Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6: Ratification of IGR Minutes and Direction on Legislative Policy ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of February 13, 2007; February 22, 2007; March 9, 2007; March 22, 2007 and Direction on Legislative Policy Meeting Date: April 9, 2007 Agenda Item Number: 6 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 meetings of February 13, 2007, February 22, 2007, March 9, 2007, and March 22, 2007. In addition, there is a request by the members of the IGR Committee for a full council discussion on one bill. 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. In this set of meeting minutes there were two bills which did not receive unanimous support; HB 2134 and SB 250, both of which were reviewed at the February 22, 2007, IGR meeting. These bills must also be addressed by the full council in order to provide direction to staff in Salem. The bills are listed below. HB 2134: Expands permissible bases for interception of wire, electronic or oral communications. Limits grounds for suppression of intercepted communications Relating to: Relating to interception of communications Staff Recommendation: Priority 2, Support (By Ellwood Cushman) IGR Committee Vote: Priority 3, Oppose (2/1, Bettman, Taylor, Yes/ Pryor, No) (See pages 1-2 of the IGR Meeting Minutes of February 22, 2007.) SB 250: Prohibits introduction of reputation and opinion evidence of plaintiff's past sexual behavior and manner of dress in civil action claiming unlawful discrimination by reason of sex. Allows introduction of other evidence of plaintiff's past sexual behavior and manner of dress in those actions only after court order making specified findings. Relating to: Relating to evidence in civil actions claiming unlawful discrimination L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070409\S0704096.doc Staff Recommendation: Priority 3, Oppose (By Lauren Sommers) IGR Committee Vote: Drop (2/1, Bettman, Pryor, Yes / Taylor, No) (See page 5 of the IGR Meeting Minutes of February 22, 2007). NOTE: Bills may be accessed via the Legislature’s website: http://www.leg.state.or.us/07reg/measures/main.html In addition to these two bills on which there was not unanimity, the members of the IGR Committee requested that HB 2370 and the newer version HR 2370-A be referred to the City Council for discussion and eventual direction to the City’s legislative staff in Salem. This request was made during the March 22, 2007, meeting of the IGR Committee. (Those minutes are not attached here for ratification by the City Council, as they have not yet been approved by the IGR Committee.) HB 2370: Creates Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Management in Oregon Military Department. Abolishes Office of Emergency Management and transfers functions to Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Management. Declares emergency, effective on passage. Relating to: Relating to Oregon security Staff Recommendation: Priority 3, Support (By Chuck Solin) IGR Committee Vote: Priority 1, Monitor (3/0) HB 2370-A Creates Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Management in Oregon Military Department. Abolishes Office of Emergency Management and transfers functions to Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Management. {+ Prohibits unit of government from seizing firearms from individuals in lawful possession of firearms during declared emergency. + } Declares emergency, effective on passage. Relating to: Relating to Oregon security Staff Recommendation: Priority 2, Oppose (by Chuck Solin) related to amendments in “A” engrossed version IGR Committee Vote: Refer to City Council for larger discussion 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 that 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. L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070409\S0704096.doc SUGGESTED MOTION Move to ratify the IGR Committee's actions as set forth in the minutes of the February 13, 2007, February 22, 2007, March 9, 2007, and March 16, 2007, meetings. (Note - there also need to be motions to state positions for the two bills on which there was not unanimity). ATTACHMENTS A. IGR Committee Minutes of February 13, 2007 B. IGR Committee Minutes of February 22, 2007 C. IGR Committee Minutes of March 9, 2007 D. IGR Committee Minutes of March 16, 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\M070409\S0704096.doc ATTACHMENT D M I N U T E S Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon March 16, 2007 Noon PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Chair; Betty Taylor, Mayor Kitty Piercy for Chris Pryor, members; Mayor Kitty Piercy; Mary Walston, Greg Rikhoff, Brenda Wilson, Jessica Cross, Randi Zimmer, City Manager's Office; Glen Svendsen, Jeff Perry, Central Services; Ellwood Cushman, Eugene Police Department; Eric Jones, Eric Wold, Steve Gallup, Kevin Finney, Public Works Department; Steve Nystrom, Kurt Yeiter, Stuart Ramsing, Planning and Development De- partment; Larry Hill, Central Services Department; Jerome Lidz, City Attorney’s Office. 1. Call to Order and Review Agenda Ms. Bettman called the meeting of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) to order and reviewed the agenda. She determined there were no changes to the agenda. 2. Review Pending Legislation SB 671 In response to a request from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Lidz explained that the bill would eliminate attorney/client privilege for communications between public officials and their attorneys except to the extent that it involved the attorney delivering legal advice. He said being unable to assure confidentiality would prevent a public official from being able to disclose facts in confidence to the attorney, which could result in the attorney being unaware of facts he or she needed to know. He said that attorney/client privilege could always be waived; it was a question of whether or not it could be claimed. Mr. Lidz said the bill was prompted by a situation in Klamath County in which someone complained to the county commissioners about alleged misconduct by a county official; the commissioners hired an attorney to investigate, who in turn hired a private investigator. He said that someone made a public records request for the investigator’s report to the attorney and the courts held that was protected by privilege and should not be disclosed. He said the court’s decision was a bad result, but the Department of Justice, League of Oregon Cities and Association of Oregon Counties thought the bill was not the right fix because it was undoing vast amounts of law in order to achieve its purpose. Ms. Wilson said the bill would receive its first hearing next week. Ms. Bettman said her interpretation of the bill was different and she thought it would pertain to a public body, not individual councilors. Mr. Lidz said that a “public body” under the public records law would include individuals, just as councilors’ emails and notes were records of the public body. He said that oral MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 16, 2007 Page 1 communications would not be covered, but if he took notes they would be subject to disclosure. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Lidz explained that if a councilor or other public official was sued in his or her individual capacity for something done as a public official, notes taken by an attorney during communications with that public official would be subject to disclosure under the bill. Ms. Bettman felt there could be situations where counsel was giving legal advice to a body and that legal advice was based on a report or study. She said if the public body was making decisions based on that report it should be part of the public bill. She was not convinced the bill warranted Priority 2, Oppose. She said that any fatal flaws in the record would come out during testimony. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to Monitor the bill as a Priority 2. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Ms. Piercy asked if the bill could be amended to resolve those problems. Mr. Lidz said there had been extensive negotiations but so far no agreement. SB 653 Ms. Wilson clarified that the recommendation was a Priority 2, Oppose. Ms. Bettman said she was in agreement with the recommendation. There were no objections. HB 2824 Ms. Bettman said the bill imposed a bond on contractors with public bodies for affordable housing. She said the bond was intended to hold the contractor accountable and questioned why staff would recommend opposition to the bill. She asked who would absorb the liability of that protection was removed. Mr. Perry said the $30,000 public works bond was a new requirement through the Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) and would be in addition to what the City normally required. He said City construction contracts over $50,000 already required a 100 percent performance bond and additionally contractors were required to be bonded through BOLI. He said that if the City had a contracting issue it would go directly to the performance bond and hold the contractor accountable based on that before going to the State for help. Mr. Lidz said the reason to dispense with the requirement for affordable housing would be to make it cheaper to build those projects by removing one cost with the builders felt was not necessary and burden- some. He said the bill would probably be discussed in conjunction with the other bills related to the definition of public works and the prevailing wage issues. His recommendation was to monitor the bill to assure that it was aligned with HB 2557. Ms. Piercy, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to Monitor the bill as a Priority 2. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 576 Ms. Taylor asked how the bill conflicted with the City’s policies. Mr. Svendsen replied that the square footage floor was somewhat smaller than the City’s policy, which was a minor conflict. He said the major concern with the bill was turning the Oregon Department of Energy (DOE) into a building permitting function for any project by a public body that was over 4,000 square feet. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 16, 2007 Page 2 Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Piercy, moved to Monitor the bill as a Priority 2. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Ms. Piercy indicated she wanted to be supportive of the concept but there were problems with the bill’s approach. She asked if monitoring meant that there was no communication with legislators regarding concerns or suggestions related to the bill. Ms. Piercy, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City’s lobbyist to make it known to legislators that the bill’s intent was supported but there were concerns about the approach. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2618 Ms. Bettman referred to a letter from Representative Paul Holvey regarding the bill. She thought Rep. Holvey made a good point because if there were dwindling numbers of skilled workers a public benefit could be achieved by the bill’s small modification to existing requirements. Mr. Perry said he did not perceive it to be a small modification and Rep. Holvey’s letter indicated the requirement would apply to contractors and subcontractors. He said it would be extremely difficult from an administrative standpoint and could adversely affect competition for City contracts by imposing yet another requirement, which in this case would entail establishing a training program in collaboration with the State. He perceived the requirement as a major deterrent to many potential bidders. He said the City currently required contractors to submit documentation of compliance with various requirements, such as having a drug testing program in place; in this case the City would need to actively monitor whether the training program was in place. He said State law required that apprentices be paid at certain rates, which could also affect how contractors bid on projects. Ms. Bettman quoted Rep. Holvey’s letter, which questioned how the City of Eugene’s policy on public contracting had encouraged the training and education of workers to industry skill standards in compliance with the policy of the State of Oregon. Mr. Perry said that the City address the skills issue by establishing minimum specifications rather than getting involved in contractors’ employee training issues. Ms. Bettman said that the Public Works Department was trying to reduce the competition for contracting by exempting certain things from the public bidding process and she saw a disconnect between the staff recommendation and that stance. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to Support the bill as a Priority 3. Mr. Gallup explained the impact of the bill on Public Works Engineering (PWE). He said most PWE projects were over $350,000 and the bill would require significantly more staff time to manage, track and document compliance, which would likely involve conducting onsite interviews with contractors’ employees to verify. He said it would increase the costs of projects and limit the number that could be done each year. Ms. Bettman said that the contractors’ would just be checking off another box on their reports. Mr. Svendsen stated that the oversight expectations in the bill were different; the City was currently just the repository for contractor reports and information, but the bill appeared to require a more active role in overseeing contractor compliance. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 16, 2007 Page 3 Ms. Bettman quoted extensively from Rep. Holvey’s letter regarding the minimal impact to public agencies because those agencies already administered many similar requirements and a similar bill last session was given minimal fiscal impact to the State. Ms. Piercy asked if minimal impact to the State meant minimal impact to local jurisdictions. Ms. Wilson explained that the financial impact analysis related to the State and it would be up to individual local governments to conduct their own financial impact analysis. Mr. Gallup cautioned that lack of compliance with the bill’s requirement could potentially jeopardize federal funds, which could be withdrawn if the City was not in compliance with State requirements. Ms. Piercy suggested that if the bill was of significant interest to a local legislator it could be a good idea to get some of the questions answered before taking a position. Ms. Bettman withdrew her motion. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to Monitor the bill as a Priority 2. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Ms. Bettman asked Ms. Wilson to report back on the bill at the next meeting. HB 2723 Ms. Bettman said she could not determine whether the bill’s intent was to grandfather in past problems or create a new class of lots that could be created outside of the current land use laws. Mr. Nystrom said there was already a provision in the current law that allowed owners of lots that may not have been formed through a legal land division process to come forward and try to legalize those lots. He said the provision existed to try to deal with the “victim” side of the issue, such as an owner that unknow- ingly bought a lot that they thought was a buildable lot, only to discover later it was not. He said the current law was very basic and had some gaps in it; the bill was likely intended to fill those gaps, specifically to prevent someone from taking advantage of the current law by assuring that the owner was an unknowing victim and not party to a purposeful business transaction. He said there had been very few instances of owners trying to legalize lots over the past several years and he had recommended supporting the bill at a Priority 3. Ms. Bettman said it sounded like the bill was giving local jurisdictions authority to grant legal status to illegal lots. She was also concerned that it would provide some incentives to people to create illegal lots as there would be a process to legalize them. Mr. Nystrom replied that local jurisdictions already had that authority under the current statute and the process existed; the bill would clarify the existing law. Ms. Bettman disagreed with Mr. Nystrom’s interpretation of the bill. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Neutral. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2539 and HB 2540 Ms. Wilson indicated that Ms. Bettman wished to drop the bills. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 16, 2007 Page 4 Mr. Ramsing said that HB 2540 was no longer an issue and could be dropped. Ms. Bettman moved to Drop HB 2539 and HB 2540. Ms. Piercy asked why Mr. Ramsing did not recommend dropping HB 2539. Mr. Ramsing replied that Eugene was part of the Oregon Building Officials Association (OBOA), which sponsored the bill. He said there were a number of state boards that provided oversight for numerous codes, processes and regulations; the Plumbing Board was one of those and there was no representation among its seven members from jurisdictions and building officials who were responsible for administering the building codes. He said the board was largely controlled by a voting block from a plumbers’ union that politicized decision-making. He used the example of waterless urinals, which could be bolted to the wall instead of requiring a plumbing system. He said building officials across the State felt that a more balance membership would result in more reasoned and balanced discussions and decisions related to making safer structures and not a particular interest. Ms. Piercy asked if the bill would tilt representation in another direction. Mr. Ramsing said the bill would add a representative of building officials and a representative of building owners and managers, making it a nine member board. Ms. Bettman stated that the minutiae of the issue were better left to the professional organizations who were concerned instead of spending the City’s legislative resources on it. Ms. Piercy said she did not perceive the issue as minutiae as boards of that type could have a great deal of power. She preferred to see a balanced approach to oversight. In response to a question from Ms. Wilson, Mr. Ramsing said he might testify on behalf of Oregon building officials but the odds of the bill getting a hearing were slim as the unions were resistant to the legislation. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to Monitor HB 2539. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to Drop HB 2540. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2827 Mr. Rikhoff encouraged the committee to support, rather than monitor, the bill. Ms. Bettman moved to Support the bill as a Priority 2. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman said the bill would limit the resources to implement the federal Read ID Act of 2005, thereby hamstringing it in the State of Oregon. Mr. Rikhoff explained that the federal ID act was poorly conceived and worse in implementation as it would require everyone to prove citizenship and nationality; it was moving towards a universal federal ID and also represented a significant unfunded mandate at the State level. Ms. Taylor observed that people already had to prove citizenship to get a job. Mr. Rikhoff said the federal MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 16, 2007 Page 5 act would require proof of citizenship for other things, such as a driver’s license. He said there were many concerns about how to avoid bias and racism in implementation. He noted that some states, such as Wisconsin, had refused to implement the federal act. Ms. Piercy affirmed she did not want to contribute to the anti-immigrant sentiments in the country and hoped it could be approached in a more humane and positive manner. Ms. Piercy provided the second. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2794 Ms. Taylor moved to Support the bill as a Priority 2. Ms. Piercy asked for a report from staff. Mr. Wold explained that much of the bill pertained to forest lands and the last portion would apply to the City by requiring that a plan be submitted to the Oregon Department of Agriculture 30 days before the application of any pesticide, describing the acreage to be treated and the pesticide and concentration to be used. He said the City’s goal was to reduce the application of pesticides and herbicides and when they were applied to make that process as effective as possible, which meant that staff monitored potential sites and timed applications for maximum effect. He said that resulted in application of herbicide quickly when plants flowered and weather conditions were most appropriate to prevent them going to seed; requiring a 30-day notification prior to application would make that process less effective and result in broadly written plans and less incentive to target applications. Ms. Bettman said she understood the existing regulations allowed spraying within a six month window. Mr. Finney said that applied to forest land, not open space. He emphasized that having to notify the State and wait 30 days to apply a pesticide or herbicide meant there would be a significantly different problem at the time of application, such as occurrence of a particular weed that had gone to seed and would require a much larger application. He said the bill would make achieving the City’s goal of smaller and less frequent application much more difficult. He said the City, although not required, currently posted notice of applications 24 hours in advance, provided information on the chemical and concentration and gave contact information. Ms. Taylor asked if the weeds could be removed manually and avoid the use of pesticide. Mr. Finney said that the City’s Parks and Open Space Division was a leader in its nonpesticide approach to weed control. Ms. Bettman said the bill represented the public’s right-to-know and a reporting requirement. She said that current regulations did not require a specific timeframe for application or identification of the chemical to be used and its concentration and that information was important to the community. Ms. Piercy agreed with Ms. Bettman but concurred with staff’s point about building in flexibility for timing of applications to allow for the minimum amount of chemicals to be used and support good stewardship of the natural areas and the environment. Ms. Bettman asserted that the blooming time for various species was known and the community was on the record as supporting notification. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 16, 2007 Page 6 Ms. Bettman moved to Support the bill as a Priority 3. Ms. Taylor indicated she had already moved to support the bill at a Priority 2. Mr. Wold noted that even within a species, bloom times could vary by several weeks depending on location, moisture and other factors. Ms. Bettman said she would favor supporting at Priority 2 with amendments to allow that issue to be addressed. Ms. Taylor suggested it could be called an emergency. Ms. Piercy said she supported the bill in general but did want to pursue trying to resolve those issues. Ms. Bettman stated that the motion was to Support the bill at Priority 2 with amendments. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 514 Ms. Wilson stated that Ms. Taylor wanted to change the bill’s status to Priority 2 and it was not scheduled for a hearing. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Piercy, moved to change the status of the bill to Pri- ority 2. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2760 Ms. Bettman asserted that legislation related to annexation had resulted from the City’s aggressive annexation strategies. She thought that people who lived in an urban area needed to be on sewer systems and have an urban level of services, but the City had to be careful about how that was accomplished. She noted that a neutral position was taken on a similar bill. Ms. Piercy felt that neutrality did not convey to legislators why some aspects of a bill would create problems for the City. Ms. Taylor suggested either remaining neutral or monitoring the bill. Ms. Wilson said that all of the bills were currently going through a work group that hoped to develop statewide standards for handling annexations. Mr. Yeiter was pleased there was an effort to consolidate annexation legislation. He said there had been a recent article in The Oregon that prompted a response from Finance regarding the tax differential issue for annexed properties. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to Monitor the bill at Priority 1. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2875 Ms. Bettman asked if a Priority 2, Support position was acceptable. Mr. Cushman said it was. He noted that the bill related to the solicitation of a person under 18 for sexual purposes. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 16, 2007 Page 7 Ms. Taylor said she thought the age should be changed to 16. She noted in some states people could get married at 16. Ms. Bettman moved to Support the bill at Priority 2. The motion passed unani- mously, 3:0. HB 2370-A Mr. Cushman explained that the “A” version added language prohibiting the seizure of firearms. He said HB 2652 accomplished the same thing. He said the wording of both bills would actually result in less authority for the Police Department to seize firearms than it had under current law. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Piercy, moved to Oppose the bill as a Priority 2 with amendments to make seizure provisions consistent with current law. The mo- tion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 526 Ms. Taylor stated she was concerned with the mandatory sentence of 120 months, which she felt was far too long in a situation where someone did not intend to cause harm. She said that a person who accidentally killed someone would be suffering enough already. Ms. Bettman said the bill related to situations such as a drug dealer who cut heroin with a substance that caused a young person who tried it to die of an overdose. Ms. Taylor agreed that was horrible but thought that person would be filled with remorse. She questioned whether that person would be a threat to society and said the only reason to keep someone in prison for a long time was to prevent repeat offenses. Mr. Cushman commented that the bill was attempting to create a significant penalty related to drugs as a deterrent to situations such as Ms. Bettman described. Ms. Piercy asked if the provisions of the bill would apply if someone under the influence of a controlled substance given to them died in an accident as that did not seem to be the intent of the legislation. Mr. Cushman said that would likely have to be determined by a court. He said staff was not opposed to amendments that would tighten the language to remove that ambiguity. Ms. Bettman moved to Support the bill with amendments as a Priority 3. The mo- tion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 631 Ms. Bettman stated she wanted to oppose the bill because it meant there would be situations when someone could achieve an early release date and it was not appropriate. Mr. Cushman said there was no objection to opposing the legislation and the drop was recommended in part because of prison overcrowding, but acknowledged that the bill would contribute to the release of some prisoners at an earlier date than they should have been. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 16, 2007 Page 8 Ms. Piercy said she was not in favor of opposing the bill because if a prisoner demonstrated some improvement in the ability to be a part of society, and there was a high bar for that, they should be able to get an earlier release date. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Cushman said the department might support the bill if it was tied to specific requirements or standards, but it was only related to routine good behavior while incarcerated. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Piercy, moved to Oppose the bill as a Priority 3. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2536 Ms. Taylor was concerned with the bill as she thought the requirement to sit in the rear seat of a motor vehicle should be based on weight instead of age. Ms. Bettman suggested supporting the bill with an amendment to include an age or weight provision. Ms. Taylor said she could agree to a requirement based on size instead of age. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to Support the bill as a Priority 3 with amendments to clarify that the requirement was age or size. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2652 Mr. Cushman indicated this bill had the same issues as HB 2370-A discussed previously and the depart- ment’s recommendation was the same. Ms. Bettman moved to Oppose the bill with amendments to make seizure provi- sions consistent with current law. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2797 Ms. Bettman acknowledged that the bill would be difficult to enforce but she wanted to at least make it unlawful to improperly dispose of tobacco products. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to Support the bill as a Priority 3. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 480 Ms. Bettman moved to Support the bill with amendments as a Priority 3. The mo- tion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 578 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to Support the bill as a Priority 2. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 16, 2007 Page 9 The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 554 Ms. Walston said staff recommended a Priority 3, Monitor status. She said the bill proposed to require a written response to a public records request, which the City already did. She said the bill would have no affect but should be monitored in the event there were amendments at some point. Ms. Bettman said she thought the requirements should apply statewide and would move to support the bill. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Piercy, moved to Support the bill as a Priority 3. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SJR 29 Ms. Walston said the bill would refer constitutional amendments to the voters and change the number of signatures on State initiative petitions to proportionately by congressional district instead of the State as an aggregate. She said staff recommended a position of Neutral, Drop on the basis of letting the voters decide. She noted the bill would create a higher standard to get something on the ballot statewide. Ms. Bettman said that could result in favoring those with a lot of money. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to Oppose the bill as a Priority 3. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Ms. Wilson said that the human resources bills would be presented to the committee next week. 3. Approval of Minutes of February 22 and March 9, 2007 Ms. Taylor moved to approve the February 22, 2007, minutes. Ms. Bettman asked that the last sentence on page 3 be revised as follows: “Ms. Bettman believed that the bill would dictate policy to elected representatives and require them to make policy budget decisions at the behest of a bargaining unit.” The minutes as amended were accepted unanimously, 3:0. Ms. Piercy, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to approve the March 9, 2007, min- utes as submitted. 4. Items from Members and Staff Ms. Bettman noted that the next meetings were scheduled for: March 22 at noon April 5 at 1:30 p.m. (tentative) April 12 at noon MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 16, 2007 Page 10 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to accept the staff recommendations on bills not pulled for discussion with the exception of the human resources bills. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. The meeting adjourned at 1:45 p.m. (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 16, 2007 Page 11 ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon March 9, 2007 Noon PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Chair; Betty Taylor, Chris Pryor, members; Mayor Kitty Piercy; Mary Walston, Greg Rikhoff, Brenda Wilson, Jessica Cross, City Manager's Office; Ellwood Cushman, Linda Phelps, Eugene Police Department; Fred McVey, Eric Jones, Chris Henry, Peggy Keppler, Public Works Department; Richie Weinman, Keli Osborn, Kurt Yeiter, Plan- ning and Development Department; Larry Hill, Central Services Department. 1. Call to Order And Review Agenda Ms. Bettman called the meeting of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) to order and reviewed the agenda. She determined there were no changes to the agenda. 2. Review Pending Legislation Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman about the status of House Bill (HB) 2735, related to manufac- tured housing, Ms. Wilson said the bill was moving forward but there was some confusion about the floor proposed by Representative Paul Holvey. There were nine such bills, only one of which the committee had seen to this point. Mayor Piercy expressed concern about the bill as she had heard from several other mayors who had been concerned about the preemption contained in the bill. She asked the committee to take a position on the bill. Ms. Wilson said that staff recommended the committee take a position of Priority 2, Support for HB 2735. Ms. Bettman deferred discussion of the bill until members had copies. HB 2562 Ms. Wilson said that Ms. Taylor wanted to change the status of the bill to Priority 3, Oppose, as she considered the bill an invasion of privacy. The bill created an offense for individuals refusing to submit to a blood test or urine test if requested to do so under the implied consent law. Ms. Wilson noted the staff recommendation for Priority 3, Support. Mr. Cushman explained the fine in place now only applied to the breath test so there was no penalty for an individual who refused to take a blood test. Ms. Bettman and Mr. Pryor supported the staff recommendation, although Ms. Bettman would have preferred to have dropped the bill as she did not consider it to be related to council policy and thought such public safety-related bills might be more appropriately forwarded by a police chief’s association, for example, rather than a city council. Ms. Taylor moved to drop the bill from consideration. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 9, 2007 Page 1 Mr. Cushman said there were council legislative policies regarding traffic safety but nothing related to criminal law. Staff’s position on the bills were because they impacted the department’s ability to delivery police services and there was value to the City having a position as legislators frequently felt that profes- sional organizations had vested interests and do not give them consideration. The motion died for lack of a second. HB 2645 Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Cushman indicated that staff would recommend support of the bill, which created an offense for distracted driving, if an exemption for the two-radios used by public safety personnel was included. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to support the bill with amendments. The mo- tion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2649 Ms. Wilson said Ms. Taylor wanted to change the bill’s status to Priority 3, Oppose. Ms. Taylor considered the bill an invasion of privacy as people could have legitimate reasons to have concealed compartments in their cars. Mr. Cushman said the department supported the bill because the police must prove the intent of the concealed compartment was criminal. Otherwise, there would be no way to charge a person because the mere fact of such a compartment was not illegal. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 3. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 431 Ms. Bettman wanted to change the status of the bill to Priority 3, Support with the amendments identified by staff. Mr. Cushman recalled staff wanted the bill to be revised to make it clear that a public street could not be defined as a parking structure. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 3 with amendments. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 573 Ms. Wilson said Ms. Taylor pulled the bill because she wished to change the City’s position to Support. The bill would require a driver to stop for a pedestrian preparing to enter a sidewalk. Ms. Taylor maintained that the method had worked in Seattle for many years. Ms. Bettman recalled recent confusing changes made to State law related to the issue and preferred to retain the staff recommendation. Mr. Pryor agreed. Ms. Taylor thought anything that increased pedestrian safety was a good thing. A person merely had to walk up to a sidewalk and traffic stopped. Mr. Cushman explained that staff’s major concern was related to the pedestrian hand signal and enforce- ment. He thought that the proposed bill would confuse things and not actually help pedestrians. Mr. Pryor MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 9, 2007 Page 2 agreed. He said the bill did not accomplish what he Ms. Taylor moved to change the status of the bill to Monitor. The motion died for lack of a second. HB 2653 Ms. Taylor moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 2, Monitor. The motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Bettman asked about the status of the bill and the potential it could evolve into something with a local impact. Ms. Wilson indicated the bill had not yet received a hearing. Mr. Jones recalled that a retailer testifying before the council on the local gas tax had indicated the intent of the bill was to increase the gas tax in return for a pre-emption on local fuel taxes. Ms. Bettman preferred the bill without amendments. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 1, Support. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2691 Ms. Taylor wanted to amend the bill to allow cities to collect a vehicle registration fee. Mr. Jones noted that the bill would provide some funding to Eugene if Lane County decided to pursue a vehicle registration fee. Ms. Bettman determined that current law allowed the City to receive up to 40 percent of those revenues, and suggested that the bill be amended to make the revenues shared with cities proportional to their populations. Mayor Piercy supported the bill in its current form given the financial stress Lane County was operating under. Ms. Bettman questioned why the council would not oppose the bill. Mr. Jones recalled that the City Council had discussed such a registration fee as a funding strategy for roads. Mayor Piercy suggested that 40 percent was better than nothing. Mr. Pryor suggested another approach to consider was allocating the funding on the basis of road mileage if the intent of the bill was to provide funding for street preservation. Ms. Taylor did not think the County would enact such an ordinance. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to support with an amendment determining proportional distribution on the basis of proportionate registrations. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 225 Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the status of the bill to Support. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2592 Mr. Hill explained the amendments sought by staff. He said under current law, the City could negotiate with the Department of Revenue (DOR) to collect an income tax, but there was no guidance about how that would be done and the DOR had not collected any local income tax to this point. The bill introduced to MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 9, 2007 Page 3 facilitate such tax collections included some restrictions that staff opposed as too limiting in light of the City’s home rule authority. He thought it a good, but not perfect, idea. Mr. Pryor suggested the committee accept the staff recommendation to oppose the bill unless amended. The committee concurred. HB 2599 Mr. Hill explained that he recommended the bill be dropped because the lottery was a revenue source and advertising was a way to promote the lottery. He suggested it was a lottery management decision as to whether advertising was necessary. Mr. Pryor preferred to accept the staff recommendation. Ms. Bettman perceived the bill as impacting the total dollars available from the lottery, but agreed with Mr. Pryor. HB 2643 Ms. Bettman said the bill created a new commission to provide subsidies for businesses using lottery money, which she opposed. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 2, Oppose. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2600 Mr. Weinman indicated that HB 2735 was actually the bill to watch. The bill in question would be folded into that bill. He recommended it be dropped as it would not make progress. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to drop the bill from consideration. The mo- tion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2688 Mr. Weinman indicated the bill had been introduced as a courtesy to a local elected official but it was not going to make progress. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to drop the bill from further consideration. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2735 Mr. Weinman noted that four Oregon communities had some form of protection for manufactured home park tenants. Most of the State had no protections at all. Nothing being introduced prohibited such parks from being closed; instead, they provide tenant protections. The bill most likely to pass is 2735, which had been negotiated for the better part of a year by landlord and tenant organizations. The bill offered greater protections than Eugene currently does, but not greater than what the Housing Policy Board would recommend. The bill was likely to pass but it included a pre-emption on local ordinances. Few owners own parks in different parts of the state so he did not see the need for a uniform bill. Mr. Weinman said that many people had testified in support of the bill but in opposition to the preemption. He recommended Eugene take a position of Support with amendments to eliminate the pre-emption. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 9, 2007 Page 4 Ms. Bettman preferred to take a position of Oppose with amendments as the council had a policy related to legislative preemptions. Mayor Piercy noted a proposal from legal staff of Wilsonville to include a provision in the bill allowing a landlord to approach the City Council for relief from the legislation in certain circumstances. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to oppose the bill unless the preemption was removed. Mr. Pryor thought the legislation was conceptually good and was reluctant to oppose a bill that protected manufactured home owners. He suggested that the City support the bill and seek amendments, and recommended a position of Support with amendments eliminating the preemption. Ms. Bettman believed the City Council needed to be consistent about its policies related to home rule. Ms. Wilson indicated she could argue the City’s position either way. She would let the bill’s sponsors know the City thought it was a good idea but opposed the preemption. She said she would take a position of Priority 1, Oppose. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 579 Ms. Bettman thought the bill sounded like a good idea because it extended access to the Oregon Growth Account to industries outside the traded sectors. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor., moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 2, Support. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 492 Ms. Wilson noted a request from Ms. Taylor to change the priority of the bill to Priority 2. Mr. Lidz said staff recommended a Priority 1 position because of the council’s recent action regulating cage fighting and to oppose the bill because it apparently contained preemptions. It was a confusing bill as different parts applied to different forms of martial arts. He asked how the committee wished to approach the preemption aspect of the bill and if it wished to regulate such activities if the State was going to do so. Ms. Bettman wanted to oppose the bill unless amended to remove the preemptions. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to support the staff recommendation of Prior- ity 1, Oppose. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Mr. Lidz asked if the committee supported the bill without the preemption. Ms. Bettman said the committee could support the bill with an amendment if it was consistent with the local ordinance. SB 547 Ms. Bettman questioned the bill’s relationship to council policy and suggested it be dropped. Mr. Lidz had MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 9, 2007 Page 5 no objection. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to drop the bill. The motion passed unani- mously. HB 2525 Ms. Wilson noted Ms. Taylor’s interest in changing the status of the bill to Priority 2 rather than Priority 3. Ms. Bettman questioned if the bill was stating a particular development required so much school capacity. Mr. McVey said that the bill was not well-written and was subject to interpretation. Ms. Wilson said the bill did not seem to be gaining much traction, although there were many bills related to systems development charges and schools. Ms. Bettman asked Mr. Lidz to examine the bill to see if it created a new way of allocating the cost of capacity to new development. Ms. Bettman did not object to changing the status of the bill and recommended a position of Priority 1, Monitor. Ms. Taylor and Mr. Pryor agreed. HB 2638 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 2, Neutral. Mr. Yeiter explained the council had a policy related to not limiting annexation approaches. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2712 Ms. Bettman suggested the City take a neutral position on the bill, which would essentially create a task force that would make recommendations. It seemed not to have a nexus to the City. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved that the City take a neutral position on the bill. Ms. Keppler determined from the committee that its position would not preclude a City staff person from serving on the proposed task force. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2175 Ms. Taylor moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 3, Support. Mr. Rikhoff said that the bill, which authorized the Department of Human Services to use abuse and neglect reports to determine the fitness of department employees and volunteers providing care, addressed an issue not within the City’s purview, although it affected City residents. Mr. Pryor seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 9, 2007 Page 6 HB 2447 Ms. Taylor moved to drop the bill from consideration. The motion died for lack of a sec- ond. HB 2459 Ms. Taylor wanted to change the status of the bill, which would make English the official language of the state, to a Priority 3. Mr. Pryor and Ms. Bettman preferred a Priority 1 position. Mr. Rikhoff said the legislation in question was largely symbolic, inherently racist, and a false argument about the survival of English. He noted that 95 percent of immigrants understood the need to learn English. Ms. Taylor questioned the need to take a strong position given the bill was not going anywhere. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 1, Oppose. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. House Joint Resolution 12 Ms. Wilson reported that Ms. Taylor had proposed to drop the resolution, which was related to the bill establishing Korean American Day, from consideration. Ms. Bettman and Mr. Pryor did not support dropping the resolution. HB 2210 Ms. Wilson said the bill, a renewable energy bill, would be amended to allow the City of Portland to adopt its own renewable energy standards. Ms. Bettman suggested it be amended to allow all metropolitan areas to adopt their own standards. She said the bill currently had a status of Priority 2, Support, but assumed that would change if the bill was amended in such a way. The committee concurred. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to support the bill with an amendment that would allow any metropolitan area to take advantage of the legislation. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 417 Ms. Wilson said the boundary commission bill was making progress and a work group had been formed that included the League of Oregon Cities. There appeared to be confusion over where the boundary commis- sion’s duties would fall if the commission was eliminated as State law does not allow those duties to be assumed by the County. She said if those duties fall to the cities, it would mean that all 12 cities in Lane County would have their own annexation rules. Ms. Bettman requested an informational sheet on the bill. Ms. Wilson agreed. Mayor Piercy expressed concern that the legislature was not hearing from the City because of the neutral position the council had taken on the proposed legislation when it was assumed the commission’s duties would be assumed by Lane County. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 1, MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 9, 2007 Page 7 Monitor. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Ms. Bettman suggested the CCIGR consider the bill again at a future meeting. HB 3000 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to assign the bill a status of Priority 1, Sup- port. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to approve the committee’s recommendations from February 13 and March 9, 2007. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. 3. Items from Members and Staff Ms. Bettman wanted the committee to look at HB 2370 at the next meeting. She noted that the resolution delegating authority over legislation related to personnel matters and collective bargaining to the City Manager would be discussed by the council at its next meeting. She said that when she looked at some of the bills in question, she did not think they were strictly related to those issues and had a larger impact. Ms. Bettman asked if City and County staff weighed in on PERS issues and why those were not within the purview of the elected officials given their budgetary impact. 4. Approval of Minutes of February 13, 2007 Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to approve the minutes of February 13, 2007. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 1:37 p.m. (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 9, 2007 Page 8 ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street, Eugene, Oregon February 22, 2007 Noon PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Chair; Betty Taylor, Chris Pryor, members; Mayor Kitty Piercy; Brenda Wilson, Jessica Cross, Randi Zimmer, City Manager's Office; Ellwood Cushman, Eugene Police Department; Patti Prather, Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services; Glen Potter, Fire and Emergency Medical Services; Chuck Solin, Human Resource and Risk Services; Richie Weinman, Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development Department; Jerome Lidz, Lau- ren Sommers, City Attorney’s Office. 1. Call to Order and Review Agenda Ms. Bettman called the meeting of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) to order. 2. Adaptive Recreation Grant Ms. Prather was present to answer questions about the grant application. There were no questions. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to approve the grant application. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0 3. Resolution for IGR Committee Consideration Staff distributed revised copies of the proposed resolution against the Iraq War. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to forward the resolution to the City Council for consideration on February 26, 2007. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. 4. Review Pending Legislation House Bill 2134 Mr. Cushman joined the committee for discussion of House Bill (HB) 2134. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 22, 2007 Page 1 Ms. Bettman was concerned that the bill allowed a patrol officer to also act as a judge. She determined from Mr. Cushman that the bill exempted an officer from securing a court order to tap a telephone; however, the officer must meet certain criteria that allowed for a court order to be secured in exigent circumstances, similar to how exigent search warrants were currently issued. The burden would be on the police to demonstrate how they could not get a regular court order, and if they could not demonstrate that, the evidence collected would be suppressed. Ms. Bettman asked if there were many situations where a patrol officer had the ability to do a search without a court order. Mr. Cushman indicated the circumstances must be the same as he had previously indicated for search warrants. Ms. Bettman continued to be concerned about the bill as she did not think it contained enough protection for individual rights because of the lack of a check provided by a judge. Mr. Pryor was less concerned than Ms. Bettman about the bill’s impact on individual rights because he thought there were still safeguards in place given that the burden would be on the police to justify the telephone tap. He thought there were circumstances that argued for the bill, pointing out that if the situation was speculative an officer would still be required to get a court order. He did not think the bill addressed “fishing expeditions.” In addition, Mr. Pryor pointed out the exceptions were clearly defined as substantial risk of death, serious injury, or sexual assault and they were specifically called out in the bill. Ms. Bettman move to change the status of the bill to Priority 2, Oppose. The motion passed 2:1; Mr. Pryor voting no. HB 2494 Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to drop the HB2494 from consideration. Ms. Bettman had no information about the drugs mentioned in the bill, salvinorin A or Salvia divinorum, or any pharmacological expertise to consult about the danger of those drugs. Mr. Cushman said that the drug was not a federally controlled substance; to this point, five states had enacted legislation against the drug and other states, including Oregon, were considering legislation. He said there was apparently no big problem with the drug at this time on the west coast and he did not object to dropping the bill. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 464 Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the status of Senate Bill (SB) 464 to Pri- ority 2. Ms. Wilson noted the bill was sponsored by the Judiciary Committee and was likely to make progress. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 423 Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman about the bill, which was related to discrimination because of medical use of marijuana, Mr. Solin said staff recommended a status of Priority 2, Oppose because federal motor carrier regulations for drivers of commercial vehicles superseded State law. The City had more than 150 employees meeting the definition of a commercial motor vehicle operator. Eugene did random drug and MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 22, 2007 Page 2 alcohol tests of those employees as required by federal law, and if an employee tested positive for marijuana, they must go to medical review officer who questioned them as to why they had marijuana in their system in violation of the federal regulations. Ms. Bettman asked what happened if an employee tested positive for a prescribed medication. Mr. Solin indicated in those cases of prescription drugs not regulated by the federal government, the proof would be in the employee’s performance. He said that the list of regulated substances included marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamines. Ms. Taylor believed that the issue of performance was sufficient to address the issue. She wanted the City to support the bill. Mr. Pryor said the law created a “Catch 22” whereby it attempted to supersede a law that superseded a law. He thought it placed important safeguards on how employers could treat such conflicts between federal and State law. Ms. Bettman agreed, but said the law also allowed employers to discriminate against those who used medical marijuana, even if not impaired. That meant that medical marijuana was treated differently than other controlled medications. She determined from Mr. Solin that the City was not testing public safety personnel and asked why the City would want to oppose the bill. Mr. Solin said it was because of the fact the vehicles in question were very large and sometimes they carried children. Ms. Bettman recommended the bill be dropped from further tracking. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to drop SB 423 from further consideration. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Legislative Concept: Ms. Wilson said that Representative Phil Barnhart had agreed to introduce the concept, which was to remove the cap on businesses paying a right-to-know fee, during the last session and had contacted staff to determine if the City wanted to resubmit it as the deadline was Monday. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 1, Support. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Mayor Piercy arrived. SB 400 Ms. Wilson said that most of the testimony regarding the bill addressed the concerns of State hospital workers and prison guards. The bill would take away the City’s ability to determine what was best for the City and what it could afford and leave that in the hands of a third-party arbitrator. One of the arguments against the bill was the preemption of local government to make its own safety and staffing decisions. Chief Randy Grove testified against the bill, indicating that such issues were worked out at the local level. An amendment had been introduced to make the bill apply only to State prison guards and hospital workers and it would also require a “meet and confer” process outside the bargaining process. Those amendments were presented to Senator Floyd Prozanski, the sponsor of the bill, who did not like them. The bill passed out of committee on a vote of 3:2 and was headed to the floor. The bill would cover all employees not legally allowed to strike. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 22, 2007 Page 3 Ms. Bettman believed the bill would dictate policy to local elected representatives and require them to make policy decisions at the behest of a bargaining unit. Ms. Bettman and Mr. Pryor indicated support of the staff recommendation. Mr. Pryor thought the sentiment behind the bill good but it was too broad. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to support the staff recommendation to oppose the bill. The motion passed unanimously. SB 424 Ms. Wilson noted the instructions she had received regarding the City Manager precluding committee consideration of bills related to personnel and collective bargaining. SB 2557 Ms. Bettman moved forward on the agenda and asked for consideration of . Ms. Wilson indicated there would be more public hearings due to the complexity of the issue, and committee members had been asked to form a work group. Testimony favoring the bill suggested it would draw a clear bright line while testimony against suggested it was so vague it could result in nothing but litigation. Mr. Weinman said the bill applied to the State prevailing wage. The City supported prevailing wages but th the bill redefined what a public works project was to the degree it might make projects as West Town on 8 impossible in regard to financing. City Attorney Lauren Sommers said the bill further confused an already confusing area. Ms. Wilson said the bill exempted certain projects but did not define what a public works project was. The opposition to the bill was because of the lack of clarity in the bill, hence the request for the working group. The bill also gave broad rule making authority to the Bureau of Labor and Industry, and such rules should be made by the legislators rather than administratively. Mr. Pryor said he was unable to support the bill because he did not understand it, and he lacked sufficient information to oppose it. He preferred to take a neutral position on the bill. Ms. Bettman asked if the bill would increase the costs and the number of projects that fell into the category where a prevailing wage was required. Mr. Weinman said yes and Mr. Lidz was not sure. Ms. Taylor indicated support for monitoring the bill. Ms. Wilson noted she would be involved in the work group formed to create rules for the legislation. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the status of the bill to Monitor. The mo- tion passed unanimously. Ms. Bettman asked staff to return with more information and possible amendments to the bill. Ms. Wilson agreed. Ms. Sommers noted that the City must request determination from BOLI for each project, so no way to determine which projects would or would meet that determination. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 22, 2007 Page 4 HB 2608 Mr. Nystrom said that the City had been doing what was called for in the bill for years and were notifying more residents of land use decisions than the bill called for. The bill raised the minimum threshold and did not preempt what the City was now doing. Ms. Bettman had no objection to the staff recommendation. HB 2527 Ms. Bettman asked why the City was monitoring rather than supporting the bill. Ms. Summers said it was because some of the text in the bill was undefined and staff was unclear as to what hearings were in question. It would add to the Public Meetings Law and staff wanted to monitor the bill and then request clarifying amendments if necessary. Ms. Bettman supported the bill because she could think of many things the bill would cover. Ms. Taylor also supported the bill. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 3, Support. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 250 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to drop the bill from consideration. Ms. Bettman did not see a connection between the bill and the City. The motion passed, 2:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. SB 308 Mr. Lidz said the bill would dispense with the requirement that the County consent to road annexation. The bill came out of an annexation in Beaverton where a street was annexed and the annexation was challenged and LUBA ruled that the county’s consent should have been secured. A third party rather than the county had contested the annexation. The committee accepted the staff recommendation of Neutral. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved that the CCIGR adopt all recommendations for the bills under question, excluding the bills related to collective bargaining and personnel. 5. Approval of Minutes—February 6, 2007 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to approve the minutes of February 6, 2007. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. 6. Items from Members and Staff MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 22, 2007 Page 5 Ms. Wilson reported she was a member of the informal work group doing rule making for the Connect Oregon legislation. Ms. Bettman requested an update on HB 417 regarding special districts bill via e-mail. Ms. Wilson said that trying to work out through annexation work group. Senator Walker was working with the League of Oregon Cities on amendments to put City more in line with the rest of the state. The LOC was drafting the legislation to ensure that when the bill comes out, annexation in Lane County would be more in line with how it worked in the rest of the state, rather than merely having a boundary commission with a different name. The committee discussed the committee’s role in reviewing personnel-related and collective bargaining bills with statewide implications with City Attorney Jerry Lidz, who provided the committee with background regarding a resolution adopted by the council in 1989 that gave the City Manager authority over certain personnel related matters. He acknowledged the resolution was “crystal clear” and staff was reviewing the minutes and agenda item summary regarding the resolution. Mayor Piercy said the resolution authorized the City Manager to speak on behalf of the City; she questioned if that meant the City Manager or his designee could take a position in opposition to council policy or precluded the council from looking at those bills. Mr. Lidz did not know. He said that given the archival research needed, Mr. Klein expected to have an answer shortly. Mr. Lidz believed the original reason for the delegation so the council did not find itself at odds with the manager’s local positions on collective bargaining. Mr. Lidz pointed out the council could repeal the resolution if it chose to do so. The committee agreed with a suggestion from Mr. Pryor that while the resolution was in effect, Intergov- ernmental Relations staff should abide by the manager’s position unless it was reversed by the council. If the CCIGR was unanimous on a position about a bill, Ms. Wilson should take that position over the City Manager’s position until the issues were worked out. Ms. Bettman requested the enabling language that established the CCIGR. The next meeting was scheduled for March 9 at noon. Ms. Bettman asked that personnel bills be placed first on the agenda. Mr. Pryor left the meeting. CCIGR members briefly discussed the logistics of upcoming United Front meeting to Washington, DC. Ms. Bettman adjourned the meeting at 1:51 p.m. (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 22, 2007 Page 6 ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall February 13, 2007 Noon PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Chair; Betty Taylor, Chris Pryor, members; Kitty Piercy, Mayor; Brenda Wilson, Mary Walston, Jessica Cross, Randi Zimmer, Mary Feldman, City Manager's Office; Chuck Solin, Human Resource and Risk Services; Eric Jones, Peggy Keppler, Chris Henry, Public Works Department; Sarah Medary, Parks and Open Space Division; Nancy Young, Planning and Development Department; Ellwood Cushman, Police Department; Pam Berrian, Information Services Division; Char Mauch, Municipal Court Services; Larry Hill, Jeff Perry, Finance Division, Central Services Department; Jerome Lidz, City Attorney's Office. 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. Ms. Taylor requested clarification on what had passed and what had not passed. Ms. Bettman said she wanted to talk about that as well. Mr. Pryor concurred. Ms. Bettman indicated that she wished to discuss the issue of pass/fail. Ms. Wilson requested clarification on the protocol should be for a motion made by the CCIGR to change staff recommendation that had to go before the full City Council, so she would know how to carry the City’s agenda forward on such bills. Ms. Bettman stated that the precedent in the past had been that a majority vote for a specific recommenda- tion of the CCIGR would be placed on a list that was similar to a matrix. She said if a motion passed at the CCIGR, even if not unanimous, it was the recommendation unless someone pulled it at council. She averred that the only time a motion failed was if it did not receive a second and would, therefore, not “go anywhere;” this was considered an endorsement of the staff recommendation. She underscored that a councilor had a right to pull any bill for discussion, though usually councilors only pulled bills that did not have unanimous support for the CCIGR position on them. Ms. Piercy said a vote of the CCIGR was a recommendation to council, which the council could accept or not, and did not go forward as a position until it had passed through the council. Ms. Bettman disagreed. Ms. Taylor concurred with Ms. Bettman. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental February 13, 2007 Page 1 Relations Ms. Piercy asserted that the CCIGR was an advisory body. Ms. Bettman responded that the CCIGR had a right to take a stand on bills unless it was challenged by the council. She reiterated that the CCIGR vote was a recommendation on a bill. Mr. Pryor understood that if a position on a bill did not receive unanimous support it did not automatically go onto the Consent Calendar. For him, the issue lay in that passing through on a Consent Calendar meant the item was something presumed to be matter-of-fact business. He said a 2:1 vote moved a legislative issue to the level of needing some discussion. He suggested that he bring this up to the council for review and discussion. Ms. Taylor noted that even a vote of 3:0 at the CCIGR was less than the majority of the council. She opined that it was up to the councilors to be diligent and review the work of the CCIGR. She remarked that they “may as well not have the committee” if the council needed to review every 2:1 decision. Ms. Bettman did not like changing a process that had not changed for as long as she had been on the council “just because all of a sudden people do not like the votes.” She opined that the process worked when there was a “conservative majority on the IGR” and should continue to work if there was not a conservative majority on the committee. She declared it to be a fair process in its current form and it gave the council the ability to question any position the committee took. She said it did require a matrix that tracked every bill along with the minutes. Ms. Wilson said she had a matrix she used in her lobbying efforts and she would provide a copy to the CCIGR. Ms. Piercy believed that when the CCIGR took a position on a bill and the lobbyist took that position forward it was the position of the City Council. She could not see having the process move forward without the endorsement of the whole council. Ms. Bettman acknowledged the Mayor’s concern. She said it had been her concern, too, because it took a long time for the CCIGR work to come before the council. She averred that if the Mayor was recommend- ing a change to the process the council should have a work session and adopt, via ordinance, the process for the CCIGR. She did not want every change in the political landscape to mean a change in the CCIGR process. Ms. Taylor concurred. Mr. Pryor reiterated his discomfort in moving forward on a recommendation for a bill that only had two votes. He said it indicated disagreement and a need for discussion. Ms. Wilson said the City of Eugene had its credibility in Salem and when the City argued against itself, in that it took one position at one point and then reversed its position after further council discussion, the City lost credibility with the legislature. She noted that the change on Senate Bill (SB) 187 had not affected the City as the bill was now dead. Ms. Bettman said there were other 2:1 votes and she had been disturbed to see that Ms. Wilson was not lobbying on them. She commented that she had heartburn about changing the process based on the assertion that the CCIGR should not have the authority to represent the City. She reiterated that the process had been the same since she had served on the council. She requested a work session be held as soon as possible. She MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental February 13, 2007 Page 2 Relations was willing to support a change in the process as long as it was in an ordinance. She opined that the process had been unquestioned when people she alleged were conservative served on the CCIGR. Ms. Taylor thought the council would have to eliminate scheduled breaks during the legislative session in order not to hamper lobbying efforts, should CCIGR decisions have to be discussed by the full council. Ms. Bettman said the CCIGR should ask itself how the City could lobby at all without the council’s full review. She suggested that to stop lobbying on votes that were 2:1 should mean that votes that lobbying should stop for votes of 3:0 until the council endorsed it. Ms. Wilson requested some direction on the human resource and collective bargaining bills, as some of those bills were “moving.” She wished to ensure she was representing the correct City priority and recommenda- tion. Mr. Pryor appreciated that dilemma. He acknowledged that it was difficult for Ms. Wilson to do her job given the uncertainty coming from the CCIGR. Regarding the previous precedents for the CCIGR process, he averred that even if a tradition had been followed for 100 years, if it was the wrong tradition he could not get behind it. He was conscious of the fact that the City of Eugene’s position had to represent the position officially endorsed by the City. To him, the body that did that by charter was the City Council. He felt that a 2:1 vote by the CCIGR put Ms. Wilson at risk of going to Salem to lobby on behalf of a position that was not necessarily endorsed by the council and, thus, the City. He thought they might have to develop a system to get bills that had an immediacy to them before the council expediently and expressed willingness to work on such a system. He reiterated his discomfort at directing Ms. Wilson to lobby for a position on an issue supported by only two votes. Ms. Bettman reiterated that the council had vested that authority in the CCIGR and the committee had functioned on that assumption that a majority vote was a majority vote and that was the recommendation that would go forward unless a councilor pulled it. She said Mr. Pryor wanted to change this. Mr. Pryor acknowledged that he was seeking to change it. Ms. Bettman averred that before it could be changed there had to be a system currently in place for the CCIGR to function and she declared it should be based on the precedent to date, which was that a majority vote at the CCIGR instructed the City’s lobbyist on what position he or she should advance. She did not think they could make a unilateral change in a process if this was how it had been done to date. Ms. Piercy agreed that things would have to continue as they are until a change could be put into effect. Regarding the human resource bills, she related that she had asked City Attorney Glenn Klein to look into whether there were any reasons why they should look at statewide policies. She recognized that the council had no purview over personnel issues specific to the City of Eugene. She thought statewide policies were another matter. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to have the bills related to human resources come before the CCIGR. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Mr. Pryor said he would ask the Mayor, Council President, and City Manager for a work session on the proposed changes to the CCIGR process to be scheduled. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental February 13, 2007 Page 3 Relations 2. Pending Legislation Ms. Wilson said House Bill (HB) 2236 had been pulled on January 30 that would provide for the County to pay out tax refunds prior to the end of the appeal period. She related that she had contacted the County staff and they did not have an opinion one way or another, but expressed a willingness to discuss the bill with the CCIGR. She noted that City staff had recommended a ‘Drop’ for the bill given that it had no bearing on the City. She clarified that it was a Governor’s bill introduced by the Department of Revenue. Ms. Bettman indicated that she was satisfied with the explanation. HB2468 Ms. Medary said staff recommended ‘Priority 1 Support.’ She stated that the bill was consistent with what the City was looking for as it lifted the urban growth boundary (UGB) regulations but maintained local land use laws. The CCIGR indicated unanimous support for staff’s recommendation. Senate Bill (SB) 470 Ms. Berrian explained that she had asked the State Department of Economic Development and City staff in finance to find out whether or not there were any city services that were provided by the fund that would be affected. She had not heard any opposition to the bill from the League of Oregon Cities (LOC). She said the bill had come out of the advisory committee that she was a member of for the LOC and it was capped at $1 million. She noted that the industry members were also supportive of the bill. Ms. Bettman indicated that the CCIGR approved of the staff recommendation of ‘Priority 2 Support.’ HB2425 Mr. Jones reviewed the bill, noting that it was currently parked in the House Judiciary. Ms. Bettman asked if the bill was implementing the state law in Measure 39. Mr. Jones did not believe so. Ms. Bettman indicated that the CCIGR agreed with the staff recommendation of ‘Priority 3 Oppose.’ HB2119 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to accept the recommendation of staff but to change it to ‘Priority 3 Support’ with the amendment recommended by staff to include “state of issuance” as one of the items that can not be obscured by a license plate frame or holder. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB2138 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the stand on the bill to ‘Priority 3 Sup- port.’ The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental February 13, 2007 Page 4 Relations HB2301 In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Cushman explained that part of the rationale behind the bill was to discourage gang-related activity by making it essentially more onerous if a gang member was convicted of certain offenses. Ms. Taylor objected to this reasoning. Ms. Bettman ascertained that there would be no second to a motion to change the recommendation and the recommendation to keep the bill at ‘Priority 3 Support’ stood. HB2189 Mr. Cushman relayed staff’s recommendation to ‘Drop.’ He said in terms of impact on the Eugene Police Department (EPD), if there was an allegation of criminal activity it would be investigated, but if it was not criminal it would come under the purview of the Department of Human Services (DHS), which would be tasked with investigating “likely child abuse.” In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Wilson stated that the bill was not going into a hearing soon. She felt the bill was not likely to go far as the language was enormously ambiguous. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to support the staff recommended position ‘Drop’ for HB2189. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB2393 Ms. Taylor wanted to oppose the legislation as she perceived requiring drivers over 70 to renew licenses every two years and to take drivers’ tests as age discrimination. Ms. Taylor moved to change the position on HB2393 to ‘Oppose.’ The motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Bettman observed that presently the bill was listed as one to ‘monitor.’ SB283 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to support the staff position of ‘Priority 3 Sup- port’ with the amendment to the bill that would indicate that the prohibition would be mandated for a second or subsequent conviction of unlawful firearm storage, or if ordered by a court (which would allow the action to be taken for a first offense if the court felt that the circum- stances warranted such a prohibition). The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB298 The CCIGR accepted the staff-recommended position of ‘Priority 3 Support.’ SB174 Mr. Cushman explained that the bill would give local law enforcement agencies access to state tax information but only when an issue pertained to tax evasion. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental February 13, 2007 Page 5 Relations In response to a question from Mr. Pryor, Mr. Cushman affirmed that they would have to go through a process of authorization. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the recommendation to ‘Monitor.’ The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB246 Mr. Cushman stated that the way the bill was written the only time an officer or firefighter could use a two- way radio was if he or she was responding to an emergency. Mr. Jones requested that the Public Works Department be included in the review of the bills related to this type of communication because the department responded to emergency situations at times. The CCIGR accepted the staff position of ‘Priority 3 Oppose.’ HB2645 Mr. Cushman explained that this bill was similar to the previous bill. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the recommendation to ‘Priority 3 Op- pose,’ unless the bill could be amended to exclude two-way radios used by public entities. SB293 Ms. Wilson noted that the CCIGR had voted to change the position to a ‘Priority 2 Support’ with a 2:1 vote. Mr. Pryor indicated he would change his vote to support the position if the bill carried the same amendment to it that the CCIGR had indicated for HB2645 Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to support a change in recommendation to ‘Prior- ity 2 Support’ if the bill were amended to exclude two-way radios used by public entities. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB285 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to establish a ‘Priority 3 Support’ position. In response to a question from Mr. Pryor, Mr. Cushman explained that bill specified that the situation would have to be one in which the person charged with the offense would have to have a culpable mental state of knowing that he or she had entrusted a minor to a sex offender. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB2153 Mr. Cushman clarified that the law would apply to serious sex crimes. The staff recommendation stood. HB2298 Mr. Cushman explained that “possession by consumption” meant that someone who had partaken of a drug but did not have it on their person was still considered to be in possession of said drug. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental February 13, 2007 Page 6 Relations Ms. Taylor ascertained that she would not have a second to change the current ‘Priority 3 Support’ position to an ‘Oppose.’ HB2341 The staff recommendation to adopt a ‘Priority 3 Support’ position stood. HB2349 In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Cushman explained that Sgt. Flynn recommended to ‘Drop’ the bill because it did not pertain to the City. He noted that the EPD would not oppose supporting the bill; rather it was a resource issue. The staff recommendation to ‘Drop’ the bill stood. HB2482 Mr. Cushman noted that HB2482 was identical to SB293. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to adopt a position of ‘Priority 2 Support’ with an amendment to exclude two-way radios used by public entities. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB161 Mr. Cushman stated that the bill would require the DHS to run a criminal record check on someone who submitted an application to run a “grow operation” for medical marijuana use. He noted that the bill included some items that he considered to be housekeeping and that it had been submitted by the DHS. Ms. Taylor moved to change the position on the bill to ‘Oppose.’ The motion died for lack of a second and the staff recommendation to take a ‘Priority 3 Support’ position stood. HB2215 Ms. Bettman asked why staff had recommended taking a ‘Support’ position when HB2062, a bill that also did not have a significant effect on the City, had been recommended as a ‘Drop.’ Mr. Cushman replied that though the bill had a limited affect on the City, it would increase funding to the State Police and as this would improve law enforcement outside of the city limits, there was some benefit to the City. Ms. Bettman felt the bill would create a negative incentive for the purchase of additional insurance. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the position to ‘Drop.’ The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB78 Ms. Feldman clarified that the bill would allow a request for an absentee ballot to be submitted electroni- cally. She stressed that the ballot itself could not be submitted electronically. She stated that it would be difficult to make a fraudulent request as a voter who did not receive a ballot would likely call the elections office looking for a ballot and the signature on a fraudulently submitted absentee ballot would not match the signature of record. The CCIGR agreed to retain the staff recommended position of ‘Priority 3 Monitor.’ MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental February 13, 2007 Page 7 Relations SB77 Ms. Feldman explained that SB77 applied only to major party candidates and this was why the recommen- dation was ‘Drop.’ The CCIGR agreed with the staff recommendation. HB2185 Mr. Solin said this bill would give clarity to the role of the Public Health Department in the event of a public health emergency. He explained that it was not in the purview of the City. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to adopt a position of ‘Priority 3 Support.’ The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB137 Ms. Bettman felt the bill superceded home rule. Mr. Solin agreed. He noted the Planning and Development Department (PDD) opposition to the bill on that basis. He pointed out that public safety personnel wanted to support the radio project because the process to site radio towers and related facilities needed for wireless interoperable public safety communications in areas zoned for commercial, industrial, farm or forest use was lengthy. He said the Emergency Management Department was seeking a way to get these towers into communities using a shortened process. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the position to ‘Priority 3 Support’ pro- vided the bill was amended to require collaboration between the City and State in the siting of radio towers and facilities. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB2136 Ms. Taylor averred that the City should oppose the bill, which would eliminate the right to appeal judgments under $500, because people should have the right to appeal an issue. Ms. Taylor moved to change the position on HB2136 to ‘Priority 2 Oppose.’ The motion died for lack of a second and the current position of ‘Priority 3 Neutral’ stood. SB287 Mr. Lidz explained that the bill would enhance the penalty for someone who exceeded the speed limit while eluding the police. Ms. Bettman ascertained that the CCIGR agreed that the bill should remain a ‘Priority 3 Support.’ SB289 Mr. Lidz stated that the bill would require unanimous jury verdicts on all convictions. He related that the City Attorney opposed it because it would make convictions more difficult. Ms. Bettman observed that the bill had no effect on municipal prosecutions. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the position to ‘Drop.’ The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB366 Ms. Bettman moved to change the position to ‘Priority 1 Support.’ MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental February 13, 2007 Page 8 Relations Mr. Pryor said he would go along with this because if the Legislature was looking at a school impact fee or a school park systems development charge (SDC) as an “either/or” he definitely felt the City should steer them in the direction of the former. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. (Note from minutes recorder: there was no second.) HB2314 Mr. Perry, responding to questions from a previous meeting, stated that the City spent approximately $1.3 million on collections agencies, excluding the Municipal Court. He explained that this equaled $294 on average, with 4,414 accounts submitted. The City had collected approximately $80,000 and about $75,000 in materials from the Library. He stressed that the City followed a standard practice and bills were sent to collections agencies after an extensive process to collect them had been fruitless. Ms. Taylor opposed the bill, which would allow a public entity to add the collections fee to the amount collected in an effort to recoup that cost. She thought people who did not pay could not afford to pay. She said adding to their debts would increase poverty and therefore increase homelessness. Ms. Bettman ascertained that there would be no second should there be a motion to change the recommended position which was ‘Priority 3 Support.’ HB2530 Mr. Hill explained that the bill would provide an entire overhaul of the State tax system. He said among the provisions that would affect the City of Eugene was the establishment of a homestead property tax exemption for some low-income people and senior citizens. He noted that it would also prevent local governments from piggybacking taxes on a state general sales tax, which would be a limitation of home rule in that area. He recommended ‘Priority 2 Monitor’ and that the City should work closely with the LOC in tracking and following it. Ms. Piercy related that a bipartisan group of legislators was moving the bill forward in an effort to reform funding for the State. She commented that at this point it was likely “packed full of flaws and challenges.” The CCIGR agreed to retain the staff position of ‘Priority 2 Monitor.’ HJR14 Mr. Hill noted that this bill sought to modify the double majority rule that had been brought about by a ballot measure. He said the LOC had documented the effect of the double majority requirement on local measures and had determined that approximately 25 percent of the measures had failed exclusively because not enough people had voted. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to take a ‘Priority 2 Support’ position. The mo- tion passed unanimously, 3:0. Ms. Piercy called the bill “crucial” and did not want the Priority 2 to be interpreted as some kind of lack of support at the legislative level. Ms. Wilson assured Ms. Piercy that she would make it known that the Priority 2 position reflected the amount of resources Eugene had to apply to the bill and not the importance of the bill to local citizens. HJM1 MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental February 13, 2007 Page 9 Relations In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Henry stated that staff supported a ‘Priority 2 Support’ position because the bill was specific to freight rail. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the position to ‘Priority 1 Support.’ The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB309 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to direct staff to monitor the bill. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB349 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to take a ‘Priority 1 Oppose’ position on the bill unless it could be amended to exclude Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants (DUII) charges that had been dismissed based on successful completion of a diversion program. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. In response to a question from Ms. Piercy, Ms. Mauch explained that it would be almost impossible to determine if a person had been previously sent to a diversion program when determining whether to send a person to a diversion program if those records had been expunged. State Senator Floyd Prozanski had submitted the bill, but Ms. Mauch surmised that he had overlooked this element of it. Ms. Piercy felt the bill had elements in it that had merit. Ms. Mauch agreed, noting that an applicant to the Fire Department had been denied based on a reckless driving charge that had been dismissed but not expunged from the record. Ms. Bettman read an email she received from Sen. Prozanski that clarified that the bill would allow a person who was arrested for but not convicted of a traffic offense to have the arrest expunged from the record. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the position of the CCIGR on SB349 to a ‘Priority 1 Support’ so long as the bill included the aforementioned amendment. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB437 Ms. Young explained that staff recommended opposing the bill because it would allow people to go through the garbage of others in an effort to find recyclable materials. Ms. Piercy noted that there were businesses in Portland premised on people going through other peoples’ refuse. Ms. Young indicated that there was such a business in the City of Eugene. She noted that a similar bill had been introduced in 2005. Ms. Wilson said the bill had been introduced by Sen. Prozanski. She discussed the liability issues and privacy issues with him and they “agreed to disagree.” She related that he had introduced the bill on behalf of a constituent. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to take a ‘Priority 2 Monitor’ position on the bill. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pryor voting in opposition. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental February 13, 2007 Page 10 Relations Ms. Young reported that nothing had been brought forth regarding how much more recyclable material could be recovered. She believed removing all of the paper products from garbage would reduce the volume of garbage by less than one percent. Ms. Wilson clarified that the purpose of the bill was to allow the trash to be compacted because the charge for trash from a dumpster was per container and not by weight. She said the bill would permit people to get into the containers and jump up and down on the trash and this would create room for more trash in a multi- unit trash container. She stated that the person who asked Sen. Prozanski to introduce the bill had a business that employed people to do this. Mr. Pryor changed his vote to support adoption of a ‘Priority 2 Monitor’ position and the mo- tion then passed with unanimous support, 3:0. Ms. Bettman moved to adopt the staff recommendation for priorities and recommendations for all bills that were not pulled for discussion and recommendation of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations for the remainder of the bills. (note from recorder: Motion was made, but never received a second, nor was it voted on.) Ms. Taylor averred that the motion did not mean the CCIGR supported everything that staff recommended. Ms. Wilson reminded the CCIGR that they had yet to review HB2469. HB2469 Mr. Weinman had commented in the staff recommendation that the bill had merit but as it did not have an effect on the City he questioned allocating the City’s lobbying resources to it. Ms. Bettman thought the bill sounded “really good” and provided more defined assistance to families. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the position on the bill to a ‘Priority 3 Support.’ The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Ms. Wilson confirmed with the CCIGR that the members had received documents she had sent to the City Council meeting. She recalled that the CCIGR had adopted a position of wanting to hold the City harmless in one bill (note from recorder: bill number not given). She reported that two amendments had been introduced and the bill had gone to committee on the previous day for reconsideration for failure to give proper notice; the chair had been unwilling to discuss the amendments and had moved the bill to the House Committee on Ways and Means. She said both of the “dash” amendments would hold the City harmless, but one hurt the counties and one did not. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Wilson related that a deal had been made when the original preemption had been included in the law to take away a local entity’s ability to enforce “this tax” if the local entity received part of the tax. She said the State wanted to renege on that deal and divert funds somewhere else. She stated that the compromise was that the funds would continue to go to cities and counties or the funds would continue to go to the cities but not the counties and the funds would still be available to the State to defer towards the alcohol treatment program. Ms. Bettman commented that the City was not lobbying for the County. Mr. Pryor responded that he was not interested in hurting the County. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental February 13, 2007 Page 11 Relations Ms. Bettman supported funding treatment and prevention. Ms. Piercy pointed out that the County was the provider of those services and the City was not. Ms. Wilson said she would let the CCIGR know when the bill came up for a hearing. 3. Approval of Minutes—January 30, 2007, Meeting Ms. Bettman offered the following correction to page 4, paragraph 7: ? “Ms. Bettman thought the better remedy was to increase decrease the interest rate that accrues on the disputed amount during the length of the appeal…” Ms. Bettman called for a vote on the minutes, as amended, and the minutes were unani- mously approved, 3:0. 4. Items from Members and Staff Ms. Bettman said she was interested in a bill that sought to transfer the function and resources from the Oregon Emergency Management to the military. She related that she had talked to several state legislators and no one seemed to know much about the bill. She recalled that the CCIGR had reviewed the bill and asked what had transpired. Ms. Wilson replied that the CCIGR had voted to take a ‘Priority 1 Monitor’ position on the bill, HB2370, and had asked Mr. Solin to present a report to the CCIGR on the effects of the bill on the City. The meeting adjourned at 2:02 p.m. (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental February 13, 2007 Page 12 Relations