Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3D: Ratification of IGR Meeting Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of November 21, 2006, January 16, 2007, and January 23, 2007 Meeting Date: February 12, 2007 Agenda Item Number: 3D Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Brenda Wilson www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5049 ISSUE STATEMENT This is an action item to ratify the recommendations of the Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) Committee for the November 21, 2006, January 16, 2007, and January 23, 2007, meetings. 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. For the meetings of November 21, 2006, and January 16, 2007, all decisions were unanimous. At the January 23, 2007, meeting, there was one action on which were was not unanimity; this was HB2278, relating to financing for transportation project. The staff recommendation on this bill was a “Priority 2, Support.” A motion at the IGR Committee level to change the status to “Priority 2, Support with amendments” passed 2:1 (Bettman, Taylor: Pryor). Staff from both Public Works and Intergovernmental Relations will be available to provide additional information on this bill. The minutes being considered are for the November 21, 2006, January 16, 2007, and January 23, 2007, 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. 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. L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070212\S0702123D.doc CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends ratification of the IGR Committee's actions as set forth in the minutes of the committee's meeting and that there be a discussion on the decisions that were not unanimous. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to ratify the IGR Committee's actions as set forth in the minutes of the November 21, 2006, meeting, January 16, 2007, meeting and January 23, 2007, meeting. ATTACHMENTS A. IGR Committee Minutes of November 21, 2006 B.IGR Committee Minutes of January 16, 2007 C.IGR Committee Minutes of January 23, 2007 FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Brenda Wilson Telephone: 682-8441 Staff E-Mail: Brenda.s.wilson@ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070212\S0702123D.doc NAME OF MEETING: Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations DATE OF MEETING: November 21, 2006 TO: Mary Walston RECORDED BY: Kimberly Young = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 11/21 ky Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street, Eugene, Oregon November 21, 2006 2 p.m. PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Betty Taylor, members; Mary Walston, Jessica Cross, Alex Cuyler, City Manager's Office; Mike Sullivan, Amanda Nobel, Planning and Development Department; Eric Jones, Public Works Department. ABSENT: Chris Pryor, member. 1. Call to Order and Review Agenda Ms. Bettman called the meeting of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) to order. 2. Approval of Minutes Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to approve the minutes of October 17, 2006. Ms. Bettman asked that second sentence in paragraph 6 on page 2 be corrected to read (italicized text added; struck text deleted) “He said the home builders association had been favored restrictions. . .” Ms. Bettman referred to paragraph 9 on the same page and asked that the text be revised to read: “Ms. Bettman inquired about the procedure for modifying the document for and who the target audience was.” Referring to page 3 of the October 17 minutes, Ms. Bettman corrected paragraph 2 to read “. . .The City supports removal of the prohibition of SDCs for schools, police, fire, and library, and preservation of while preserving existing SDCs.” Ms. Bettman asked the intent of the committee be more clearly reflected in the motion on page 6 so that it read “Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to forward the resolution supporting the Endangered Species Act to the City Council.” The motion to adopt the amended minutes of October 17, 2006, passed unanimously, 2:0. The committee considered the minutes of October 26, 2006. Ms. Bettman referred to paragraph 4 on page 2 of the October 26 minutes and asked that the fourth sentence be revised to read “Ms. Bettman feared that if the City supported legislation that supported assistance for that higher income brackets, it would come at the expense of lower income brackets.” She also asked that the last word in the paragraph be changed from “requirements” to “funding.” MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations November 21, 2006 Page 1 Ms. Bettman asked that the paragraph 4 on page 3 of the minutes be changed to reflect the change the committee made to the relevant legislative policy (“The City will continue to oppose proposals for intensification of use in rural areas outside city urban growth boundaries.”) Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to adopt the minutes of October 26, 2006, as amended. The motion passed unanimously, 2:0. 3. Review of Grant Application Mr. Sullivan was present to answer questions about the grant application. Ms. Bettman asked questions clarifying the details of the grant, determining from Mr. Sullivan that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) first funded environmental assessments and then the City could seek additional dollars for specific site mitigation, that 15 percent of the grant would be used for administrative purposes, and that the City would work with established neighborhood organizations and organizations such as the Toxics Alliance to establish priority sites. He anticipated that staff would form a department advisory committee to advise staff, and that would also include neighbors. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Sullivan recalled that the 108 grant application was submitted to the Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) approximately a year earlier; it was approved by HUD for both urban renewal districts. However, to spend those dollars, the council must approve each individual transaction, followed by HUD approval. The council had yet to act on a transac- tion. He reminded the CCIGR that it had discussed the Brownfield Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) with staff last year, and the City had received a $2 million BEDI grant in conjunction with the 108 grant, representing roughly 20 percent of all funds in the program. He anticipated that future 108 application would have a component that was 80 percent funded by the 108 grant and 20 percent funded by BEDI. Ms. Bettman asked if staff had identified likely sites. Mr. Sullivan said no. Staff’s original intent had been to work with the owners of industrial properties in west Eugene and encourage them to think about redevelopment and infill in those areas. Among the greatest barriers to infill in such areas was the threat of environmental contamination or the presence of such contamination without knowledge of its extent. However, the EPA did not find that compelling, and subsequently staff had expanded the boundaries of the area to include commercial properties and the downtown core. The EPA was seeking a mix of private and public properties and, for example, staff anticipated that the Eugene Water & Electric Board property might require some analysis. Ms. Bettman asked if the neighborhoods would be involved in that process. Mr. Sullivan said that under the grant criteria, public involvement prior to application submittal improved the application’s chances of success. He said that neighbors would be involved early and throughout the process. Ms. Taylor asked who would be the subcontractor performing the assessments. Mr. Sullivan said that assessments were generally performed by engineering firms with the appropriate expertise. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to approve the grant application. The mo- tion passed unanimously, 2:0. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations November 21, 2006 Page 2 4. Update on United Front Plans Ms. Walston said that representatives of Smith Dawson would be in town on December 5 at 10 a.m. to discuss the City’s federal legislative priorities with Mayor Kitty Piercy. She did not anticipate that Congress would do any more significant work during the remainder of the year given its lame duck status. Ms. Walston believed that there could be additional funding opportunities with the new Congress. Ms. Bettman indicated she would also attend the meeting with the representatives of Smith Dawson. Ms. Walston reported that the United Front visit to Washington, DC, would occur on February 26, 2007. 5. Discussion of Process of Bill Review Ms. Walston called attention to an outline of the bill review process distributed to committee members and reviewed the process. 1. Five-day turnaround for staff review 2. Bills reviewed in chronological order, not by subject area 3. Priority 1, 2, 3 review order 4. Create a “Watch List?” 5. Consent Calendar approach 6. Feedback to staff on level/type of review 7. Reports available in PDF format Ms. Walston said she would share the information with staff at the upcoming legislative coordinator training. The committee briefly discussed the prioritization process and Ms. Bettman noted that during the last legislative session, she frequently requested a Priority 1 status be assigned to a bill in order to be able to discuss the bill with staff, but that did not seem an efficient approach. Ms. Taylor said that she frequently felt the committee needed more information about bills and the reasons behind the priorities recommended by staff, and suggested that in its analysis of bills, staff discuss briefly why a bill was recommended as a Priority 1. Ms. Walston agreed. Ms. Bettman determined from Ms. Walston that generally, staff would be present at committee meetings only for bills assigned a Priority 1 status and for those bills for which the committee indicated a desire for additional information. The committee had no objection. Ms. Walston suggested that staff send the staff analysis in PDF form to the committee via e-mail. Ms. Bettman endorsed the suggestion and further recommended that the staff analysis include links to the text of the bills being analyzed to facilitate the review process and reduce the need for staff to be present at meetings. Ms. Walston indicated she would provide those links in the PDF document provided to the CCIGR. The committee accepted Ms. Walston’s recommendation that staff establish a bill “watch list.” MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations November 21, 2006 Page 3 Ms. Walston invited other committee recommendations for process improvements. Ms. Bettman suggested that Ms. Walston consult past minutes where the CCIGR discussed process issues. Mr. Cuyler suggested that in the future, staff could provide the CCIGR with the names of the committees to which bills were directed. Ms. Walston agreed. Ms. Walston agreed to summarize the committee’s discussion for future distribution to members. Ms. Taylor said the mayor had planned to come to the committee’s meeting to discuss potential sponsors for bills of interest to the City. She suggested that the committee invited the mayor to a future meeting soon. Ms. Walston said that she would ensure that future CCIGR meetings got on the mayor’s calendar. 6. Meeting Schedule for Legislative Session The committee confirmed its meeting schedule during the legislative session, agreeing to meet weekly on Tuesdays at noon, commencing in January 2007. Ms. Taylor noted her conflict on the second Tuesday, and suggested the committee meet earlier that day. The next meeting was scheduled for December 13 at 1:30 p.m. Ms. Cross reported that to date, only one legislator had RSVP’d for the reception for the local legislative delegation, Chris Edwards, and indicated she would do telephone calls to follow-up on those planning to attend after the Thanksgiving holiday. The reception would be at the Oregon Electric Station and there would be food and a no-host bar. Ms. Bettman requested that staff prepare a brief introductory script for the mayor and bullet points regarding the City’s highest legislative priorities for her or another member of the CCIGR to discuss. She suggested that Phil Barnhart be asked to discuss what people could expect from the 2007 Oregon Legislature. Ms. Bettman adjourned the meeting at 2:40 p.m. (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations November 21, 2006 Page 4 NAME OF MEETING: Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations DATE OF MEETING: January 16, 2007 TO: Brenda Wilson, Jessica Cross RECORDED BY: Ruth Atcherson MINUTES FILE NAME: M:\2007\Central Services Department\City Managers Office\Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations\ccigr070116.doc = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 1/22/07rma Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall January 16, 2007 12 p.m. PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, chair; Betty Taylor, members; Kitty Piercy, Mayor; Brenda Wilson, Mary Walston, Jessica Cross, Randi Zimmer, City Manager's Office; Glen Svendsen, Facilities Di- vision; Billie Rathbun-Moser, Cultural Services Division. ABSENT: Chris Pryor, member. 1. Call to Order and Review Agenda Ms. Bettman called the meeting of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) to order. She noted that Mr. Pryor would not be able to make it. There were no changes to the agenda. 2. Review Grant Submissions Glen Svendsen, Division Manager for the Facilities Division of the Central Services Department, reviewed the Lane County Discretionary Grant application for a grant to fund the local match for the Eugene Depot Phase 2 improvements funded by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) program. He explained that the grant was basically the same one that had been submitted last year as staff continued to try to find non-city funds for the local match. He noted that the Lane Transit District (LTD) board would be meeting on the following day to review the priorities on the proposals. Ms. Bettman asked him to explain the county discretionary funds. Mr. Svendsen replied that it was a program under the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) that earmarked a certain amount of funding level to different regions in the state and the LTD was the planning agency for the Lane County area. He related that they had an Accessibility Committee that was comprised of a number of providers within Lane County that convened and determined what the priorities were in order to make suggestions to the state for how the money should be used. He said the focus was on elderly, disabled, and low-income programs. Ms. Bettman remarked that she found it difficult to discern what the projects were comprised of. Mr. Svendsen responded that they were contained in the Lane Coordinated Transit Plan, which could be located on the LTD Web site, and the projects were divided into three groups, of which only the Group 2 projects were prioritized. He stated that the Group 3 projects were the inner-city projects that were submitted to the state, and the Depot Phase 2 project had been categorized as an inner-city project. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental January 16, 2007 Page 1 Relations In response to another question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Svendsen explained that the project sought to extend the passenger ramp from the depot to the west behind the County Jail and to reconstruct the ramp to include benches, lighting, and a usable paved service. Ms. Bettman asked if the grant for a local match meant funding would come from ODOT funding from the discretionary grant and no city funds. Mr. Svendsen replied that staff had asked for $200,000 in general capital project money for the depot project in the Supplemental Budget 1 because they expected that some things would arise that would not be eligible under either the program or the initial federal funding. In response to another question, Mr. Svendsen affirmed that the money would be reimbursed if possible. Ms. Bettman had tried to find the projects in the new Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and wondered if they were there. Mr. Svendsen did not believe the depot project was listed in the CIP. Ms. Bettman asked why. Mr. Svendsen responded that he was uncertain whether it had been listed in a prior CIP. Ms. Bettman felt the CCIGR needed a page to update the project as “funding identified but not secured.” She said one issue she had was that they were not trying to secure funding for a project that had already been identified in the CIP as a priority. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to approve the grant application and it passed unanimously, 2:0. Billie Rathbun-Moser, Marketing and Public Relations Manager for the Hult Center for the Performing Arts, reviewed a grant application for a Lane County Tourism Special Projects Grants that sought $10,000 to promote an “Only in Eugene” package in Portland for three events intended to help celebrate the Hult th Center’s 25 anniversary. She hoped to obtain the Oregon Symphony’s mailing list. Ms. Taylor asked why a mailing would cost so much. Ms. Rathbun-Moser replied that the direct mailing would go out twice and would cost close to $6,000. She explained that the flier would be “snazzy,” and the rest of the money could be used to purchase some radio ads on the classical station in Portland. Ms. Taylor asked if there was any reason to think that people in Portland would want to come down to the City of Eugene for these events. Ms. Rathbun-Moser responded that the three attractions were not available in Portland and were world-renowned classical acts. Mayor Piercy was excited to hear that the Hult Center was doing outreach to Portland. She asked what specifically they hoped to get in return for the investment. Ms. Rathbun-Moser related that they believed they would be able to sell 200 tickets to Portlanders and this alone would be $10,000. She said this did not take into account the money the people from Portland would spend on restaurants, shopping, and hotels. She stated that the tourism grants were “all about rooms” and she had found three hotels that had availabil- ity for the three different engagements and would be promoting them with the ticket sales so that it was a package. Ms. Bettman asked for a report after these events on whether that marketing had achieved the success rate they anticipated. She asked if there was a contingency plan if the marketing director for the Oregon Symphony declined to release the symphony’s mailing list. Ms. Rathbun-Moser replied that they would purchase a targeted mailing list if they were unable to obtain the symphony’s list. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental January 16, 2007 Page 2 Relations Ms. Bettman asked why the CCIGR should support a grant application to the county. Ms. Walston explained that the Hult Center for the Performing Arts grant required CCIGR approval because it was a city facility. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to support the grant application. The motion passed unanimously, 2:0. 3. United Front Trip Ms. Wilson introduced herself. She provided an update on the priority list and the trip. She stated that the deadline for submitting the projects to be included on the United Front priority list was later in the day. She said the projects had to be submitted to Linda Lynch at LTD and then she would put together a final list that the intergovernmental partners were to discuss on January 19. She indicated that the partners would determine which projects would be included on a list to bring before the CCIGR for final approval. She planned to bring the list to the CCIGR on January 23 for final review and approval. Ms. Wilson reported that she had spoken with Smith Dawson in Washington, D.C. She said she would be meeting with Ms. Lynch later in the week to go over the process of the trip, as Ms. Lynch would not be attending the 2007 trip. She related that she would be taking on some of Ms. Lynch’s duties. She added that a tentative agenda would be released prior to the trip but they would not receive the final agenda until they arrived. She assured the CCIGR that the agenda would be complete and the schedule established by the time they had arrived in Washington. Ms. Taylor asked who would attend the January 19 meeting. Ms. Wilson replied that the meeting attendees were comprised of the intergovernmental partners: Springfield Schools, LTD, the City of Springfield, the Town of Coburg, Lane County, and the City of Eugene. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Wilson affirmed that all those attending the meeting would be staff. In response to another question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Wilson said the agenda would be basically the same th as the last one except for the West 11 Avenue study. She stated that there was a proposal to split the study. She related that the Springfield School District had also submitted a request for inclusion on the priority list for funding for an outdoor education program. She noted that the City of Eugene had been working on its environmental education center for some time. She had been in discussion with the Springfield Schools and would bring all of the information to the next meeting of the CCIGR. Mayor Piercy asked if the Springfield School District had identified a pocket of money for the program. Ms. Wilson affirmed that it did. She said she had spoken to Smith Dawson about this because to her and to staff this looked like a competing request. However, she determined it was coming out of a “different bucket of money.” She recalled that the City of Eugene was pushing its education center as a regional center. Springfield contended that it would be a different study area: riparian instead of wetlands. She related that they also maintained that the Eugene center was too far to drive for a field trip. She intended to find out more about the request at the intergovernmental partners meeting. She noted that the district did not intend to build a facility; rather, it wanted to build an informational trail system. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental January 16, 2007 Page 3 Relations Ms. Bettman said it brought up the issue of whether it was appropriate to bring just one school district along. She averred that if the school district’s objective elevated to the level at which it was the City’s objective as it was with the West Eugene education center this was a different situation. Mayor Piercy observed that the Springfield School District had determined that this was a good way to get some funding for its arts center and its arts program and had experienced success. She said Eugene’s school districts had not really been interested in spending the money to pursue this as an avenue for funding because they did not have a solid objective in mind. She did not believe that the districts opposed Spring- field School District’s participation. She had some concern about this project because of its similarity. She added that she felt it was cheaper to pay for school buses to go to the West Eugene center than it was to develop their own program. Ms. Bettman reiterated that the City of Eugene had presented the West Eugene education center as a multi- jurisdictional regional facility. She said everyone had to agree to support everyone’s agenda. She posited that it might not be the right time to introduce Springfield’s proposal given that all of the pieces were not yet in place for the West Eugene facility. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Wilson affirmed that the West Bank Trail would still be on the list. Mayor Piercy wondered if Springfield was asking for this as a piece of their recreation program. She thought the riparian education project might be more of a Willamalane Recreational District endeavor. Ms. Wilson responded that Willamalane was a partner in it. She noted that she had spoken with a Springfield staff person and he shared concerns about the similarity between the proposals. Mayor Piercy remarked that one of the things that had garnered the interest of the Oregon Senators in the Rachel Carson Environmental Education Center had been its focus on education. Ms. Bettman wondered if there would be a way for the City to fund a representative from the school district for the United Front trip. Mayor Piercy responded that the school districts did not have an interest, though they had the means to do so. She suggested they take letters from the school districts with them advocating for the education center. Ms. Wilson said she would contact the school districts. Ms. Bettman asked who from the City of Eugene would be going on the trip aside from the Mayor and herself. Ms. Wilson replied that she and City Manager Dennis Taylor and Natural Resource Manager Sarah Medary would be accompanying the councilor and the Mayor. 4. Staff Recommendations for Legislation Ms. Wilson pointed to the two memoranda she had included in the packet, one entitled Priority Assignments and the other entitled Recommendations. She explained that the first memorandum was just for informa- tion, but the second memorandum addressed the seven categories for recommendation. She stated that at present there were four main categories and three subcategories. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Wilson stated that the consideration that staff made in making a priority 1, 2, or 3 assignment to support or oppose a bill had to do with financial resources, MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental January 16, 2007 Page 4 Relations whether or not it impacted local control, and whether or not it was in line with or against a priority that had been set by the City. She reiterated that a 1, 2, or 3 dictated the amount of staff resources that would be deployed. Ms. Taylor thought there had been a big emphasis on financial implications. Ms. Bettman concurred, adding that it did not seem to take into account issues and positions. She recalled that they had identified legislation as Priority 1 based on policy. Ms. Wilson offered to reword the memorandum. She said she would bring it back to the next meeting of the CCIGR. Regarding the recommendations, Ms. Wilson related that the subcategories had proven a little onerous for staff. She conveyed staff’s recommendation to revert to the four main headings with a place for comments on the sheet. She also thought it would make it easier when addressing the so-called “gut and stuff” bills. Ms. Bettman averred that they had ended up in some tenuous positions and this was why they had created the three subcategories. She said otherwise they could end up opposing a bill that they could support with one small change. She did not believe this was more complicated. Ms. Wilson agreed that it was not unworkable. She thought clearer direction would aid the legislative coordinators. She conveyed their confusion as to what exactly oppose/amend meant for them. She thought some clarification of when and how this should be used would help. Ms. Taylor averred that the CCIGR had made it clear what they meant by the subheadings. She said sometimes they would not support a bill unless it was amended. Ms. Wilson explained that to her a bill that they were unsure of was a ‘monitor’ bill; staff would monitor the bill to see how “the wind blows it.” She related that some of the information staff was receiving from the legislative coordinators was that they were not sure when to use the subheadings and the result was that the staff recommendation was unclear as to exactly what they wanted. She thought more education would help clear it up. Mayor Piercy stressed that the issue was that a lot of the time the City did not have the power to amend a bill. She said they were not the ones that were in charge of the bills so they did not get to amend them. Ms. Taylor responded that then they would just not support the bill. Ms. Wilson said this was the issue. She asked if they said that they would support a bill with an amend- ment, if the amendment did not happen would they no longer support the bill? Ms. Bettman recalled that their intention was to express support for the concept of a bill as long as it was amended to change one small thing, such as where the funds should come from. She said usually the amendment was a “deal killer.” Ms. Wilson related that some staff thought ‘support/amend’ meant that they would support the bill with a set of amendments and without the amendments they would oppose it. To her that was a bad bill. She suggested that they say “we oppose it and here is why.” Ms. Bettman averred that there were political reasons why some people did not want to oppose a bill. She suggested they just refine the definitions and offered to help Ms. Wilson work on them. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental January 16, 2007 Page 5 Relations Mayor Piercy asked that the CCIGR consider whether a bill that could potentially be good but was not good enough might be something they just wanted to track. She asked them to consider, within the limits of what the staff could do, what if anything was important enough to be pushing for an amendment. She pointed out that it was a great deal of work. She thought a lot of things might not be worth the effort of taking a position on them. Ms. Bettman agreed that made sense in a “general broad overview,” but they went through dozens and dozens of bills at every meeting. She said they would only take a position regarding an amendment when they knew an amendment was being considered. She averred that staff wanted to take a position on a lot of the bills that she did not believe were elevated to the level of city policy. She believed that in a situation wherein it was city policy, the City did need to take a position. She felt the subcategories gave staff a much better direction. Ms. Taylor did not think staff members needed to use the subcategories for prioritization. She thought that would be the purview of the CCIGR. Ms. Wilson said the subcategories were on the drop-down menu for staff’s recommendation on the bills. She indicated that they could remove them. Public Affairs Manager for the Public Works Department, Eric Jones, noted that when a bill was amended it returned as an enrolled bill or a new bill. He stated that staff would then review it again. He said they would send it back to the CCIGR with the note that it had been amended and whether staff thought it should be opposed, supported, monitored, or a neutral stance should be taken on it. Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor indicated this would work for them. Mayor Piercy asked if there were any bills initiated by the departments. Ms. Wilson replied that there were four bills initiated thus far, all from the Eugene Police Department (EPD) and with the permission of State Senator Floyd Prozanski. She noted that the Oregon Sheriff’s Association and the Oregon Police Associa- tion had also picked up the same concepts and she was uncertain which would take the lead. She said she would bring them to the next CCIGR meeting. Mayor Piercy averred that the EPD should have the CCIGR looking at the bills and Sen. Prozanski should know what the policy makers thought about them. Ms. Wilson responded that those bills had not yet come out of legislative counsel. Ms. Bettman asked if any other department had initiated a bill. Ms. Wilson replied that there were no others at this time. Ms. Bettman agreed that things presented as legislation from the City should be reviewed by the CCIGR and approved by the City council. Ms. Wilson stated that the bills followed closely the policies that were adopted by the City in the city policy book. She reiterated that the bills had not been assigned numbers and were not out of legislative counsel so they were not exactly bills at this point. She indicated she would bring the bills to the January 23 meeting in order to gain the final go ahead. She added that she understood there were problems with the language of two of them. She said she would send the four original drafts to councilors. She explained that one was in regard to polygraphs for new hires, one made fleeing from an officer using something other than a motorized vehicle a misdemeanor, one was the elimination of the requirement of notification of a subject that he or she MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental January 16, 2007 Page 6 Relations was being videotaped from a police vehicle, and the last one made it a failure to produce government issued identification if it was in a person’s possession a crime. Ms. Bettman thought they should look into creating a process for this. She felt a department should propose its ideas for legislature and it should at least be placed on a council’s consent calendar for approval. Ms. Wilson said they would work on a process. She noted that the CCIGR would review two bills that had been introduced by the professional organizations, one having to do with the polygraph and the other that sought to waive the requirement for notification of the use of vehicle-mounted video cameras and neither of these had arisen from the City of Eugene. Ms. Wilson asked whether the CCIGR preferred hard copies or email links to the bills. Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman indicated a preference for links, but they requested hard copies of staff recommendations. Ms. Taylor requested a list of legislators and staff, including email addresses and phone numbers. Ms. Wilson agreed to provide this. Ms. Bettman expressed interest in the field burning legislation that was planned to be introduced. She wanted to see a draft as soon as it became available so that they could take a position on it. Ms. Wilson responded that they had not seen the bill at this point. She said the only bill that had come from this region’s delegation thus far was a bill that Senator Vicki Walker had introduced to eliminate the Boundary Commission, Senate Bill 417. In response to a question from Mayor Piercy, Ms. Wilson explained that Sen. Walker had made a campaign promise to introduce this piece of legislation. The meeting adjourned at 1:14 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental January 16, 2007 Page 7 Relations NAME OF MEETING: Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations DATE OF MEETING: January 23, 2007 TO: Brenda Wilson, Jessica Cross RECORDED BY: Ruth Atcherson MINUTES FILE NAME: M:\2007\Central Services Department\City Managers Office\Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations\ccigr070123.doc = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 1/29/07rma Draft to Staff (Date & Initials) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall January 23, 2007 12 p.m. PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, chair; Betty Taylor, Chris Pryor, members; Brenda Wilson, Jessica Cross, Randi Zimmer, Mary Walston, City Manager's Office; Larry Hill, Finance Division; Glen Svendsen, Facilities Division; Eric Jones, Fred McVey, Lacey Risdal, Public Works De- partment; Mark Schoening, Steve Gallup, Engineering Division; Cathy Madison, Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department; Peter Ruffier, Wastewater Management Divi- sion; Char Mauch, Municipal Court; Ellwood Cushman, Eugene Police Department; Glen Potter, Fire & Emergency Medical Services Department; Pam Berrian, Information Services Division; Jerry Lidz, City Attorney; Keli Osborn, Planning Division; Sarah Medary, Parks and Open Space Division. 1. Call to Order and Review Agenda Ms. Bettman called the meeting of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) to order. Everyone present introduced themselves. There were no changes to the agenda. She requested to add a time for items from staff to future agendas. She also asked that a short discussion of meeting schedule be added after the approval of the minutes. Ms. Bettman asked if Ms. Wilson would put the legislative update on the agenda or whether the lack of an update on the agenda simply meant there was no update. Ms. Wilson responded that she could provide an update at the meetings or she could make it a newsletter that CCIGR members could read on their own time. Mr. Pryor indicated he would appreciate having an update ahead of time and then if questions arose they could be raised at the meeting. Ms. Bettman concurred as did Ms. Taylor. Ms. Bettman stated that the CCIGR would review bills until 1:10 p.m. and then would move to the next agenda item. 2. Legislative Bills Review ? HB 2278 – Relating to financing for transportation projects; and declaring an emergency. Recommended Priority 2 Support Mr. Jones explained that the bill related to the Connect Oregon Round 2 funding and had been introduced in the legislature by the Governor. He said it had been referred to the House Committee on Transportation and a hearing on the bill had been scheduled for January 29. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental January 23, 2007 Page 1 Relations Ms. Bettman noted that staff recommended expanding the definition of infrastructure to include air service. She said the last Connect Oregon funding had gone to the airport. She asserted that the airport had “many other sources of funding,” but the City had not been able to find funding for the depot project. She felt there could be other projects that the City would want to fund. She questioned why the airport would be the priority of the Public Works Department. Mr. Jones replied that it was important to think at the City level what projects were likely or reasonable to move forward in order to ensure that the bill as it moved through the session was written in a way that accommodated the set of projects the City would hope to be able to apply for funding for. Mr. Jones agreed that airport staff saw the ability to propose an airport project for funding as something they would want to see, but the city staff would also like to see the bill written in such a way that the depot project would qualify for such funding. He said another approach would be to see if the bill could give some priority to projects that were advanced in the previous round but were not successful. He underscored that it was up to the CCIGR to state the priorities for moving the bill ahead, keeping in mind that a focus on projects would be the most effective way to influence legislation. Ms. Bettman asked how modal equity was defined. Mr. Jones replied that modal equity simply meant that an equal percentage of funding would be allocated to each of the four modes of transportation: air, rail, public highways, and marine transportation. Ms. Bettman indicated her willingness to support the bill with an amendment, but she wanted to stress that she had a “huge problem” with utilizing funding based on projected lottery revenue. She averred that if the State was going to engage in funding on the projected revenue, it should be allocated to high priority projects. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to keep the bill at a Priority 2 and recommend support with an amendment that would ensure the criteria would allow projects like the Eugene Depot or other alternative mode projects that Eugene had in its Capital Improvement Program or its multi-year financing plan to be given priority. Mr. Pryor asked why the CCIGR would want to restrict it at this point, given that the City had its choice of what it wanted to apply or not apply for without having to change substance of the bill. Mr. Jones said the bill could be amended to say that it would specify projects that were identified in capital improvement plans (CIPs) or in another adopted plan. He thought that could be part of the State legislation or it could be part of an internal policy. Ms. Bettman asserted that this was not the way it would work once the legislation and the criteria delineated by it was in place. She stated that it was staff’s recommendation to amend it to expand the definition of infrastructure to include air service; rather the focus should be on “alternative mode projects” that were in existing plans. Mr. Pryor reiterated his reluctance to change the criteria for the entire State based on what the City of Eugene wanted. Ms. Bettman questioned why the CCIGR would be working on a bill to begin with unless the committee was working on it for the interests of Eugene. Mr. Pryor replied that they were working on how the City of Eugene interfaced with the bill, but he did not want to dictate to Portland or Medford what they could apply MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental January 23, 2007 Page 2 Relations for by changing the entire state law. He underscored that the City could just pick what it wanted to apply for and leave the law as it was. Ms. Bettman asked why then the CCIGR did not wish to take a neutral position on the bill. Mr. Pryor responded by questioning why the City of Eugene would not want transportation legislation to go through. Ms. Bettman replied that it brought up a policy issue for her because of how it was financed. She opined that it was a very poor fiscal policy. She noted that it was obviously something that would have to come before the council. Ms. Taylor indicated she would support the motion. She added that the only reason they would do any of it was that they were trying to protect the interests of the City. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pryor voting in opposition. Ms. Wilson indicated she would attend the hearing and monitor the bill given that the council would not be able to discuss it prior to the hearing. Ms. Bettman stated that until the council was able to discuss it the recommended position was that of the motion. ? HB 2035 – Relating to habitual traffic offenders. Recommended Priority 3 Support Ms. Taylor explained that she pulled this bill because she wanted to know why a Priority 3 support had been recommended. Ms. Wilson clarified that the bill would change current law so that driving privileges could be revoked for 15 moving violations within five years; currently the number of allowable violations within that period is 20. Ms. Taylor said she did not want to discuss the bill. ? HB 2136 – Relating to appeals from judgments in violation proceedings. Recommended Priority 3 Neutral or Drop Ms. Wilson noted that Ms. Mauch had recommended the City drop it and City Attorney Jerry Lidz had recommended that the CCIGR adopt a neutral stance in regard to this bill. She noted that the bill would prevent the appeal from a judgment proceeding with an imposed fine of $500 or lower. Ms. Taylor thought the CCIGR should oppose HB 2136 as all people should have a right to appeal a legal judgment. Ms. Mauch explained that the reason she had suggested it be dropped was that the City Municipal Court saw very few appeals on violations at that level as the filing fee was over $200. Ms. Bettman questioned the difference between ‘drop’ and ‘neutral.’ She opined that it would be nice if people had the ability to appeal but she also thought, given the resources the City had, it was not prudent to allow it to rise to the level as something the City wanted to put its legislative resources behind. She ascertained from Mr. Pryor that he would not second a motion regarding the bill and noted that she would also not provide a second. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental January 23, 2007 Page 3 Relations Ms. Wilson explained that ‘drop’ meant that the City would not even consider the bill because it would not have an effect on the City either positive or negative and ‘neutral’ meant that although a bill may have an effect the City did not have a position on it either way. Mr. Pryor said if ‘neutral’ meant the City would not spend resources on it he would support taking a neutral stance. Ms. Wilson responded that the difference for her was that when she was watching the bills move through, she would not pay attention to those that were dropped but she would pay some attention to a bill the City had taken a neutral stance on because such bills could change as they moved through the process. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to drop the bill. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. ? HB 2147 – Relating to denial of driving privileges of persons under 21 years of age and ? HB 2149 – Relating to penalties for violations of laws governing alcoholic beverages. Recommended Priority 3 Support for both Ms. Mauch explained that juvenile court could cause a drivers license suspension through the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) but the Municipal Court was not able to do so. She said the passage of HB 2147 would provide the Municipal Court with that ability. Ms. Taylor asked what kinds of offenses could be penalized in this way. Ms. Mauch replied that for the Municipal Court license suspensions could be a penalty for alcohol or marijuana possession citations under the age of 20. Ms. Taylor indicated that she did not care to pursue any further discussion of HB 2147. Ms. Taylor asked if HB 2149 included parents. Ms. Wilson replied that the bill added a provision that made it so that a person who had violated the laws governing alcoholic beverages more than once could be subjected at the court’s discretion to assessment to determine if that person is an alcoholic and, if so, the person would be required to go into treatment. Ms. Taylor did not believe that a 20-year-old who had a drink should be subjected to an assessment. Mr. Pryor disagreed. He noted that he had worked with alcoholics and even young people could be alcoholics. Ms. Taylor said she had been with groups of “very respectable people” with which a 19-year-old or a 20- year-old might have a drink and she surmised that some of the people in the room had been in a similar situation. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Mauch said the bill cleaned up some language and it authorized the “treatment piece” the Municipal Court struggled with. She related that the City’s court was impacted by alcohol abuse in the community and they had worked a lot with deferred prosecution programs for the first offense. She stressed that this would not change as the bill only referred to second and consecutive offenses. She noted that if a person was under 21 and was drinking alcohol, he or she was breaking the law in most environments. Ms. Bettman noted that the bill said the court “may order,” which gave the court discretion. Ms. Taylor averred that 21 was a “ridiculous” age limit. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental January 23, 2007 Page 4 Relations Ms. Mauch noted that the language was changing from “may” to “shall.” Ms. Bettman ascertained that there would not be a second to a motion to change the stand on the bill. ? HB 2321 – Relating to court-ordered license suspension. Recommended Priority 3 Support Ms. Mauch explained that the bill was seeking to extend the statute of limitations to 10 years for the DMV. She said Municipal Court could take action again at the end of five years to renotify the DMV but the work load at court in order to do that prohibited it. She underscored that people do respond to taking care of outstanding court matters when there was a drivers license suspension in effect and that the court strove to work with people. She stated that there were processes by which people could make payments. Ms. Taylor said she was thinking of poor people who could not afford to pay the fine and that upon occasion a person received a fine that was not “just.” Ms. Mauch responded that a person who could not afford the fine could pursue alternatives such as community service or the road crew. Ms. Taylor thought it was “horrible” that a person would have to work on the road crew. Ms. Bettman said in the effort to get through dozens of bills, if it appeared there would not be a second to a motion to change the priority or stance on a bill the CCIGR should move on and the committee member who felt strongly about such a bill should pull it for council discussion. She ascertained that there would be no second to a motion to change the stance on HB 2321.. ? HB 2353 – Relating to juvenile court jurisdiction over pregnant women. Recommended to Drop Ms. Taylor had pulled the bill, but she indicated she was amenable to keeping the stance as a ‘drop.’ ? HB 2357 – Relating to the courts. Recommended Priority 3 Support Ms. Mauch explained that electronic signatures were becoming “the reality.” She said what was outlined in the bill was a direction the Municipal Court was looking at pursuing and was also the course other courts the City court interacted with were charting. She stated that because of the Chief Justice all of the necessary checks and balances were in place and this bill would allow the Municipal Court to have the necessary laws in place to change to electronic signatures. Ms. Bettman said she was “fine” with the electronic signature component of the bill. Her concern lay with the potential for the elimination of records once there was an electronic copy. Ms. Mauch responded that this applied to the Circuit Court and would not apply to the Municipal Court. She offered to research it further. Ms. Bettman suggested that they monitor the bill. Ms. Pryor asked if the bill specified the time period records would be retained and then destroyed. Ms. Mauch replied that she was uncertain. She noted that the court archivist and the administrator were coming together to determine this. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental January 23, 2007 Page 5 Relations Ms. Bettman asked that HB 2357 be pulled so that Ms. Mauch could return with more information. ? SB 126 – Relating to satisfaction of monetary obligations imposed in judgment for benefit of victim. Recommended Priority 3 Support Ms. Bettman said the bill seemed to give different treatment to people who had resources and people who did not have resources; the record could be expunged if one had enough money to pay one’s fines and obligations. Ms. Mauch explained that the court supported it because the court was looking out for the benefit of the victim. She said if someone was damaged by a crime there would at least be an effort to resolve it prior to being able to get the charge off the record. Ms. Bettman moved that the CCIGR remain neutral on SB 126. Mr. Pryor asked if it was common to provide an alternative for someone who could not meet his or her financial obligations. Ms. Mauch replied that the court did try to provide alternatives in the case of a monetary issue such as community service, but the alternatives would not pay restitution to a victim. She said a person who filed to have his or her record expunged and who had not paid restitution to a victim as ordered in a court proceeding, under this bill, would not be able to do so until the restitution issue had been addressed. Ms. Taylor provided a second. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. ? HB 2335 – Relating to evidence Recommended to Drop Ms. Bettman asked why the recommendation was to drop the bill. Ms. Mauch responded that the Municipal Court did not handle cases the bill would apply to. ? HB 2336 – Relating to expunction Recommended to Drop Ms. Mauch explained that the recommendation to drop on HB 2336 was for the same reason. ? HB 5048 – Relating to financial administration of the Department of Transportation Recommended to Drop Ms. Mauch stated that the Municipal Court did not request a lot of data from the Department of Transporta- tion, so there was no monetary impact. She noted that the City of Eugene also charged the types of fees the bill would affect in the Department of Transportation. Ms. Bettman ascertained that the fees were for accessing information. She asked if the Municipal Court would be the only venue for which the bill would have an effect. Ms. Mauch replied that it would apply to anyone requesting information from the DMV. Ms. Bettman thought the Eugene Police Department (EPD) and the Department of Public Works might have an interest in reviewing the bill. She asked that the bill be pulled so that it could be reviewed to determine if it would cost the City more money. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental January 23, 2007 Page 6 Relations ? HB 2123 – Relating to judicial review of rules. Recommended to Drop Mr. Lidz explained that the court would not declare an official challenge to a rule. He said the bill would tell the court that it should look only at whether a rule on its face is unconstitutional and not to ask if there was a situation that could be imagined wherein the rule as applied would be unconstitutional. He stated that this was consistent with how the court would review a statute or an ordinance. He did not believe it was a change in the law and he was uncertain as to why the Attorney General thought this bill was necessary. Ms. Bettman was amenable to leave the stance on the bill as a ‘drop.’ ? HB 2314 – Relating to collection of debt. Recommended Priority 3 Support Ms. Taylor said the bill disturbed her because she believed collection agencies “put a person so much in debt” that it would be contrary to city policies for not making people homeless, as an example. Mr. Hill explained that the City did occasionally use a private collection agency for collection of debts, but the collection agency kept a percentage of the debt as payment for its service. He said the bill would allow the City to recover part of all of the cost of collecting the debt. Ms. Taylor averred that it just increased a person’s debt. Mr. Pryor asked how often the City had to utilize such an agency. Mr. Hill replied that it was an infrequent occurrence. Mr. Pryor asked how large the debt tended to be. Mr. Hill was uncertain. The CCIGR agreed to take no position on it and pull the bill until more was known. ? HB 2413 – Relating to business transactions of public bodies. Recommended Priority 3 Support from two staff members and Priority 3 Oppose from another staff-member and the City Attorney Ms. Bettman felt the bill looked like it was anti-Union. Mr. Hill said the bill would prohibit public contracting agencies including cities from including as a condition of a public contract the involvement of a labor union. He noted that this was not a practice the City engaged in as the City did not issue contracts that spoke to labor union membership. He stated that the bill itself did violate the principle of home rule authority that was strongly stated in the legislative policies document and it also created a private right of action. He asked the City Attorney to speak to the latter. Mr. Lidz related that his concern with the private right of action was that the bill not only prohibited the City from adopting a certain policy, but it required it to enforce the legislative policy with regard to all of its MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental January 23, 2007 Page 7 Relations contractors and any grant recipients. He said if the City failed to comply it could be the potential defendant in a lawsuit and would be at risk for attorney fees. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved recommend a Priority 2 Oppose stand on the bill. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. ? SB 46 – Relating to Oregon pre-kindergarten program. Recommended to Drop Mr. Hill explained that he had been assigned to review three bills that related to pre-kindergarten or the Headstart program. He said it appeared there would be multiple pieces of legislation submitted and in addition the Governor had a substantial improvement to education funding in his proposed budget though he had yet to present it. He recommended that the City, in pursuing its legislative policy in support of the School District 4J and the Bethel School District in delivering public education generally and also specifically to improve the condition of low-income children who benefit from Headstart and pre- kindergarten in particular, take a position of support of the Governor’s proposals which were also supported by the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Susan Castillo. Ms. Bettman indicated she was satisfied with the recommendation. ? HB 2024 – Relating to Oregon pre-kindergarten program. Recommended to Drop Ms. Bettman asked if there was any possibility of pursuing some of the $40 million involved in the bill to purchase a portion of the Mt. Pisgah property. Ms. Wilson replied that the house bill established a maximum limit for the payment from the economic development fund for Oregon pre-kindergarten programs. Ms. Bettman said her impression from reading the bill was that there was not previously a line item for these expenditures. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the recommendation to ‘monitor.’ The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. ? HB 2217 – Relating to corporate minimum taxes. Recommended to Drop Mr. Hill explained that this bill had been requested by the Governor and that it would increase the corporate minimum tax and apply it to Oregon Headstart, the Oregon Opportunity Grant Program, and workforce development programs. Ms. Bettman asked why staff was recommending that the bill be dropped. Mr. Hill replied that he had suggested ‘drop’ because there was no policy direction on what revenue sources the State should pursue to fund policy issues the City would like to see accomplished. He was uncomfortable making a recommenda- tion without such direction. Ms. Bettman noted that there was a legislative policy that indicated the City’s desire for an increase in the corporate minimum tax, but Mr. Hill was correct that the council had not designated what the revenue should be spent on. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental January 23, 2007 Page 8 Relations In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Wilson indicated that the bill was not scheduled for a hearing in the coming week. Ms. Bettman was inclined to support the bill and to give it a higher priority. Mr. Pryor said he would like additional information. Ms. Bettman asked what the Oregon Opportunity Grant program was. No one knew the answer to that question. She asked to pull the bill for further discussion. ? HB 2347 – Related to mental health funding. Recommended Priority 1 Monitor Mr. Hill stated that the bill would increase taxes on beer and wine and the City currently received revenue from the source. An increase would fund the additional activity proposed in the bill and would not affect the City’s current revenue. He recommended the bill be monitored so that no amendments were attached that would reduce the City’s revenue. He stressed that it was an important source of revenue for the City and was projected to provide approximately $2.5 million in fiscal year (FY) 08. Ms. Bettman acknowledged the specific legislative policies the City had that supported increases in that tax. She believed that the fact that the State would take on more mental health treatment would help the City, even if not explicitly. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the recommendation to ‘support’ with the caveat that the City would support it as long as it did not result in reduced revenue from the tax to the City of Eugene. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. ? SB 184 –Relating to revenues derived from sales of alcoholic beverages. Recommended Priority 1 Oppose Mr. Hill said this bill would reduce the City’s revenue, as well as the County’s revenue, by diverting two percent of the gross revenues from the sale of distilled liquors to mental health and drug treatment services. He noted that the Governor had introduced the bill as part of his budget to improve mental health funding. He commented that it would be at the expense of local government. He felt the bill could be amended to increase the tax revenue from the sale of liquor in order to fund the improved services. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to oppose the bill with the amendment that the City would be held harmless in terms of revenue share. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. ? SB 173 – Relating to disclosure of tax information. Recommended Priority 2 Support Mr. Hill explained that currently the State was allowed to share information with the federal government, but there was no provision to allow the sharing of the information with local jurisdiction that imposed a local income tax. Mr. Pryor ascertained that only someone with taxing authority could gain the information. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental January 23, 2007 Page 9 Relations Ms. Bettman, who had brought the bill up for discussion, was satisfied by the explanation. ? SB 48 – Relating to corporate tax revenues in excess of estimates. Recommended Priority 2 Support Ms. Bettman averred that the bill would create revenue that the City did not have access to presently as it was donating the funding strictly to a capital account for education, which meant it could only be used for infrastructure. She wished to support it with an amendment that indicated that funds should be available for preservation and maintenance of infrastructure. Mr. Pryor noted that it may not be legal under Ballot Measure 47 to use the money for maintenance and preservation. Mr. Hill thought, given the source of the money, that it could be allowed to be used for capital preservation and maintenance. He offered to look into it. Ms. Bettman moved to change it to Priority 1 Support with the amendment that the money be used for maintenance and preservation. There was no second but both Ms. Taylor and Mr. Pryor supported the motion. ? SB 43 – Relating to property taxes. Recommended Priority 3 Drop Ms. Bettman asked for clarification of the language. Mr. Hill explained that it was staff’s perception that the bill only applied to delinquent property taxes. He suggested that the CCIGR postpone action until staff could confirm this. Ms. Bettman, seconded Ms. Taylor, moved to direct staff to monitor SB 43. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Mr. Pryor noted that it was past 1:10 p.m. Ms. Bettman said the CCIGR would address one more bill and she apologized to staff who had attended the meeting at the CCIGR’s request and had not been called to the table due to time constraints. ? SB 117 – Relating to telephone solicitations. Recommended Priority 3 Neutral Ms. Taylor asked why the City did not wish to support SB 117. Ms. Berrian replied that the bill looked like it was “housekeeping” in nature. She said unless a bill overtly affected the City she would not encourage taking a position on it. She related that she had suggested a neutral approach to “keep it in the hopper” so it would not fall out of sight. Ms. Bettman agreed that the bill did not directly affect the City and that the City should not apply much in the way of resources to it. Ms. Bettman asked Ms. Wilson to highlight the bills that the council had pulled and to expand the information provided by staff on the bills in order to streamline the process. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental January 23, 2007 Page 10 Relations 3. United Front Priorities List Ms. Wilson explained that the list in the attachment entitled United Front 2007 Federal Priorities – FY 2008 Draft was a draft, but the United Front group believed it to be the final list. She said four main items on the list would be submitted or worked on by the City of Eugene and the items at the bottom were items that would be brought up but would not be included in the Legislative Priority Book. She related that the book would include a page or more on the items at the top of the draft. Ms. Wilson discussed the West Bank Trail project which had increased in price due to escalating construc- th tion costs. She noted that the West 11 Corridor Planning was a new project request. She said there was word that Representative DeFazio’s office had specifically requested that the City ask for monies for the project. Additionally, Ms. Wilson reported that the Springfield School District had voluntarily removed its proposed environmental education project from the list and had asked the City of Eugene to let them know in the future when a good time to place the project would be. Ms. Bettman asked if there had not been an issue in the State Legislature that pertained to expanding the ability to have Forest Legacy money applied to land outside of the urban growth boundary (UGB). She asked if that had “worked its way through the legislature” and if it had done so, she wondered why the City was not sponsoring a bill to do so. Ms. Wilson responded that the bill would be introduced by State Representative Paul Holvey and the bill had been called a “slam dunk.” She understood that there were some eastern Oregon legislators that had bills they planned to introduce, but no one had seen the bills to date. She said if the CCIGR did have a concept it wished to introduced, it needed to be at the Legislative Counsel by January 26. Ms. Bettman wanted to “get more strongly” behind that bill and suggested, to make it more palatable, that the language should say that it would expand “outside the UGB if it completes a system or provides a link.” Ms. Wilson reiterated that staff had not seen the bill and that once it was released from the Legislative Counsel, the bill would be brought to staff to be reviewed and then before the CCIGR. Ms. Medary added that the way the bill was presently worded it would lift the UGB restriction but it would not have the language that Ms. Bettman was suggesting. She noted that she would not want to place that kind of limit on it, unless she intended to expand it to indicate that it would be part of a master plan. She recommended waiting until the language of the bill was known. She related that the Oregon Recreation and Parks Association had a couple of agenda items that were its highest priority and the Forest Legacy was one of them. Ms. Bettman asked if anyone knew where the bill would be when the United Front group left. Ms. Wilson replied that it was in the hands of Legislative Counsel and it was her understanding that the back-up of bills waiting to go into editing was “huge.” Ms. Bettman asked why the item entitled Secure Rural Schools Legislation Reauthorization would not have a page in the book. Ms. Medary responded that some of the items listed under Other Items would be listed in the book. She explained that the ones listed above Other Items had appropriations requests and the items listed below that heading would have a page in the book with no accompanying appropriation request. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental January 23, 2007 Page 11 Relations Ms. Bettman asked why there was no reference to the 2008 Olympic Trials. Ms. Wilson responded that staff had chosen to keep the event out of the book because there was a lot of confusion about it. She said she had a meeting set up with the University of Oregon and other local government entities to discuss who would be doing what, because it seemed at this point that no one was coordinating. Ms. Bettman opined that it was a lost opportunity. She felt it would be the “perfect thing to lobby for” at the United Front. She averred that the area needed more money for additional public safety services and security for the event. She said it would benefit all three jurisdictions and all three of them would be involved. Ms. Wilson did not believe they were missing an opportunity to discuss the Olympic Trials. She had done some research about it and believed that there was potential that asking about it would bring the area “a lot more than it bargained for.” She said it appeared that the federal government would come in and take over the planning and execution of the security. She indicated that staff was doing more research on it. She related that she had spoken to Smith Dawson about it and he had offered to “set something up” while the delegation was in Washington, D.C., as long as the City knew exactly what it was asking for. Mr. Pryor advocated for moving Secure Rural Schools up on the list. He underscored that it was not just the County’s issue. He also wished to indicate that he was “fine with the content” of the EPD bills. Mr. Pryor left the meeting at 1:32 p.m. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Wilson said it was her understanding that the United Front group had agreed that the projects they were bringing forward were not competing interests and that now was a good time to ask for the appropriations out of the Transportation, Community, and System Preserva- tion (TCSP) fund especially given that the region had “some good committee placements” at this time. Ms. Bettman asked if staff thought the McKenzie River Path was not competing with the West Bank Trail. Ms. Wilson replied that the group had engaged in much discussion over that. She underscored that the way the projects were being presented, the West Bank Trail stood out as the one gap that needed to be finished to complete a trail section while the McKenzie River Path was the beginning of a new project. The group had concluded the latter would not compete for the money. Ms. Bettman disagreed. She commented that the decision was supposed to be united but it seemed that it had been unilateral. She also wondered how the Pioneer Parkway EmX project had increased from an $8 million project to a $29.6 million project. She asked if she was the only one who wondered at the increase. She asked if anyone knew “who had changed the number and why.” Ms. Wilson responded that she had not seen the fact sheet for the projects submitted for the book. Ms. Bettman asked what the committee should do with its input. It seemed to her that the CCIGR “just [gave its] input and it does not matter” because the decisions had already been made. She asked who made the decisions. Ms. Wilson replied that the United Front group made the decisions in regard to the project list. Ms. Bettman observed that the group was “all staff.” She asked if the CCIGR would have an opportunity to put a memorandum in the council packet in order to get council feedback on the process. She suggested that she could bring it up at the next council meeting, scheduled for February 12. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental January 23, 2007 Page 12 Relations Ms. Taylor thought this was a good idea. She suggested that right after the United Front lobby trip the CCIGR should begin planning for the next year’s trip in order to see if the CCIGR could have more influence on it. Ms. Bettman commented that it did not make sense to do it that way because it took a while for the appropriations to work through the legislative process and the answer as to whether there would be a result from the lobbying would not be known that early in the process. She understood that an agreement between jurisdictions as to what they would support and that they would look for common ground was supposed to be made. She did not believe they were to take things forward that were competing interests and she felt there were competing interests in this list. Ms. Wilson offered to bring back further information on the McKenzie River Path. She reiterated that the United Front lobby group agreed that the project did not compete with the West Bank Trail. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt the recommendation for priorities and recommendations from staff for all bills that had not been pulled and all of the bills that were discussed and acted upon at the meeting. The motion passed unanimously, 2:0. Mr. Schoening pointed out that the funding that had gone into the TCSP program had historically been earmarked but there had been a decision to not allow earmarks in 2007. He stated that the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) at the end of the previous week, through the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA), had solicited applications. Staff wanted to take the City’s two projects, the West th Bank Trail and the West 11 Corridor Planning, on a parallel track and would put in a letter of interest to ODOT and the FHWA as well as the United Front. He asked for CCIGR approval of the proposal. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved approval of the Eugene projects in the United Front federal priorities for Fiscal Year 08. The motion passed unanimously, 2:0. 4. Eugene Police Department Bills Ms. Bettman ascertained that the CCIGR was satisfied with staff’s explanation of the bills and there were no objections to allowing them to proceed. She thanked Ms. Wilson for including the information in the CCIGR material. 5. Priority Assignments for Legislative Tracking Ms. Bettman ascertained that both she and Ms. Taylor approved of the priority assignments for legislative tracking as presented. 6. Approval of Minutes – November 21, 2006 Meeting Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved approval of the minutes from the meeting of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations held on November 21, 2006, as written. The motion passed unanimously, 2:0. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental January 23, 2007 Page 13 Relations Ms. Wilson asked, regarding the bills that the CCIGR had requested additional information, if the CCIGR wished for staff to gather the information and email it to members. Ms. Bettman replied that it would be better if the information was put into the CCIGR packets as they were going to be discussed in the meeting anyway. Ms. Wilson proposed to send the CCIGR members a spread sheet with three columns, one for each member, and they could mark next to the bill number which ones they wished to review. Ms. Bettman agreed that it would be a good way to process their information. The meeting adjourned at 1:44 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental January 23, 2007 Page 14 Relations