Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2C: Ratification of IGR Committee Minutes of January 30, 2007 ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of January 30, 2007 Meeting Date: February 26, 2007 Agenda Item Number: 2C 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 January 30, 2007, meeting. 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. At the January 30, 2007, meeting, there were three actions on which there was not unanimity. The first was SB 187, relating to land supply and the urban growth boundary (UGB). 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, Oppose” passed 2:1 (Bettman, Taylor: Pryor). Staff from both Planning and Development and Intergovernmental Relations will be available to provide additional information on this bill. The second was SB 417, relating to the Boundary Commission. The staff recommendation on this bill was a “Priority 2, Oppose.” A motion at the IGR Committee level to change the status to “Monitor” passed 2:1 (Taylor, Pryor: Bettman). Staff from both Planning and Development and Intergovernmental Relations will be available to provide additional information on this bill. The third was SB 335, relating to amending land supply requirements. The staff recommendation on this bill was a “Priority 3, Monitor.” A motion at the IGR Committee level to change the status to “Priority 1, Oppose” passed 2:1 (Bettman, Taylor: Pryor). Staff from both Planning and Development and Intergovernmental Relations will be available to provide additional information on this bill. The minutes being considered are for the January 30, 2007, meeting. RELATED CITY POLICIES Ratification of IGR Committee actions is the making or affirming of the City of Eugene’s policy with respect to Federal and State legislative issues or such other matters as may come to the council from the committee. L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070226\S0702262C.doc COUNCIL OPTIONS The council may ratify or decline to ratify the IGR Committee’s actions as set forth in the minutes of the committee's meeting. 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 January 30, 2007, meeting. ATTACHMENTS A. IGR Committee Minutes of January 30, 2007 FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Jessica Cross Telephone: 682-5049 Staff E-Mail: jessica.l.cross@ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070226\S0702262C.doc NAME OF MEETING: Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations DATE OF MEETING: January 30, 2007 TO: Brenda Wilson, Jessica Cross RECORDED BY: Kimberly Young = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R O U T I N G I N F O R M A T I O N 2/6/07 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 January 30, 2007 Noon PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Chair; Betty Taylor, Chris Pryor, members; Brenda Wilson, Mary Walston, Greg Rikhoff, Jessica Cross, Mary Feldman, Francisca Johnson, City Manager's Office; Fred McVey, Eric Jones, Public Works Department; Scott Milovich, Parks and Open Space; Keli Osborn, Kurt Yeiter, Richie Weinman, Stuart Ramsing, Planning and Development; Ellwood Cushman, Police Department; Larry Hill, Central Services Department; Jerome Lidz, City Attorney's Office; Glen Potter, Fire and Emergency Medical Services. 1. Call to Order and Review Agenda Ms. Bettman called the meeting of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) to order. Ms. Bettman called for additions or changes to the agenda, noting staff had provided information about an additional grant, which she proposed to address as the first application. 2. Grant Applications Mr. Rikhoff introduced the first proposed grant application, an application to the Wayne Morse Center for Law and Politics in the amount of $6,650 intended to fund a symposium to train City staff and volunteers on how to integrate internationally accepted human rights standards. He said the symposium would happen regardless of the funding, but it fit with a number of the center’s goals and had a strong legal element to it and he hoped for funding. Members had no questions. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to approve the grant application. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Mr. Milovich reviewed the next proposed grant request, which was to submit a grant proposal to the FishAmerica Foundation for funding to restore Delta Ponds habitat. Ms. Bettman referred to the match of $34,000, and asked what fund it would come from. Mr. Milovich indicated staff proposed to use Stormwater Funds. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to approve the grant application. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental January 30, 2007 Page 1 Relations The committee briefly discussed its schedule and made some schedule adjustments. 3. Approval of Minutes—January 16, 2007, Meeting Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to approve the minutes of January 16, 2007. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. 4. Review Pending Legislation The committee first considered bills held over from the previous meeting. Mr. Weinman reviewed Senate Bill (SB) 38, indicating it was the City’s top priority in this area as it would increase the money available for low-income housing through increased filing fees on real estate filings and with lottery dollars. He anticipated it would raise about $58 million annually. Ms. Bettman requested information about the Oregon Land Infill System Fund. Mr. Weinman did not have any information. Ms. Bettman did not perceive the bill as dedicating the revenue to low-income housing. Mr. Weinman indicated that was his understanding of its intent. Referring to House Bill (HB) 2096, Mr. Weinman said the bill would allow the Oregon Housing Services Agency to use its funding to help manufactured home park tenants to form co-ops to buy the parks they live in as a hedge against the parks being closed. There was currently no State funding mechanism to assist tenants with financing. Ms. Bettman did not perceive the benefits as being confined to park residents alone. She asked if the bill would cost the City or State any money. Mr. Weinman said it would not cost the City any money. The bill would allow the State would to use its existing funding pools for an expanded purpose. There was no objection the staff recommendation to support the bill. Referring to SB 187, Mr. Weinman said the bill addressed the subjects of land supply and the urban growth boundary (UGB). He deferred to Planning Division staff, but indicated he had assigned the bill a status of Priority 2 so staff could continue to track it. The bill encouraged local governments to dedicate land to affordable housing and if a UGB expansion occurred, it encouraged the inclusion of affordable housing sites in that expansion. Land dedicated to affordable housing would be exempt from the 20-year buildable land supply requirement. He recommended that the City continue to monitor the bill. Ms. Bettman believed the bill leveraged “affordable housing,” defined as 30 percent of income, to justify expansion of the UGB. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 2, Oppose. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pryor voting no. Mr. Weinman pointed out that the UGB was an enormous regulatory barrier to affordable housing. Ms. Bettman responded that a council majority did not support expanding the UGB and she did not think there was council support for creating loopholes for such an expansion, even for the cause of affordable housing. Referring to HB 2095, Mr. Weinman said that by statute, local housing authorities were only allowed to address very low-income housing issues, which limited their ability to compete for funding. A development MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental January 30, 2007 Page 2 Relations th such as WestTown on 8 could not be done by the local housing authority because of the live/work units on the first floor. The bill would allow housing authorities to do such mixed-income developments and take advantage of a wider range of financing tools available for such projects. Ms. Taylor noted her support for mixed-income housing. Ms. Bettman said the bill revised the definition of affordable housing and included no limit on gross income for those benefiting from the bill. Mr. Weinman believed that limit was defined elsewhere in State law. Ms. Bettman perceived the bill as potentially allowing millionaires to take advantage of the financing available because of the lack of a limit. Mr. Weinman emphasized that the bill was intended to assist housing authorities by allowing them to take advantage of low-income housing funds, such as tax credits. They would be allowed to create market-rate housing as part of their developments but a subsidized portion would be for very low-income residents. The change in definition allowed that. Ms. Bettman moved to change the status of the bill to Neutral. The motion died for lack of a second. Referring to SB 2024, Mr. Hill continued to recommend the City drop it from active monitoring. He said the bill would fund pre-kindergarden programs and was introduced by a House task force. The source of funding was the Administrative Services Economic Development Fund would be the source of money, which received the majority of its revenues from lottery dollars. Ms. Bettman asked if the bill constituted an increase or decrease in pre-kindergarten funding. Mr. Hill did not know. Ms. Bettman wanted to support the bill if it actually increased funding for pre-kindergarden activities. Ms. Taylor suggested the City monitor the bill. Mr. Pryor agreed. Ms. Bettman agreed, but wanted staff to follow-up on her question. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the status of the bill to Monitor. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Referring to HB 2217, Mr. Hill noted the change in the staff recommendation to Priority 2, Support. He said the bill proposed to dedicate funds to the Oregon Opportunity Grant Program, the State’s largest need- based undergraduate assistance program for college students, and would benefit local students.. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to approve the staff recommendation for HB 2217 of Support, Priority 2. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. In regard to SB 43, Mr. Hill reviewed the bill, which would change the school fund distribution formula. He reported that school district staff recommended opposition to the bill based on the fact the formula was complex and the motivation for the change and the purpose of it was unknown. He recommended the City take a position of Priority 3, Oppose, based on his discussion with the districts. He also noted opposition to the bill from the Oregon Federation of School Administrators. Ms. Bettman noted that the bill exempted the costs of capital construction from the formula and she concluded that would make more money available for classroom education. If that was the case, she would support the bill. Mr. Pryor said capital construction was not part of the formula now. Mr. Hill noted school district staffs’ concern about the definition of “capital construction.” MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental January 30, 2007 Page 3 Relations Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the status of the bill to Monitor. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Ms. Bettman continued to believe that the bill would increase funding for education. Ms. Wilson indicated she would follow up with the Oregon Education Association about its position on the bill. Referring to HB 2239, Mr. Hill reviewed the bill, saying it was introduced by the Department of Revenue (DOR) and it would modify the procedure for reviewing the assessment rules and modifying an assessment. As drafted, the bill was a technical bill, and he could identify no impact on the City of Eugene, but suggested that the bill could be modified to ensure cities were notified when assessments within their boundaries were appealed or reassessed. He recommended a position of Neutral with the intent of seeking such an amend- ment. If the amendment could be obtained, he recommended the City support the bill. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the status of the bill to Neutral with an amendment. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Mr. Hill said that HB 2236 was also introduced at the request of Governor Ted Kulongoski through the DOR. It was intended to address the fact some tax appeals take years to resolve. During that time, interest accrues on any refund, and the bill would allow a county Board of County Commissioners to evaluate the risk in an appeal and pay the appeal pending resolution to save those interests costs. In the case government wins the appeal, the money would be returned. He believed that the delinquent taxes were subject to interest as well when returned. Ms. Bettman thought the better remedy was to decrease the interest rate that accrues on the disputed amount during the length of the appeal, and considered the bill a second-best remedy. Ms. Wilson said she would check with the County on its position. Mr. Pryor suggested that the City take a position consistent with that of the County. Ms. Bettman concurred, saying she wanted to hear from the County so the CCIGR could take a position. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to take a position of Neutral on the bill pend- ing input from the County. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Regarding SJR 10, Mr. Hill said the resolution proposed a constitutional amendment to change the double- majority requirements for local tax measures. He recommended the committee take a position of Priority 1, Support. Mr. Pryor supported the staff recommendation. Ms. Bettman disagreed with the staff position, saying she understood that government employees might support such a bill, but from the taxpayer point of view, it created a higher threshold for new taxation. She did not necessarily support the double-majority but she did support having money measures on the ballot when people were engaged in the election process, which was in general election years. Ms. Bettman moved to change the City’s position on the bill to Priority 3, Support. The motion died for a lack of a second. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental January 30, 2007 Page 4 Relations Regarding HB 2463, Ms. Bettman asked staff to double-check the language in the bill as the relating clause was broad and appeared unrelated to the bill. Regarding HB 2413, which would prohibit public contracting agencies, including cities, from including as a condition of a public contract the involvement of a labor union, Ms. Bettman wanted to give the bill the status of Priority 2 because she perceived it as related to the issue of home rule. Ms. Wilson noted that staff had been split on the bill, with those formerly opposed to the bill due to its impact on costs were willing to take a neutral position on the bill. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 2, Oppose. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Acknowledging that HB 2278 was scheduled to go to the full council for discussion, Ms. Wilson reported that a hearing on the bill was scheduled to occur before the council met again and she wanted to be able to discuss any amendments the committee was interested in at that time. Ms. Bettman recalled that staff had included some bullet points related to possible amendments to improve the bill, and one was to expand the definition of “infrastructure” to include air service. She had indicated earlier that the only way she could support the bill was if it funded something that was already an identified priority for the City, and that would be the Eugene Depot, Phase 2 or 3. She wanted the City to seek an amendment that would revise the criteria to favor the items that made it on the final list but were not funded in the last funding cycle. That would favor funding for the Eugene Depoe rather that the amendments proposed by staff. Mr. Pryor said he would still like to have a conversation about air services infrastructure at the council level. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, move to change the status of the bill to Priority 2, Support, with the intent of seeking an amendment that would ensure the criteria allowed projects such as the Eugene Depoe Phase 2 and 3 to successfully compete for funds. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Referring to SB 417, Mr. Yeiter explained the bill would abolish the boundary commission and shift the money now dedicated to the commission to Lane County. The City would process its own annexations. Ms. Bettman noted the council’s upcoming work session on the subject of the boundary commission and annexation. She perceived the bill as being in opposition to the City’s home rule authority. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the status of the bill to Monitor. Ms. Bettman determined the bill was not yet scheduled for a hearing and staff present was unsure of the date of the council’s work session. The motion passed, 2:1; Ms. Bettman voting no. Mr. Pryor asked who would be responsible for City annexations in the absence of the boundary commission. Mr. Yeiter believed the City would assume responsibility for minor boundary changes such as property annexations within the urban transition. Major boundary changes such as the dissolution of special districts MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental January 30, 2007 Page 5 Relations would be processed by the County. Mr. Pryor asked how much work would be entailed if the City assumed responsibility. Mr. Yeiter indicated that currently, the City only had an advisory role in the process, and boundary commission staff did the bulk of the work, which involved considerable follow-up related to the legalities of the changes involved. The bill did not provide compensation to the City for assuming responsibility for annexation. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Lidz confirmed that the boundary commission was a State agency. In the absence of the commission, the City would process its own annexations. Regarding SB 335, Mr. Yeiter said the bill would amend land supply requirements in ways that added uncertainty to City requirements by stipulating an “up to 20-year supply.” Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 1, Oppose. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pryor voting no. Regarding SB 308, Mr. Yeiter said the bill changed the definition of owner whose sole ownership interest in the territory to be annexed was an interest in a public right-of-way. He was unsure who the bill would affect. Ms. Bettman believed the relating clause regarding annexation without election was sufficient reason to monitor the bill. Mr. Pryor requested more information on the bill. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Monitor. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. In reference to SB 311, Mr. Yeiter said the bill gave the County the ability to drop a land use application that was not deemed complete. The City already had that ability now. He noted the staff recommendation for a neutral position on the bill, or the bill could be dropped. There was no objection to the Neutral recommendation. In regard to HB 2049, Mr. Yeiter reported that the bill would break up LCDC into five regional commis- sions and reformed the statewide commission to be comprised of the chairs of the five regional commissions. Each commission would be able to adopt their own rules for their own regions Ms. Bettman wanted to change the status of the bill to Priority 1, Oppose, as she perceived a home rule issue related to the bill. Mr. Yeiter said staff had discussed the benefits of having a more localized commission. He acknowledged the possibility of confusion arising from different regions having different rules. Ms. Bettman said the board would be appointed by the governor and they would be allowed to adopt and amend land use rules. She thought such a process would be expensive, and such a board would be able to override jurisdictions’ processes and planning. Speaking to the issue of home rule, Mr. Pryor said the bill did not change local planning; rather, it changed State planning by taking an existing State body and breaking into smaller bodies with greater local control. Ms. Taylor concurred. Ms. Bettman argued that the proposed body could override local planning efforts. Mr. Pryor pointed out that the State could do that already. Mr. Yeiter concurred, noting the fact of the Land Conservation and Development Commission. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental January 30, 2007 Page 6 Relations Ms. Bettman continued to perceive a home rule issue. She asked if a hearing was scheduled. Ms. Wilson said no. Ms. Bettman moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 1, Oppose. The motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Taylor suggested that the bill might be an improvement on the existing situation as it would make planning more regional in nature. Mr. Pryor supported the current staff recommendation. Ms. Bettman suggested that Ms. Taylor read the bill and be ready to take a position at the next meeting. She withdrew her motion and asked that the bill be carried over to the next meeting. Mr. Ruffier reviewed SB 317, which would stipulate that permit holders would pay for monitoring and markers. He suggested the intent of the bill was to pull back monitoring to the end of the pipe, but it was not clearly written. The committee agreed to monitor the bill for now. In regard to SB 33, Mr. Ruffier said the bill would require public water supply systems over a certain size to add fluoridation to the water. Ms. Bettman perceived a home rule issue given that the community had voted on the issue in the past. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 1, Oppose. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Regarding HB 2211, Mr. Ruffier reported that the bill would increase annual cap on amount of business energy tax credit. There was no change made to the status of the bill. Mr. Ruffier reviewed the elements of HB 5022. Ms. Bettman asked why the City would not support the bill given the funding problems experienced by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Mr. Ruffier expressed concern that the agency’s underground injection control program would be one of the first programs DEQ would drop if it did not receive more funding. He did not object to a status of Monitor or Support. Ms. Bettman had no objection to the staff recommendation. The committee deferred consideration HB 2370 because the legislative contact was in Salem testifying in regard to other City priorities. Referring to SB 45, Mr. McVey said the bill mixed school and parks systems development charges together, and removed local control from the nature of the parks SDC and included an unspecified cap on the SDC. It limited the school SDC to use for facilities adjacent to parks and recreation facilities and used for recrea- tional purposes. He did not think it was not a good solution for either parks or schools. If there was an amendment to separate parks and schools and make the bill solely focused on schools, he would recommend support. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 1, Oppose. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Ms. Bettman deferred the remaining items to the next agenda. 5. Items from Members and Staff MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental January 30, 2007 Page 7 Relations There were no items. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental January 30, 2007 Page 8 Relations