the office had the legal authority to do so, for example, in the case of a jaywalking or a traffic violation. Referring to the section entitled Firefighter Certification, Ms. Bettman suggested the committee needed more information about the DPSST certification to comment on the recommendation to oppose such required certifications. Referring to the section titled Skinny Streets, Ms. Bettman suggested it be reworded it to say the City would support legislation that permits skinny streets if it included appropriate local design flexibility to accommo- date fire and emergency vehicles and equipment. The committee discussed the suggestion with input from Mr. Schoening, who pointed out that the City already had authority to permit such streets. Mr. Pryor asked MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations October 26, 2006 Page 3 if the text needed to be in the document. Mr. Schoening did not think the text was needed as the City already had that authority. The committee deleted the section from the document. Youth There were no comments regarding this section. Environmental Issues Ms. Bettman questioned the first recommendation under the section entitled Market Development of Recovered Materials, asking why the City would not want the haulers to provide a certain level of education and outreach. Mr. Cuyler said that the City currently did require that. The issue of concern was unfunded State mandates. However, he did not think there was an issue coming up in the next legislature related to the policy. Mr. Pryor recommended its deletion, and the committee concurred. Referring to the text under the section entitled Rate Review, Ms. Bettman asked why the City would not welcome the Public Utility Commission (PUC) involvement in evaluating local solid waste collection rates requests. She was not opposed to getting an opinion from the PUC. There was agreement to delete the text in question. Ms. Bettman proposed eliminating the section entitled Recycling Users Fee given that what was discussed in that section was already being done. There was general concurrence. Ms. Taylor referred to the section entitled Innovative Approaches to Water Quality Management on page 52, which discussed pollutant trading. She said that was a concern for her as she did not perceive such credits as reducing water pollution. Ms. Bettman suggested that the committee include a recommendation that the City supported any efforts, legislative or regulatory, to improve water quality and decrease pollution as a partial means of addressing Ms. Taylor’s concerns. She did not think pollutant trading and green credits were always bad. The committee agreed to Ms. Bettman’s suggestion. Referring to page 55, Ms. Bettman suggested that the word “holistic” be changed to “comprehensive.” General Government Referring to the section entitled Contracting, Ms. Bettman flagged as an issue for the council the concept of buying more products locally, and the need for a new legislative policy that addressed both that and the new State-adopted purchasing standards. Referring to the section entitled Employee, Judge and Contractor Records, Ms. Bettman asked if legislation that protected the privacy of employees, judges, and contractors would preclude the public release of the wages of those who worked on the contract. Mr. Pryor believed the reference was to personal service contracts and personnel records so wages would not be included. Ms. Bettman suggested the word “including” be changed to the phrase “as it pertains” to be specific the text referred to personnel records. There was no objection. Referring to the section entitled Use of the Initiative Process, Election Reform, Ms. Bettman asked if the council had ever taken a policy stance on the concept of creating more obstacles to the initiative process. Ms. Walston recalled that the council had taken a position on an earlier bill with the provisions similar to MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations October 26, 2006 Page 4 those under discussion. Ms. Bettman proposed to strike Recommendation 1, which called for the City to support proposal to increase the number of signature required for an initiated constitutional amendment. There was no objection, although Mr. Pryor anticipated further discussion at the council level. Ms. Taylor wanted to add text to the document that called for the elimination of field burning. Mr. Schoening reminded the committee of the burning done in the west Eugene wetlands to control invasive species. Ms. Taylor did not object to that. Mr. Pryor suggested that the text indicate the City supported viable alternatives to field burning. Ms. Bettman wanted to support legislation that studied alternatives and minimized field burning. There was general concurrence. Telecommunications, Cable Communications, and Broadband Use of the Public Way, Including Voice over Internet Protocol There were no comments regarding this section. Ms. Walston agreed to send the document to the committee via e-mail for a final review before it was considered by the council. 3. Proposed Resolution on Food Policy Ms. Bettman called the committee’s attention to the background materials associated with the proposed resolution. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to forward the resolution to the City Council. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. 4. Grant Proposal Mr. Watkins was present to answer questions about a grant application that staff proposed to make to the Oregon Renewal Energy Feasibility Fund. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to approve the grant proposal. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. 5. Discussion of Legislative Reception Ms. Walston recommended that the committee sponsor a legislative reception in December 2006 prior to the next legislative session. The committee concurred and briefly discussed appropriate locations and dates. Ms. Bettman recommended that the legislative reception be held on December 1 to coincide with the courthouse opening. 5. Set Regular Meeting Schedule MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations October 26, 2006 Page 5 The committee tentatively agreed to meet the third Tuesday of each month. The next meeting would be at 2 p.m. on November 21, followed by a meeting on December 13 at 1:30 p.m. following the regularly scheduled council meeting. Ms. Bettman adjourned the meeting at 1:10 p.m. (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations October 26, 2006 Page 6