HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7: Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of
February 6, 2007, and Direction on Legislative Policy
Meeting Date: March 12, 2007 Agenda Item Number: 7
Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Brenda Wilson
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-8441
ISSUE STATEMENT
This is an action item to ratify the recommendations of the Intergovernmental Relations (IGR)
Committee for the February 6, 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 meeting to the council.
Actions on which the committee is not unanimous are brought before the full council for consideration.
At the February 6, 2007, meeting, there were four actions on which there was not unanimity. In
addition, there were two bills from the January 30, 2007, IGR meeting on which there was not unanimity
held over, at the request of Councilor Taylor, from the February 26, 2007, City Council meeting. These
bills must also be addressed by the full council in order to provide direction to staff in Salem.
The six bills are listed below:
SB 187: Relating to land supply and the urban growth boundary.
The staff recommendation on this bill was a “Priority 2, Support.” A motion at the IGR
Committee to change the status to “Priority 2, Oppose” passed 2:1 (Bettman, Taylor:
Pryor). (January 30, 2007, IGR meeting)
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 to change the status to “Priority 1, Oppose” passed 2:1 (Bettman, Taylor:
Pryor). (January 30, 2007, IGR meeting)
SB 476: Relating to mass transit districts.
At the time of the meeting, the bill had not been referred to committee, and staff
suggested that the normal billing review process be followed so it could come to the IGR
committee with sufficient time for review by members of the committee. A motion at the
IGR Committee to support the bill passed 2:1 (Taylor, Bettman: Pryor). (February 6,
2007, IGR meeting)
L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070312\S0703127.doc
HB 2465: Relating to Hood River County public schools.
The staff recommendation on this bill was a “Drop.” A motion at the IGR Committee to
change the status to “Priority 2, Oppose” passed 2:1 (Bettman, Taylor: Pryor). (February
6, 2007, IGR meeting)
SB 293: Relating to use of mobile communication device while driving.
The staff recommendation on this bill was a “Priority 3, Oppose.” A motion at the IGR
Committee level to change the status to “Priority 2, Support” passed 2:1 (Bettman,
Taylor: Pryor). (February 6, 2007, IGR meeting)
HB 2140: Relating to the public contracting code.
The staff recommendation on this bill was a “Priority 3, Support.” A motion at the IGR
Committee level to change the status to “Priority 2, Oppose” passed 2:1 (Bettman,
Taylor: Pryor). (February 6, 2007, IGR 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.
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
The City Manager 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. The
City Manager further recommends that a formal position be stated on the six bills on which there was
not unanimity at the IGR Committee level.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to ratify the IGR Committee's actions as set forth in the minutes of the February 6, 2007, meeting.
(Note - there also need to be motions to state positions for the six bills for which there was not unanimity).
ATTACHMENTS
A. IGR Committee Minutes of February 6, 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\M070312\S0703127.doc
ATTACHMENT A
M I N U T E S
Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations
McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall
February 6, 2007
12 p.m.
PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, chair; Betty Taylor, Chris Pryor, members; Mayor Kitty Piercey; Brenda
Wilson, Jessica Cross, Randi Zimmer, Mary Walston, City Manager's Office; Eric Jones,
Lacey Risdal, Public Works Department; Jeff Perry, Central Services; Steve Gallup, Engi-
neering Division; Char Mauch, Municipal Court; Ellwood Cushman, Kristi Wilde, Eugene
Police Department; Glen Potter, JoAnna Kamppi, Fire & Emergency Medical Services De-
partment; Kurt Yeiter, Keli Osborn, Steve Nystrom, Stuart Ramsing, Planning Division;
Sarah Medary, Eric Wold, 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. Ms. Wilson reported on two new bills that had had first readings the day before.
?
SB 505 – Relating to claims for compensation for land use regulation under ORS 197.352
Ms. Wilson said that although the bill was dropped the previous day, there was a public hearing scheduled
two days hence. Because of the short time interval, there were no staff recommendations or direction. She
asked the members how they wished to handle a situation where there was not enough time to go through the
normal process.
Ms. Bettman asked if staff could summarize the bill for the members. Ms. Wilson said it had just been
assigned that day, but that she (Ms. Wilson) could summarize it for the committee. Ms. Taylor said that
past practice had been to go ahead if the committee members were aware of the bill. Mr. Pryor said that
there should not be testimony on the bill unless there was unanimity about it within the committee or it had
been vetted through the Council.
Mayor Piercy said that if the Council had previously taken positions that had to do with the content of the
bill, they did not have to take a position on the bill, but could share opinions about the content.
Ms. Wilson explained that the bill was essentially an extension of time on the handling of Measure 37 claims
because there was not enough time under the current law to administer all of the claims. The compromise
reached was June 30 or sine die, whichever came first. She said there was a fast track for claims for single
family homes and property needing to be divided; it did not stop any lawsuits filed.
Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to support SB 505. The motion passed unani-
mously, 3:0.
MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental February 6, 2007 Page 1
Relations
?
SB 476 – Relating to mass transit districts.
Ms. Wilson said the bill had not been referred to committee, so it could wait for the normal process. Ms.
Bettman wished to take up the bill so it could be discussed at the next Council meeting. Mr. Pryor did not
want to act on the bill at this time because he had not had a chance to read it. Ms. Bettman said the bill was
“pretty simple” and that they had discussed the issue in the past, and that postponing the matter would
functionally postpone it until March 12; Ms. Taylor said she would be out of town then.
Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to support SB 476. The motion passed 2:1,
Mr. Pryor voting in opposition.
2. Review Pending Legislation
?
HB 2049 – Relating to regional land use planning commissions.
Recommended to Monitor.
Ms. Bettman noted that the bill created a complete new expense in terms of administering land use rules and
had the ability to override local jurisdictions’ process and planning. She felt the committee should oppose it
on the basis of home rule.
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the recommendation to Priority 1
Oppose.
In response to a question from Mayor Piercy, Ms. Wilson said she did not know who the sponsor was, but
would find out and have ISD add sponsorship information to the tracking system. Mr. Yeiter said he had
not been able to find position papers from Thousand Friends of Oregon, the Oregon Planning Association,
or the League of Cities.
The motion passed unanimously, 3:0.
?
HB 2465 – Relating to Hood River County public schools.
Recommended to Drop.
Ms. Bettman observed that while the bill was specific to Hood River, it set a precedent and seemed to be a
“toe in the door,” using a popular cause (land for schools) to expand the urban growth boundary (UGB),
circumventing the existing process.
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the recommendation to Priority 2
Oppose.
Mayor Piercy asked why the bill had a “drop” recommendation. Ms. Bettman said the reason was that it did
not affect Eugene. However, she felt that anything that affected the state land use goals indirectly affected
Eugene. Mr. Yeiter said siting schools was often difficult with the urban growth boundaries, especially
where the attendance area might go beyond the UGB. Mr. Pryor said he did not want to interfere with Hood
River public schools and their issues.
MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental February 6, 2007 Page 2
Relations
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the recommendation to Priority 1
Oppose. The motion passed 2:1, Mr. Pryor voting in opposition.
?
HB 2357 – Relating to courts.
Recommended Priority 3 Support.
Ms. Mauch said the bill had been pulled at Ms. Bettman’s request, and had to do with the use of electronic
documents. Ms. Bettman said her concern with the issue was that it destroyed the archive. She posited that
a virus or a change in technology would be a problem if there were no backup. Ms. Mauch said the court’s
intent was to not destroy the paper copy until a case was closed, which was consistent with how archiving
wass currently done. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Mauch said the use of electronic
documents would streamline the administrative function, but they would review the matter thoroughly before
accepting electronic filings.
Mr. Pryor asked if in 15 years someone wanted to review a document, it would still be available, albeit in
electronic form. Ms. Mauch said it depended on the retention schedule as set by the archivist as well as
database usage. Speaking to a question from Ms. Bettman regarding a mandate for change and the amount
of work involved, Ms. Mauch said they had not decided what method to use, but that a time-forward process
made the most sense. Ms. Bettman said she was still nervous about destroying archives, but would defer to
Ms. Mauch’s judgment.
?
HB 2367 – Relating to Council on Court Procedures.
Recommended to Monitor.
Ms. Mauch said the bill had been pulled at the request of Ms. Taylor, who suggested the bill be dropped
because it did not seem worth spending time on. Ms. Mauch said the motivation for the “monitor”
recommendation was the relating clause. If something unforeseen was added and get through, it could
greatly affect what the court does. Ms. Bettman and Mr. Pryor felt the recommendation was fine. Ms.
Taylor acquiesced.
?
SB 83– Relating to terminology describing persons.
Recommended to Monitor.
Ms. Taylor also suggested this bill be dropped. Ms. Mauch explained that the bill was huge but was “just a
lot of terminology clean-up.” However, she said their experience in the past was that it was the type of bill
that could have something different inserted, which they would want to track. Everyone agreed that it could
continue to be monitored.
?
SB 267 – Relating to Council on Court Procedures.
Recommended to Monitor.
Ms. Mauch said the bill, which involved operating the court as a court of record, had been pulled at the
request of Ms. Bettman. Ms. Bettman said she had heard that they were pursuing this idea. Ms. Mauch
explained that a previous policy was around being a court of record. Now, the Supreme Court was
overseeing that courts opting to be courts of record did so appropriately and consistently. In response to
Ms. Bettman’s question, Ms. Mauch said they were not pursuing the matter, not because of the associated
technical cost, but due to the amount of staffing required. She added that they had originally pursued the
matter because it was enacted during the last session and they had the option. Ms. Bettman said she was
fine with the recommendation.
MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental February 6, 2007 Page 3
Relations
?
SB 293 – Relating to use of mobile communication device while driving.
Recommended Priority 3 Oppose
Ms. Bettman said she had asked to review the bill because she wanted to run it by the committee and the
Council, as it was a big policy issue, despite cell phones being the third most dangerous driving hazard after
food and children. Her inclination was to support the bill with the amendments as articulated by public
safety, i.e., with exemptions for certain law enforcement personnel. Because of her own feelings and
constituent requests, she felt the issue should be addressed statewide.
Mr. Cushman said that to avoid specifying “cell phones,” the legislative text was expanded to include
personal digital assistants, anything with text messaging capability, and two-way radios. The ban on two-
way radio usage affected police, fire, emergency vehicles, public works, EWEB and some private entities.
He said if that category of devices could be excluded from the bill, it would not adversely affect safety. He
noted that the bill was focused on cell phones, as opposed to other things that constituted “distracted
driving.” Mr. Cushman said that this bill and a similar one, HB 2482, were fairly innocuous except as they
applied to two-way radios.
Ms. Bettman moved to change the recommendation to Priority 2 Support with amendments
as articulated by Mr. Cushman.
Mayor Piercy and Mr. Pryor suggested that the position should be “oppose unless amended.” Ms.
Bettman’s understanding was that if the committee supported something with an amendment, it meant they
actively sought the amendment. Ms. Wilson confirmed this.
Mr. Pryor said he could not support the bill and wondered why there were no bills to ban the number one
and two dangers – food and children. He suggested that the way to address the problem was to go after
“distracted driving.”
Ms. Taylor said the problem with cell phones was that someone could call a person, and even though the
person chose not to make calls, that person might be tempted to answer.
Ms. Taylor seconded the motion. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pryor voting in opposition.
?
HB 2370 – Relating to Oregon security.
Recommended Priority 3 Support
Ms. Wilde reported that the bill had been introduced by the Governor and proposed moving the Office of
Emergency Management (OEM) from the Oregon State Police to the Oregon military. She noted that it was
seen as a positive by the OEM staff and would provide more resource support in the form of grants tied to
homeland security and natural disaster. She added that there had been discussion of an amendment that had
to do with who could confiscate firearms during a catastrophe and how they would be recovered afterward,
an issue the City would want to watch carefully.
Mr. Pryor said that, politics aside, the Department of Homeland Security had many good things in it, and
that placing them in closer proximity would be beneficial. Ms. Wilde pointed out that this would give
Oregon the same structure for disaster preparedness and homeland security as Washington, Idaho, Alaska
and Montana, states Oregon worked with, as well as 23 other states nationwide, making it easy to connect in
many ways. She emphasized that the employees would not be military employees or have a military budget.
MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental February 6, 2007 Page 4
Relations
Ms. Bettman disagreed with the last statement, then read from the summary: “this bill will immediately
transfer all staff, functions, powers and budget of the Office of Emergency Management(OEM) from
Oregon State Police to the Oregon Military Department.” Mayor Piercy said it was such a significant issue
that she would be reluctant to take a position based on the information they had. She felt the position should
be “monitor.” Ms. Bettman agreed, proposing that it be a Priority 1 Monitor, noting that her constituents
would not support militarizing what was a civilian function. Mayor Piercy recommended that the bill be
monitored in the IGR committee, as she felt it would evolve a lot.
Ms. Bettman said she would like to see a summary from a manager projecting how the proposed legislation
would affect local emergency services. Mr. Cushman agreed to coordinate a response.
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the recommendation to Priority 1
Monitor. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0.
?
SB 162 – Relating to medical services provided in emergencies.
Recommended to Monitor.
Ms. Kamppi said the bill was submitted from the Department of Human Resources and served to regulate
all first responders, including police, fire and ambulance services. The Department currently regulated
ambulance services only, and the proposed regulation did not have resources attached to support the
required inspections. She noted that the bill was opposed by the Oregon Fire Chiefs Association, the Oregon
State Ambulance Association, and the Oregon Fire Administrators Association unless proposed changes
were made.
Ms. Bettman said she would support the “Monitor” recommendation, but thought the bill made a lot of
sense. Mr. Pryor said it appeared to be a money issue. Mayor Piercy said it sounded as if they were
anticipating a possible pandemic that required state and local cooperation. Ms. Bettman asked for an update
at the next session.
?
SB 237 – Relating to pesticides.
Recommended to Drop.
Mr. Potter said the bill proposed to raise the fee for manufacturers or distributors to file pesticide informa-
tion with the state; he recommended a drop because he did not see an effect on the City of Eugene. In
response to Ms. Bettman’s question about current funding, Mr. Potter said there apparently was not enough
money to get the program off the ground, hence the bill. Ms. Bettman said that although it was not related
to a City program, it did have an overall public benefit and was a program the community would support.
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the recommendation to Priority 3
Support. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0.
?
HB 2077 – Relating to licensing requirements.
Recommended to Monitor.
Ms. Bettman wondered why they were monitoring the bill instead of dropping it, as it seemed more like a
professional issue than a city issue. Mr. Gallup said the initial feeling was to “see where it goes.” He did
not see a problem with dropping the bill.
MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental February 6, 2007 Page 5
Relations
Ms. Bettman moved to change the recommendation to Drop. [There was no second.]
Mayor Piercy observed that the bill had an enormously broad relating clause, similar to prior bills that were
being watched in case of changes. Ms. Bettman said a large number of bills had relating clauses and she
wanted to focus resources on bills that they cared about. She felt there would be a number of professional
associations monitoring it. Mr. Pryor agreed.
The motion passed unanimously, 3:0.
?
HB 2140 – Relating to the Public Contracting Code.
Recommended Support.
Mr. Gallup said the bill, proposed by the Department of Justice, was clean-up wording for the Public
Contracting Code. It clarified things that the Engineering and Purchasing Departments felt were good and
thus supported. Mr. Pryor asked if the bill was related to the state’s adoption of new purchasing agreements
last year. Mr. Perry said the bill affected ORS 279 a, b and c and provided clarification in a number of
areas.
Ms. Bettman said it sounded like the bill would allow more ways to get around the existing contracting code.
Mr. Gallup said that it added the “pilot project” concept, which Mr. Perry explained as adding an exemption
that a contract review board could approve, similar to a design-build project. He said the provision
currently existed in regulations that did not relate to construction. Mayor Perry noted that Glen Svendsen,
commenting on the bill’s language “exempts information included in proposals for engineering or architec-
tural services from public disclosure if the content of these proposals would compromise sensitive
information,” said it “seems like a pretty broad exemption.” Mr. Perry noted that the language was already
in the public contracting regulations for professional or personal services contracts, and the bill did not
change that. He said it would have no impact on their procedures. Mr. Perry added that a benefit to the
City was the proposal to increase the threshold on transportation-related projects from $50,000 to $100,000,
which meant that they did not have to go through the more formal process for hiring contractors.
Ms. Bettman did not appreciate the slow devolution of the public competitive bid process and said she could
not support the bill. The felt the bill was a way to circumvent the competitive bidding process, which she
said was not good public policy.
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the recommendation to Priority 2
Oppose.
Mr. Pryor did not see the bill as a way of getting around public bidding, it was just doing it a different way.
He did not feel the need to oppose the bill.
There was further discussion and explanation about the processes involved in various project levels. The
advantage to the City was the faster turnaround of projects. Ms. Bettman observed that fast was good for
corporations, but accountability for taxpayers’ money was more important.
The motion passed 2:1, Mr. Pryor voting in opposition.
?
HB 2212 – Relating to renewable energy.
Recommended Neutral.
MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental February 6, 2007 Page 6
Relations
Mr. Ramsing explained that the “Neutral” recommendation was because only one item was being added to a
long list: “premium efficiency biomass combustion devices” (methane furnaces). Everything else on the list
was already in the law. He said while the addition was a good idea, it would have little impact on Eugene.
Mayor Piercy said the bill was important in terms of City policy and should be supported. Mr. Pryor asked
if there would be any effect on utilities, such as a buyback. Mr. Ramsing was not aware of one; he said
there could be a tax credit. Mr. Ramsing said he would send a list of the devices in question, some of which
may not yet exist.
?
HB 2273 – Relating to signs; creating new provisions.
Recommended Neutral.
Ms. Bettman asked if the bill would create a proliferation of signs. Ms. Osborn said the intent was to be
more restrictive and bring back Oregon Department of Transportation’s (ODOT’s) ability to do permitting,
which they had lost due to a recent judicial ruling.
Ms. Bettman moved to change the recommendation to Priority 3 Support.
Mr. Pryor ascertained that the bill did not affect local sign codes. Ms. Osborn said it was more of a gesture
of support for ODOT.
Ms. Taylor seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0.
?
SB 354 & SB 419 – Relating to smoking.
Recommended Oppose, Support respectively.
Ms. Osborn said the problem with SB 354 was that it repealed the provision that was specific about local
jurisdictions; City legislative policy was to retain the ability to be more strict. A second problem with SB
354 was its requirement of a ten-foot no-smoking buffer zone around doors and openable windows. Eugene
adopted ten feet for privately-owned buildings and 25 feet for publicly-owned buildings. She said SB 419
was not as comprehensive so did not pose the same problems. She added that State Public Health staff said
there would be a House bill coming out that may address concerns about home rule.
Regarding SB 354, Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the recommen-
dation to Priority 1 Oppose unless amended to exempt local jurisdictions that already had a
stricter standard and address the ten versus 25 feet at the entrances. The motion passed
unanimously, 3:0.
Regarding SB 419, Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to changed the recom-
mendation to Priority 1 Support. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0.
?
HB 2238 – Relating to councils of governments.
Recommended to Drop.
Ms. Walston said the bill eliminated the requirement that councils of governments send a copy of their
budget to the Department of Revenue. She recommended “Drop” because it saved paper, Lane Council of
Governments had already audited, and the bill did not affect the City of Eugene. The audits still had to be
done; they would no longer have to be sent to the Department of Revenue. The recommendation was
accepted.
MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental February 6, 2007 Page 7
Relations
?
SB 333 – Relating to the Legislative Administrator.
Recommended to Drop.
Ms. Walston said the bill required that that Legislative Administrator prepare a list of all the task forces
created by the legislature and make it a public pronouncement, printed in the newspaper. It would include
all public officials, but did not specifically affect the City. The recommendation to drop was that it did not
merit pursuing.
Ms. Bettman liked the bill as a means of learning who was serving on particular committees. Ms. Walton
said it was a “feel good” bill that would likely pass anyway, so they did not need to put any effort into it. It
was determined that Priority 3 Support meant that Ms. Wilson would write a letter and submit it to the
legislative committee.
Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the recommendation to Priority 3
Support. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0.
?
HB 2288 – Relating to the Oregon Food Policy Council.
Recommended to Drop.
Ms. Walton said this was another “good idea” bill that likely had little opposition. She suggested a “Drop”
because of resource limitations. Mayor Piercy said there could be local interest in the bill. Ms. Bettman
asked how the Local Food Coalition felt about the bill; Mayor Piercy thought they would support it.
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the recommendation to Priority 3
Support if the Local Food Coalition also supported the bill. The motion passed unani-
mously, 3:0.
?
SB 53 – Relating to elections.
Recommended to Drop.
Ms. Bettman had initially been unable to find the recommendation, but was satisfied with “Drop.”
?
SB 77 – Relating to elections.
Recommended to Drop.
Ms. Walston explained that SB 77 was a housekeeping bill introduced by the Secretary of State. The
“Drop” recommendation was because it did not affect the City directly and was more related to the County
Clerk. Ms. Bettman asked what kind of checks and balances were in place for allowing electronic
application for absentee ballots. She observed that having a paper trail had served Oregon very well. Ms.
Walston said she would research the matter.
?
SB 78 – Relating to elections.
Recommended Priority 3 Monitor.
Ms. Bettman said it was the same issue as the previous bill.
MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental February 6, 2007 Page 8
Relations
?
SB 239 – Relating to regulation of use of real property.
Recommended to Drop.
Ms. Bettman felt the bill should be monitored because of the broad relating clause about regulation of use of
real property. Mr. Nystrom said the bill focused on rural land areas. Measure 37 had exemptions of certain
types of regulations; this would add another exemption dealing with pest management, animal disease and
quarantine issues. This applied to geographical areas outside the City and dealt with regulations the City
did not enforce. The “Drop” recommendation was because it was not relevant to the City.
In response to a question from Ms. Bettman about the status of the bill, Ms. Wilson said that anything to do
with land use was automatically made a Measure 37 bill and sent to the special land use committee. She
recommended watching the bill to see if that happened.
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the recommendation to
Monitor. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0.
?
HB 2106 – Relating to fees for agency review of wetland delineation reports.
Recommended Priority 3 Support.
Ms. Bettman asked who paid the fee, a person or a governmental body, and what was the connection to
schools and the Common School Fund. Ms. Medary said the bill was introduced by the Governor for the
Division of State Lands and initiated a $350 fee for reviewing wetland delineations. Staff viewed it as a
positive thing. If a review was requested by a government entity, it would pay the fee; if it was requested by
a private landowner, they would pay the fee. She provided a fact sheet about the Common School Fund.
Ms. Bettman ascertained that the fees helped provide staffing to provide delineation as well as supporting
the Common School Fund; she thought it was a good idea. Mr. Pryor concurred.
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the recommendation to
Priority 3 Support. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0.
?
HB 2172 – Relating to diesel engines; creating new provisions.
Recommended Priority 3, Support.
Ms. Bettman noted that the bill would provide certain tax credits but also clean up some diesel emissions.
She asked if it was helped by funding. Ms. Risdal explained that the bill would create grants that people
could apply for to help retrofit, with a special focus on school buses. Ms. Bettman observed that there were
further incentives to replace diesel engines on school buses, which she liked.
Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the recommendation to
Priority 3 Support. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0.
3. Approval of Minutes – January 23, 2007 Meeting
Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved approval of the minutes from the meeting of the
Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations held on January 23, 2007, as written.
The motion passed unanimously, 3:0.
MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental February 6, 2007 Page 9
Relations
4. Items from Members and Staff
There were no items from staff.
After some discussion about availability of the committee members in March, it was agreed to change the
March 13 meeting to Friday, March 16, from noon to 2 p.m.
Ms. Taylor said she would not be able to attend the March 22 meeting. Ms. Bettman felt they should still
meet because she and Mayor Piercy would be gone after that. Mayor Piercy was concerned about the timing
of bills, particularly the one concerning field burning as it was a “hot issue.” Ms. Wilson said there was a
“huge backup” in Legislative Counsel, half the staff was new, and many bills had to be re-written. She said
there was a push to finish by the end of February, meaning that there would be a lot of work the first two
weeks of March.
There was some discussion about how to deal with the field burning bill with the community and within the
Council.
Ms. Bettman asked if, by moving the March meeting, they would miss discussing bills that were up for
hearing. She and Mr. Pryor agreed to meet 15 minutes before the March 12 City Council meeting to discuss
any bills that needed a position. Ms. Taylor offered to be available by cell phone.
The meeting adjourned at 1:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dennis M. Taylor
City Manager
(Recorded by Bernie Burson)
MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental February 6, 2007 Page 10
Relations