Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3: Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of March 22, 2007, April 5, 2007, April 12, 2007, and April 19, 2007 Meeting Date: May 14, 2007 Agenda Item Number: 3 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 March 22, 2007; April 5, 2007; April 12, 2007; and April 19, 2007. 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 City Council for consideration. Also included in this set are two bills from the March 22, 2007, IGR meeting which the IGR Committee indicated they wanted pulled for discussion for the full City Council and a bill from the April 12, 2007, meeting where a motion was made to change the staff’s recommendation but was not seconded. These bills must be addressed by the full council in order to provide direction to staff in Salem: SB 758 which was reviewed at the March 22, 2007, IGR meeting (with Mayor Piercy ? NOTE: sitting in for Councilor Taylor) Although HB 2370 did not have a unanimous decision, the amended version, HB 2370-A, was already discussed at the April 9, 2007 City Council meeting; HB 3410, HB 3082, and HB 3251, all of which were reviewed at the April 5, 2007, IGR ? meeting (with Mayor Piercy sitting in for Councilor Pryor); HB 2934, HB 2628, HB 3063, HB 2095-A (no seconded motion), and SB 701, all of ? which were reviewed at the April 12, 2007, IGR meeting; and HB 3264, HB 3363, and SJR 32, all of which were reviewed at the April 19, 2007, IGR ? meeting. Bills may be accessed via the Legislature’s website: http://www.leg.state.or.us/07reg/measures/main.html The bills are listed below. L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070514\S0705143.doc March 22, 2007: SB 758: Eliminates authority of city to annex territory surrounded by city by ordinance. Requires that territory surrounded by city be annexed by consensual methods available for annexations generally. Relating to: Relating to annexation. Staff Recommendation: Priority 2, Oppose (By Kurt Yeiter) IGR Committee Vote: Priority 2, Monitor (3/0, Bettman, Piercy, Pryor Yes – with note to pull for full Council) (See page 8 of the IGR Meeting Minutes of March 22, 2007.) April 5, 2007: HB 3410: Modifies requirements and procedure for city to annex territory surrounded by city. Relating to: Relating to annexation. Staff Recommendation: Priority 2, Oppose (By Kurt Yeiter) IGR Committee Vote: Priority 2, Monitor (2/1, Taylor, Piercy Yes/ Bettman, No) (See page 8 of the IGR Meeting Minutes of April 5, 2007.) HB 3082: Removes requirement that ordinance establishing county registration fees for vehicles be approved by electors of county. Relating to: Relating to registration fees for vehicles imposed by county; creating new provisions; and amending ORS 801.041. Staff Recommendation: Priority 2, Support (By Eric Jones) IGR Committee Vote: Priority 2 / Oppose unless amended (2/1, Bettman, Taylor, Yes / Piercy, No) (See page 12 of the IGR Meeting Minutes of April 5, 2007.) HB 3251: Requires Oregon Criminal Justice Commission to administer collaboration grants for local public safety coordinating councils. Appropriates moneys to commission for purposes of Act. Declares emergency, effective on passage. Relating to: Relating to local public safety coordinating councils; appropriating money; and declaring an emergency. Staff Recommendation: Priority 3, Support (By Ellwood Cushman) IGR Committee Vote: Priority 3, Monitor (2/1, Bettman, Taylor, Yes / Piercy, No) (See pages 13 -14 of the IGR Meeting Minutes of April 5, 2007.) L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070514\S0705143.doc April 12, 2007: HB 2934: Requires all counties and certain cities to create civilian police review boards. Relating to: Relating to law enforcement Staff Recommendation: Priority 2, Oppose (By Ellwood Cushman) IGR Committee Vote: Priority 2, Oppose unless amended (2/1, Bettman, Taylor, Yes / Pryor, No) (See pages 4 - 5 of the IGR Meeting Minutes of April 12, 2007.) HB 2628: Prohibits installation of certain outdoor lighting fixtures. Makes violation subject to civil penalty, not to exceed $5,000 or not to exceed $1,000 per day for continuing offense. Prohibits sale of mercury vapor lights. Makes violation subject to civil penalty, not to exceed $5,000 or not to exceed $1,000 per day for continuing offense. Relating to: Relating to lighting fixtures Staff Recommendation: Priority 3, Oppose (By Ellwood Cushman and Eric jones) IGR Committee Vote: Priority 2, Oppose unless amended (2/1, Bettman, Pryor, Yes / Taylor, No) (See pages 6 - 7 of the IGR Meeting Minutes of April 12, 2007.) HB 3063: Increases from $50,000 to $100,000 amount of public contract for transportation project that may be awarded under procedure for competitive quotes. Repeals sunset on provisions that permit use of competitive quotes to award public improvement contracts. Relating to: Relating to competitive quotes in public improvement contracting; creating new provisions; amending ORS 279C.335 and 279C.375 and section 132, chapter 794, Oregon Laws 2003; and repealing section 332a, chapter 794, Oregon Laws 2003. Staff Recommendation: Priority Neutral (By Jeff Perry) IGR Committee Vote: Priority 3, Oppose (2/1, Bettman, Taylor, Yes / Pryor, No) (See pages 9 – 10 of the IGR Meeting Minutes of April 12, 2007.) HB 2095-A: Allows housing authority to own mixed income housing project. Allows housing authority to form, finance, have nonstock interest in and { + manage or + } operate partnerships, nonprofit corporations and limited liability companies to further purposes of housing authority. Replaces requirement for annual housing authority report with requirement for annual audit. Changes means for proving proper appointment of housing authority commissioner. Revises definitions for affordable housing and for persons meeting housing authority income criteria. { + Restricts use of term ' housing authority. 'Defines 'property of a housing authority' for tax and special assessment purposes. + } L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070514\S0705143.doc Relating to: Relating to housing authorities Staff Recommendation: Priority 3, Support (By Richie Weinman) IGR Committee Motion: Priority 2, Oppose unless amended (No Second - Bettman / Taylor and Pryor) (See page 10 of the IGR Meeting Minutes of April 12, 2007.) SB 701: Requires approval of urban renewal plan by each city, county or local taxing district with tax revenues that will be reduced upon adoption of urban renewal plan. Absent approval, tax revenues of affected local government may not be reduced. Applies to urban renewal plans adopted or substantially amended on or after effective date of Act. Relating to: Relating to urban renewal Staff Recommendation: Priority 2, Oppose (By Richie Weinman and Sue Cutsogeorge) IGR Committee Vote: Priority 2, Support (2/1, Taylor, Bettman Yes / Pryor, No) (See page 11 of the IGR Meeting Minutes of April 12, 2007.) April 19, 2007: HB 3264: Directs Economic and Community Development Department to file annual Unified Economic Development Report detailing development subsidies. Requires public disclosure of development subsidy. Limits development subsidies based on cost and quality of jobs created. Provides for recapture of development subsidies from businesses in default on obligations. Creates cause of action for aggrieved taxpayers. Declares emergency, effective on passage. Relating to: Relating to economic development Staff Recommendation: Priority 3, Oppose (By Richie Wienman) IGR Committee Vote: Priority 2, Support (2/1, Bettman, Taylor Yes / Pryor, No) (See pages 2 – 3 of the IGR Meeting Minutes of April 19, 2007.) HB 3363: Directs Economic and Community Development Department to file annual Unified Economic Development Report detailing development assistance. Requires public disclosure of development assistance. Limits development subsidies based on cost and quality of jobs created. Provides for recapture of development subsidies from recipients in default on obligations. Declares emergency, effective on passage. Relating to: Relating to economic development NOTE: The relating clause and title to this bill are the same as HB 3264. Staff Recommendation: Priority 3, Oppose (By Richie Wienman) IGR Committee Vote: Priority 2, Support (2/1, Taylor, Bettman Yes / Pryor, No) L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070514\S0705143.doc (See page 3 of the IGR Meeting Minutes of April 19, 2007.) SJR 32: Proposes amendment to Oregon Constitution to allow revenue from taxes on motor vehicle fuel and ownership, operation or use of motor vehicles to be used for policing of highways. Refers proposed amendment to people for their approval or rejection at next regular general election. Relating to: N/A Staff Recommendation: Priority 2, Oppose (By Eric Jones) IGR Committee Vote: Priority 3, Support with amendments (2/1, Bettman, Pryor Yes / Taylor, No) (See page 5 of the IGR Meeting Minutes of April 19, 2007.) RELATED CITY POLICIES Ratification of IGR Committee actions is the making or affirming of the City of Eugene’s policy with respect to Federal and State legislative issues or such other matters as may come to the council from the committee. COUNCIL OPTIONS The council may ratify or decline to ratify the IGR Committee’s actions as set forth in the minutes of the committee's meeting. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends ratification of the IGR Committee's actions as set forth in the minutes of the committee's meeting and that there be a discussion on the decisions that were not unanimous. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to ratify the IGR Committee's actions as set forth in the minutes of the March 22, 2007, April 5, 2007, April 12, 2007, and April 19, 2007, IGR meetings. Motions to state positions for the bills discussed at this City Council meeting also may be made. ATTACHMENTS A. IGR Committee Minutes of March 22, 2007 B. IGR Committee Minutes of April 5 2007 C. IGR Committee Minutes of April 12, 2007 D. IGR Committee Minutes of April 19, 2007 L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070514\S0705143.doc 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\M070514\S0705143.doc ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon March 22, 2007 Noon PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Chair; Mayor Kitty Piercy (for Betty Taylor), Chris Pryor, members; Mary Walston, Brenda Wilson, Jessica Cross, Randi Zimmer, City Manager's Office; Ellwood Cushman, Eugene Police Department; Fred McVey, Eric Jones, Eric Wold, Kevin Finney, Ron Breitenstein, Lacey Risdal, Public Works Department; Keli Osborn, Kurt Yeiter, Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development Department; Myrnie Daut, Helen Towle, Jamie Iboa, Chuck Solin, Larry Hill, Sue Cutsogeorge, Kristie Hammitt, Central Services Department; Lauren Sommers, City Attorney’s Office. ABSENT: Betty Taylor, member. 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. Ms. Wilson noted the two grants the committee was receiving notice of, which the council had already seen. Ms. Bettman determined that the committee had no questions. 2. Review Pending Legislation HB 3163 Ms. Bettman had no objection to the staff recommendation related to House Bill (HB) 3163, but had questions about the difference between having jurisdiction over driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII) violations and being a court of record. Ms. Hammitt said the bill would require the Municipal Court to become a court of record to maintain jurisdiction over such cases. She said that becoming a court of record was cost-prohibitive and the City lacked the staff resources to support such a court. In addition, she understood that it required registering with the Department of Revenue, which could involve other mandates. The Municipal Court also had not sought court of record status because it did not have many appeals. She did not know the rationale for the bill. Ms. Bettman wanted to know if staff preferred to oppose the bill with amendments related to the mandated nature of the bill. Ms. Hammitt said staff recommended opposition to the bill because the City did not want to lose jurisdiction over its DUII cases. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to oppose the bill with amendment eliminating the mandate related to a court of record if the bill began to move. The motion passed unani- mously, 3:0. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 22, 2007 Page 1 HB 2997 Ms. Bettman supported the bill because it provided for citizen involvement on the front end of a transporta- tion project. She noted that with the exception of Portland, the region was the only one without an Area Committee on Transportation (ACT). She liked ACTs because they provided for citizen involvement on the front end of a project. She had attempted to accomplish same thing through the formation of the Metropoli- tan Planning Organization Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC), but since she had left the Metropolitan Policy Committee its charge had been changed. She termed it a miserable waste of effort. Ms. Bettman moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 1, Support. Ms. Wilson noted that there would be a hearing on the bill the following week. She believed that Lane County was at a disadvantage because it lacked an ACT, and they would soon take on a bigger role through the Connect Oregon process in project prioritization. Mayor Piercy asked about differences in representation on ACTs as opposed to the CAC. Ms. Bettman said that currently, the system was very complicated and it had the potential to disenfranchise people because there was no streamlined way of taking input from throughout the whole region and giving the public access to all the information it needed to give input because it was available only in a piecemeal way. She said that ACTs were regional bodies that included elected officials and stakeholders that streamlined the public process. They ensured information was gathered upfront before priorities were identified. Mr. Jones said not all ACTS were the same and representation varied from district to district and the bill was narrowly focused on the composition of an ACT by stipulating its membership. He determined that Ms. Bettman supported an amendment related to representation from citizen stakeholder groups. He noted that currently, ACT members were appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Jones observed that the bill made reference to a member from the private sector and determined Ms. Bettman favored an amendment related to representation from a modal interest group such as a pedestrian, bicycling, or rail group. Mayor Piercy noted citizen input she had received regarding the importance of having an ACT in Lane County. Mr. Pryor did not want to lose sight of the role that Lane Council of Governments played in transportation planning and wanted to ensure there was a tie between an ACT and that agency. Mr. Jones noted that the bill called for councils of government to be members of ACTs. Given no committee member was available to attend the hearing scheduled on the bill the following week, Ms. Bettman suggested that staff draft a letter to the relevant House committee stating the position of the CCIGR. Ms. Wilson concurred. Ms. Bettman restated the motion with the amendment related to stakeholder groups. It was seconded by Mr. Pryor, and the motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Mayor Piercy anticipated that the full council might want to discuss the City’s position on the bill. SB 521 MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 22, 2007 Page 2 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to take a position of Oppose with an amend- ment to exempt two-way radio communication from the bill. The motion passed unani- mously, 3:0. HB 2841 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mayor Piercy, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 2. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2922 Ms. Bettman asked why the City did not support the bill if it had the potential to increase State revenues. Mr. Hill said it would repeal nine existing tax exemptions and would take the State’s taxable income definition out of compliance with the federal definition. He had not recommended a position of support or oppose because the City lacked a clear legislative policy to support a broad range of legislative approaches to increase State revenues generally as there were many ways it could be increased, but some of those approaches may not be consistent with City policy. He did not feel he had sufficient direction to recommend a position. Mr. Pryor did not know the impact of repealing all the exemptions. He would have to know more about the exemptions in question. Mayor Piercy supported the concept of repealing some tax exemptions but preferred to monitor the bill at this time. Mayor Piercy, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the status of the bill to Monitor. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2945 Mr. Hill reviewed the elements of the bill. He confirmed, in response to a question from Ms. Bettman, that the bill would not impact City revenues coming from the Eugene Water & Electric Board. Ms. Bettman had no objections to the staff recommendation. SJR 27 Ms. Bettman moved to change the status of the bill to Oppose. The motion died for lack of a second. HB 2901 Ms. Cutsogeorge reviewed the elements of the bill, which would change collateralization procedures and requirements for the deposits of public funds. Staff recommended support because it appeared to be a safer approach for local governments. Ms. Bettman deferred to staff but said she did not like the bill because the bank now must have the collateral to back up a transaction. Ms. Cutsogeorge said banks must have 20 percent of the value of the collateral. Nothing was fully collateralized in the current or proposed system. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman about the source of the bill, Ms. Cutsogeorge said the bill was long in the works and was the product of local government working with the Oregon Banking Association. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 22, 2007 Page 3 There was no change to the staff recommendation. SB 1007 Ms. Wilson said that Mr. Holvey did not think his bill on pesticides was going anywhere but it had sparked a discussion. She indicated she would talk with Senator Vicki Walker the next day about the progress the bills might make. Ms. Wilson noted that currently, the committee had no position on the bill. Mr. Finney said that the City was committed to the minimal use of pesticides and employed an integrated pest management process to evaluate opportunities to do so. Time was critical to that method, and his concern about the bill was that it would prevent the City from addressing emergency situations, like a new infestation of false broome in the south hills. By the time the City was able to get approval of its applica- tion, the weed could have gone to seed or the window missed for the most efficacious use of pesticides. He suggested the bill be amended to allowed for such applications through an integrated pest management program (IPM) approved by the State Forester. That would permit the City to submit an annual plan identifying the circumstances under which pesticides would be used and provide for an opportunity for public comment. Ms. Bettman thought that was a reasonable approach. Mr. Pryor concurred. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, move to take a position of Priority 2, Support for SB 1007 with the amendment suggested. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 20 Ms. Bettman appreciated the specificity of the bill as it related to hours of use and the presence of school children. Mr. Wold suggested the City could support the bill if it was amended to distinguish between aerial spray and the spray from mechanical equipment located on the ground that the operator can control like a backpack spray device. He noted the clause related to the submittal of IPM plans and that applied only to backpack spray devices; he would like to see that extended and to include approved habit restoration plans along with IPMs. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to make the status of the bill Priority 1, Sup- port with the amendments outlined by Mr. Wold. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2831 Ms. Sommers said the bill was not clear as to what work performed outside the United States means, it would likely be burdensome for the City to administer in terms of identifying the work done outside the country, and if a contractor violated the requirement the City was required to terminate the contract, leaving it with an unfinished job. Also, the bill may infringe on the power of Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Ms. Bettman asked if the bill was making progress. Ms. Wilson said the bill was not scheduled for a hearing anytime soon, but two members of the Lane County legislative delegation were sponsors. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 22, 2007 Page 4 Mr. Pryor thought the bill would have made more sense in an earlier age when manufacturing was dominant, but it made less sense in an electronic age when many services or products were no longer provided in the United States. He thought the bill well-intentioned but poorly crafted. Mayor Piercy was supportive of the concept underlying the bill but believed it needed work. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to take a position of Priority 2, Monitor, on the bill. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 513 Mr. Breitenstein said that staff member Therese Walch of the Engineering Division had recommended the bill be dropped from further consideration because it had no impact inside the city limits. Mr. McVey said the city had some septic systems but the Department of Environmental Quality paid for inspections. Ms. Bettman suggested the support recommendation be retained because the bill would impact the City. Mr. McVey said the reason to support the bill would be the environmental benefits of monitoring. There was no objection to the staff recommendation. SB 737 Ms. Bettman acknowledged the higher threshold imposed by the bill but she was disturbed to see the staff recommend opposition to a bill that would protect water quality. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mayor Piercy, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 3, Support. Responding to a question from Mr. Pryor, Mr. Breitenstein said the staff recommendation was not related to water quality, but to the proposed approach, which was technical impractical and economically infeasible. There were much better practices and means of controlling cumulative toxins, such as source control. The toxins were present and ubiquitous in the environment and methods of regulation in manufacturing, in disposal, in pre-treatment, and in public education would be a better investment in controlling toxins. Ms. Bettman recalled similar reasons for opposing the bill last time, but without a definitive threshold, none of what Mr. Breitenstein mentioned would happen. She maintained that it was important to draw a line and stop polluting the state’s waterways, which she maintained were horribly polluted. Ms. Wilson said the bill was not scheduled for a hearing. She noted that several bills regarding mixing zones had been introduced this session. Mr. Breitenstein noted the community’s investments in the treatment plant to address capacity and wet weather issues that would cost around $150 million. He said that waste discharge permit renewal process was underway and included a proposed limit on one parameter, temperature, that could cost up to $54 million to address. Mayor Piercy understood Ms. Bettman’s position on water cleanliness and the challenges of dealing with toxins in terms of where and who paid. She was unsure that the bill was the best way to deal with the problem, and was more comfortable with taking a position of monitor. Mr. Pryor agreed he would be more MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 22, 2007 Page 5 comfortable monitoring the bill until there was more clarity about which bill the City should support. Ms. Bettman reiterated her concerns about the costs of pollution and the fact that such a bill came forward during each legislative session but the City failed to support it because of cost. Mayor Piercy asked that the bill be brought back to the committee with more information. Ms. Wilson agreed to do so. Ms. Bettman wanted the information that staff returned with to include the costs of pollution-caused cancer and the loss of aquatic life. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the status of the bill to Monitor, Priority 2, and for staff to return to the committee with more information. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 542 Ms. Bettman and Mayor Piercy expressed support for the bill, which would require a city or county to prepare and review economic impact data before approving or disapproving an application to construct a retail building larger than 100,000 gross square feet. Mr. Nystrom said the bill was not clear as to its intent; if it was intended to affect decision-making, it needed to do more. Currently, it only called for the preparation of information to be read and commented upon by the public. Mr. Nystrom thought the bill was directed at smaller communities because it seemed to assume a one-step process in the decision-making tree. In Eugene such centers could occur through three types of land use processes, and it was difficult to determine where the bill fit in that process. He said the City did not need State law to make regulations related to large retail centers as it had that ability now. He added that the bill had made no progress to this point and had not had a hearing. Ms. Bettman supported the bill because it would ensure for the provision of economic data that the City did not have now. Mayor Piercy noted the bill was specific to superstore retailers. Mr. Nystrom said that staff’s concern was about how the analysis would be used in practice as there was no vehicle for its use in decision-making. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mayor Piercy, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 3, Support. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 706 Ms. Osborn suggested the committee might want to support the bill with amendments related to manufactur- ing responsibility for unredeemable deposits. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the status of the bill to Support with amendments. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 761 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mayor Piercy, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 1. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2730 MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 22, 2007 Page 6 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mayor Piercy, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 1, Oppose. Responding to a question from Mr. Pryor, Ms. Wilson said she did not think the bill was moving. The bill, related to inclusion of land within an urban growth boundary for cities greater than 100,000 in population, was being “lumped” together for discussion by a special work group. Staff was tracking those bills and could return with more information. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 2921 Ms. Bettman indicated her interest in changing the status of the bill to Monitor. Ms. Bettman moved to change the status of the bill to Monitor. The motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Bettman determined from Mr. Yeiter that the bill would facilitate lay representation in land use procedures. Mr. Pryor and Mayor Piercy preferred to retain the position of Support, so there was no change to the staff recommendation. HB 3011 Ms. Bettman wanted to refer the bill to the council as she preferred to take a neutral position. Mr. Yeiter said the bill would mean the City would have to deny annexations that were not directly contiguous to the city if a boundary commission was not in place. The bill would also eliminate streets as a point of contact for establishing contiguity with the city limits. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 2. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0 HB 3012 Mr. Yeiter overviewed the elements of the bill, which would allow cities and special districts to extend any services outside its boundaries if done for another government without it counting as an extraterritorial extension of services. Staff recommended a position of Priority 2, Oppose. Ms. Bettman indicated support for the staff position. SB 507 Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy, Ms. Wilson confirmed that the bill in question, related to the redesignation of marginal lands, was part of the Ballot Measure 37 group of bills and those bills were not moving at this time. She said it was possible they would move individually. There was no change made to the staff recommendation. SB 708 MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 22, 2007 Page 7 Ms. Bettman wanted to make the bill a Priority 1 because she believed it would constrain the City’s ability to do land use planning. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mayor Piercy, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 1. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 739 Ms. Bettman thought the bill had the potential to threaten agricultural land. There was consensus for Ms. Bettman’s recommendation that the committee take a position of Priority 3, Oppose, on the bill. SB 758 Mr. Yeiter said the bill eliminated island annexations and staff felt the City needed to retain that ability. Ms. Bettman asked that the bill be forwarded to the City Council. There was no objection. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 2, Monitor, and to flag the bill for discussion by the council. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 765 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mayor Piercy, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 1. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 17 Ms. Wilson noted Mr. Weinman’s objection to the preemption of local law included in the bill. Ms. Bettman wanted to oppose the bill unless amended to remove the preemption. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the status of the bill to Oppose unless amended. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. The committee then considered the bills related to human resources. SB 321 Ms. Bettman wanted to support the bill, which would modify the definition of nudity as it related to breast- feeding and would require employers to provide paid unpaid time for employees to express milk. Ms. Wilson indicated the bill was dead; it had been referred to a committee in January and had not had a hearing. Mayor Piercy suggested the City take a position of Monitor. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Towle indicated that the staff objection was to the manner in which the accommodation was mandated. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 3, Monitor. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 294 MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 22, 2007 Page 8 Ms. Wilson indicated the bill, related to medical marijuana, was likely dead. Ms. Bettman said her issue with the staff recommendation was due to her belief that medical marijuana had benefits like other medications like Prozac. Medical marijuana should be included in whatever standards applied to the use of medications. Ms. Towle said the City had the ability to work with an employee to accommodate their medications. Where such medications impacted the employee’s job, the City had the ability to address that by reassigning the employee to other duties. Her concern was about legislation that did not allow the City to take medical marijuana into consideration, giving it greater protection than other medications. Ms. Bettman suggested the status of the bill be changed to Monitor. There was no objection. Ms. Towle noted the staff concern about the bill’s potential conflict with federal law, particularly as it regarded the operation of motorized equipment. SB 465 Ms. Wilson said the bill in question was making progress and had passed the Senate. Ms. Towle said her concern was that medical marijuana was specifically referenced in the law where other medications were not, and specifically referenced it without mentioning an employer’s ability to regulate it. She asked if that created a different set of standards and suggested that question be referred to legal counsel. She agreed that medical marijuana should be treated like other medications but the bills that had been introduced to this point did not do that. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the status of the bill to Monitor pending an attorney’s opinion. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2372 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the status of the bill to Monitor. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2808 Ms. Wilson reported that no hearing was scheduled on the bill as yet. The bill would expand the ability of an employer to prohibit the use of medical marijuana in the work place. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the status of the bill to Monitor with direction to the lobbyist to ensure that medical marijuana was treated in the same stan- dardized fashion as other prescription medications. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 423 Ms. Wilson recalled that the committee previously agreed to drop the bill from consideration. Ms. Bettman, seconded by, moved to change the status of the bill to Monitor and to lobby for a bill that standardized the treatment of medical marijuana. The motion passed unani- mously, 3:0. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 22, 2007 Page 9 SB 500 Ms. Bettman wanted to support the bill, which would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Ms. Wilson noted that it had not had a hearing. Neither the League of Oregon Cities nor Association of Oregon Counties was taking a position on the bill. Ms. Towle said she did not know why the City would not support the bill as it regarded basic discrimination. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mayor Piercy, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 2, Support. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Ms. Bettman suggested that the committee’s action would make it easier for the City Council to take a position on its own human rights legislation as it related to gender identity. Mayor Piercy agreed, saying she could point back to the committee’s action. SB 407 Ms. Daut said the bill, which would provide freedom of choice of health care physicians, included an exemption for managed care and therefore it did not apply to the City. Ms. Bettman suggested the committee support the bill because it supported community members. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mayor Piercy, moved to change the status of the bill to Support. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 446 Ms. Wilson indicated the bill, which would require health insurance coverage for infertility, was probably dead. Ms. Bettman wanted to oppose the bill because the procedures in question were expensive and optional. Ms. Daut said the City preferred the legislature defer to voluntary agreements between unions and employers. There were many health insurance mandates introduced during the session and she had asked staff to monitor them rather than oppose them. Mr. Pryor wanted to oppose the bill due to the preemption on home rule. Mr. Pryor suggested the committee continue to monitor the bill given it was unlikely to receive a hearing and not waste staff resources changing its status or the level of effort placed into lobbying it. Ms. Bettman and Mayor Piercy concurred. Mayor Piercy suggested that in some cases, mandates were not a bad thing. SB 486 Ms. Daut noted the similarity of the bill to the previous bill. The committee maintained the staff recommen- dation. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 22, 2007 Page 10 HB 2503 Ms. Wilson said the bill, which would establish a Retired Senior Volunteer Program that permitted people to volunteer their services in exchange for insurance coverage, would likely become a law. Ms. Bettman did not think it appropriate to provide insurance to volunteers as they were not subject to the same hiring and training procedures as employees. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the status of the bill to Oppose. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2700 Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Wilson said the bill, which would require health benefit plans to underwrite the costs of contraception, had passed in the House and was likely to pass in the Senate. Mayor Piercy, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the status of the bill from Moni- tor to Support. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 137 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the status of the bill to Oppose with an amendment to remove the preemption related to the State’s authority over land use mat- ters. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 404 Ms. Bettman questioned the priority assigned to the bill. Ms. Iboa explained that the bill would cost the City a great deal if passed and she felt that active opposition was in order. The committee confirmed the staff recommendation. SB 463 Ms. Iboa explained that bill would expend the period for acceptance or denial of a worker’s compensation claim to 90 days, which she thought would be good, but she did not feel strongly enough about it to make the bill a Priority 2. There was no objection to the staff recommendation. HB 2661 Ms. Iboa said the bill, which would authorize health care providers and health care recipients to enter into dispute resolution agreements, did not affect the City so she recommended it be dropped. There was no objection. HB 2805 Ms. Iboa said she recommended the bill, which would allow the payment of worker’s compensation benefits to injured volunteer search and rescue personnel, be dropped from further consideration because the City was not involved in search and rescue activities. Ms. Bettman wanted to oppose the bill because of the volunteer nature of that service and her belief that volunteers should not be compensated by the public. She thought that people who climbed Mount Hood, for example, should contribute to a fund that paid for the costs of the search and rescue volunteers. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 22, 2007 Page 11 Mr. Solin believed the legislation was proposed because of the special expertise of such volunteers. Mr. Pryor and Mayor Piercy supported the staff recommendation to drop the bill. HB 2370 Mr. Solin was present to discuss the bill, which would transfer all staff functions, powers, and budget of the Office of Emergency Management from the Oregon State Police to the Oregon Military Department. Ms. Wilson recalled that the committee took action on HB 2370-A, which included a clause that prevented the confiscation of firearms during an emergency. Mr. Solin said the Office of Emergency Management was originally part of the governor’s office, but had been moved to the State Police Department. The governor now recommended the shift reflected in the bill. The Office of Emergency Management staff was highly supportive of the move as staff felt the office would be better protected in budget processes and because Oregon was the only state in the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) Region 10 without such a structure. If Oregon had to partner with other FEMA states it might be at a disadvantage because in a major emergency. He said that the Oregon Department of Military was essentially the Oregon National Guard. He said the Police Department objected to the amended version with the prohibition on firearms confiscation as it did not allow them to act as it needed in a state of emergency. Mayor Piercy suggested that fear about the legislation might be concern that the office was not being placed under a more competent authority. Ms. Bettman concluded that the money would be provided by the State but it would be administered by the military. She said she was very opposed to the bill. Mr. Solin said that the head of the office would no longer report to the Oregon State Police but to Adjutant General Reese of the Oregon National Guard. The members of the office would remain civilians. Mayor Piercy asked if anyone opposed the legislation. Mr. Solin said no one opposed it. Ms. Bettman maintained that no one knew about it. She said she had talked to representatives Holvey and Prozanski as well as Sheriff Russ Berger and none were aware of the bill. Ms. Wilson anticipated opposition to HB 2730-A but not to the bill under discussion. Mr. Pryor wanted to retain the status of oppose unless amended to HB 2370-A. However, he supported HB 2370 as he believed the only agency capable of managing things in a significant emergency was the military, and in this case it would be serving as an aid organization rather than an invasion and occupation force. Ms. Bettman asked that the bill be flagged for discussion by the City Council. She continued to object to the bill because of her perception that it transferred State resources to the military and the military did not have a good history in responding to emergencies. She had more faith in the State. Mr. Solin said the bill was specific to the Oregon National Guard. The committee agreed to refer HB 2370 to the City Council. HB 2710 Ms. Wilson said staff was awaiting comment from Public Works staff. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 22, 2007 Page 12 Ms. Bettman perceived the bill as a shift of liability from the design professionals to Public Works staff. Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy, Ms. Wilson said there was no hearing scheduled, and she believed the committee had time to hear from staff before it needed to take a position. Ms. Bettman, with the concurrence of Mayor Piercy and Mr. Pryor, asked that the bill be assigned a position of Monitor at this time. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to forward the committee’s recommendations to the City Council. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. 3. Items from Members and Staff There were no items. 4. Approval of Minutes of March 16, 2007 Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to approve the minutes of March 16, 2007 as amended. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 2 p.m. (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 22, 2007 Page 13 ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon April 5, 2007 1:30 p.m. PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Chair; Mayor Kitty Piercy (for Chris Pryor), Betty Taylor, members; Mary Walston, Brenda Wilson, Jessica Cross, Randi Zimmer, City Manager's Office; Linda Phelps, Bob Lehner, Eugene Police Department; Fred McVey, Eric Jones, Eric Wold, Lee Shoe- maker, Public Works Department; Kurt Yeiter, Nancy Young, Planning and Development Department; Myrnie Daut, Helen Towle, Larry Hill, Sue Cutsogeorge, Glen Svendsen, Jeff Perry, Greg Rikhoff, Karen Hyatt, Central Services Department. ABSENT: Chris Pryor, member. 1. Call to Order and Review Agenda Ms. Bettman called the meeting of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) to order and reviewed the agenda. Mayor Piercy noted that Mr. Pryor was at a meeting at the University of Oregon and would likely be unable to come to the CCIGR meeting. 2. List of National Bike Summit Projects Mr. Shoemaker explained that there was a national and state effort to bring more bicycle funding into Oregon. He said 20 people from Oregon had attended the National Bike Summit in March. He reported that there was a statewide effort to make Oregon the number one destination for bicycle tourism. He reviewed that memorandum entitled Lobbying Efforts on Behalf of Oregon Cities and the short list of bicycle trail projects it included. Ms. Bettman thought it was a great idea. She asked if money procured by the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy and the Portland-based Bicycle Transportation Alliance from the federal government for completion of the riverbank trail system could be used to purchase right-of-way for more trails. Mr. Shoemaker replied that it likely could be used for the rights-of-way. He noted that the City had tried to get some funding for the South Bank Trail a couple of years earlier. Mayor Piercy felt there was a big need to educate the community on how bicycles and cars could share the roads better and this would be a worthy thing to fund. Regarding the agenda, Ms. Taylor asked if there would be a discussion on State Representative Paul Holvey’s request regarding an Area Commission on Transportation (ACT). MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 5, 2007 Page 1 Ms. Bettman suggested that the CCIGR address the issue at this time. Ms. Wilson reported that Rep. Holvey had introduced the bill on the request of smaller communities who felt they did not have a “place at the table.” She said he also apologized for not conducting a survey prior to introducing that bill. She related that he had been visited by Lane County Commissioner Bobby Green, who was not happy about the bill. She said Commissioner Green had the bill pulled and Rep. Holvey now wanted information on what the City of Eugene’s ideas would be on the makeup of the ACT should he try to push this bill forward. Ms. Bettman expressed surprise that Commissioner Green had been able to have the bill pulled. Ms. Wilson explained that Commissioner Green had requested that the legislators pull it off the schedule in order to gather additional information. She noted that having bills pulled for the purpose of gaining more informa- tion was a common occurrence. Ms. Bettman asked what Rep. Holvey was hoping to gain from the council. Ms. Wilson replied that he was asking for a formal letter indicating the council’s ideas for the makeup of an ACT. She noted that Rep. Holvey had indicated that he had spoken with representatives of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and they were interested in the formation of an ACT in this region. Ms. Bettman thought ODOT had its own criteria for creating an ACT. She felt the will of the council would be consistent with the criteria. Mayor Piercy commented that there was a “considerable flap” over this and a “considerable flap about Eugene not playing well in the sandbox.” She said it was having repercussions in other places with other legislators. She related that Commissioner Bill Dwyer had discussed the issue with her and had made it clear how unhappy he was with the council taking any position on an ACT. She said he considered it counter to the council philosophy underlying the position it took in support of having an elected body for the Lane Transit District (LTD) board of directors to then want to get rid of an elected body being in charge of transportation funding, e.g. the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). She stressed that Commissioner Dwyer was not alone in this thinking. She felt there was an underlying current at the legislature that said “if you want to play hardball then we will play hardball with you.” She underscored that a lot of the things that the City did both at the legislative level and the local level had to be in the spirit of cooperation. She averred that if one was going to do something that could be perceived as “sticking your finger in the eye” of government partners, one ought to give them the courtesy of talking to them ahead of taking a position. She said there were conversations “all over the place” in Salem and in Eugene about the intergovernmental relationships and it was affecting some of the bills Eugene would want to see passed. She stressed that how Eugene conducted its relationships with its governmental partners had repercussions. Ms. Bettman said the CCIGR had a bill before it and took a position. For her, it was not exactly which elected officials felt angered by the City’s position, it was what was in the best interest of the community. She believed that statewide what was in the best interest of the community in making “judicious transporta- tion prioritization decisions” would be to have an ACT, instead of having that decision-making authority vested in a small segment of the population. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Jones explained that the County would have a seat on the ACT according to the bill that had been drafted and the MPC, Springfield, and Eugene would appoint representatives to the ACT. He related that all of the other positions on the ACT would be in effect approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Mayor Piercy asked what the advantage was of switching from the current system to an ACT. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 5, 2007 Page 2 Ms. Bettman opined that the situation had been such that the Board of County Commissioners, the MPC, and the former Mayor of Eugene had a “stranglehold on all those transportation decisions.” She reiterated her feeling that the transportation decisions that had been made contributed to Eugene’s backlog of street maintenance and preservation projects. Ms. Bettman recalled that the CCIGR had a unanimous decision on the ACT bill. Ms. Wilson noted that Mayor Piercy had sat in for Ms. Taylor. Ms. Wilson observed that, especially with the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) bill, some bills were in committees with no representation from the Eugene area. She said it did not behoove the City to fight with its partners in Salem because the committees were not likely to care. She recommended resolving differences before going to Salem. In regard to this specific situation, she suggested drafting a letter to Rep. Holvey. She anticipated receiving a copy of a letter to Rep. Holvey from Lane County that was being drafted by the County’s intergovernmental relations manager for Commissioner Green to sign. She had been assured that she would be provided a copy. She thought the City should draft a letter in regard to its position, why the City had taken that position, and how the City saw the formation of the ACT. Ms. Taylor averred that at least one commissioner was in favor of the ACT. Ms. Bettman alleged that one of the issues that had elevated the idea of an ACT had to do with large groups of people coming before the MPC complaining about decisions that had been made. She further alleged that people were not able to give input in the prioritization of projects. She believed that big controversies had developed after decisions had been made because the public did not have an ability to influence the outcome as the decision-making process was “dominated by the MPC which was not a representative body.” She opined that the MPC was not a balanced body in terms of equitability between the jurisdictions. She said when people say Eugene is “not playing well in the sandbox” the representatives of Eugene should counter by averring that the City of Eugene did not have proportional representation on that body. She suggested that this be included in the letter to Rep. Holvey. Mr. Jones asked if it would be satisfactory to point to a solution that was not legislative. He suggested allowing local jurisdictions to come to their own definition of an ACT. He noted that this was how the ACTs had come together throughout Oregon, in that it had not been mandated by law but rather each area had used whatever mix of people and process within certain constraints that ODOT sets to form an ACT. Ms. Bettman asked if Mr. Jones was suggesting that the CCIGR support Rep. Holvey’s withdrawal of the bill permanently. Ms. Wilson offered to speak with Lane County about this idea. Mayor Piercy observed that the City had not introduced this piece of legislation; it had been proposed by a legislator and not on behalf of the City of Eugene. She doubted the bill would go anywhere. She thought that on one hand the CCIGR could decide it was important enough to weigh in on, but she felt that what was being proposed was to express Eugene’s interest in a discussion with its community partners about the possibility of an ACT in the future. Ms. Wilson related that Rep. Holvey seemed uncertain whether he could bring the bill forward, but he was not yet willing to give it up. She asked Ms. Bettman if she would be willing to meet with Rep. Holvey. She noted that he had already met with Commissioner Green. Ms. Bettman indicated that she wanted to meet with Rep. Holvey. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 5, 2007 Page 3 In response to a follow-up question, Ms. Wilson said there was a lot of pushing at the legislative level. She reiterated that it was important not to fight with regional partners in the halls of Salem. Mayor Piercy added that to the extent it was known that a major issue was coming up that involved the regional partners it was important to let them know what the City thought about it ahead of time. Ms. Bettman expressed concern regarding logistics in that the City did not know how it would feel about a particular issue until it had been discussed. She felt that no one gave the City of Eugene a “heads up” about certain issues. Mayor Piercy averred that she preferred to model good behavior. Ms. Bettman questioned whether it was possible to find a way to model good behavior “that is useful.” Ms. Bettman opined that the City did not “engage in the kind of bashing that goes on at Board of County Commissioner meetings when the subject of the City of Eugene comes up.” 3. Review Pending Legislation SB 5536 Ms. Phelps explained that the regional training program had closed in deference to the state law that was changed to require that all of the training for new recruits had to take place at the Department of Public Safety and Standards Training (DPSST) facility. She said it was “incredibly important” to the Eugene Police Department (EPD) that the DPSST budget not be reduced because that could mean that there might not be a place to train the City’s recruits. She noted that the Oregon State Police (OSP) had begun a massive recruitment process which would significantly impact the capacity of the DPSST. Ms. Wilson said staff would like to submit testimony in support of the proposed budget that was reflected in the Senate Bill (SB) 5536 without the cuts. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to support the bill at the staff recommenda- tion which was Priority 2. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2105-A Ms. Bettman asked how the bill impacted the regulation of contaminated fill and whether it diminished regulation. Mr. Wold replied that the bill did not change the existing regulation. He said it would modify the existing price structure for how much it cost to submit a permit application. He added that the amendment authorized the Department of State Lands (DSL) to establish a new type of permit called a general permit for projects that had either a small or no impact. Ms. Bettman surmised that the DSL was making it simpler to get the permits. She repeated her question on whether any regulatory oversight had been lost. Mr. Wold reiterated that none had been lost. The staff recommendation to give the bill a Priority 3 Support status stood. HB 2106-A In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Wold explained that for an applicant who was submitting MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 5, 2007 Page 4 a wetland delineation, the bill placed a 120-day timeframe on the DSL to either accept or reject the findings of the report. Ms. Bettman asked what would happen if the DSL did not meet the 120-day time limit. Mr. Wold replied that 120 days was adequate for DSL to review and that it was also fair timeframe for an applicant to wait that long. He noted that at this time there was no timeframe and reports were reviewed on an ‘as needed’ basis as the DSL was shorthanded. He stated that currently the DSL only reviewed wetland delineation reports associated with a development project, a restoration project, or other specific projects. He said the bill would allow the DSL to review delineation reports that come in submitted by a property owner who just wanted the information. The staff recommendation to give the bill a Priority 3 Support status stood. SB 966 Ms. Bettman noted that there were two recommendations for the bill. She preferred to adopt a Priority 1 Support stance. Ms. Taylor was amenable to this. Mayor Piercy asked if Ms. Wilson had discussed placing an amendment on the bill in regard to prescribed fires. Ms. Wilson affirmed that she had discussed it with Rep. Holvey and he did not see a problem with that amendment. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to adopt a Priority 1 Support stance on SB 966. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2251 Ms. Bettman wondered if the priority should be increased to a Priority 2. Ms. Wilson replied that the bill had already moved out of its first committee and was on its way to the Ways and Means Committee. Ms. Bettman ascertained from Ms. Wilson that it would not be necessary to change the priority at this time. HB 2019 Ms. Bettman asked if the bill had “any legs” and whether the CCIGR should oppose the bill with the amendment to remove the caps. Ms. Wilson responded that the bill had not had a hearing at this point. Ms. Bettman determined that no further action was needed at this time. HB 2010 Ms. Taylor thought the CCIGR should change the recommendation to Support. Ms. Bettman said the bill sounded like it removed any obligation for a 20-year buildable land supply. Mr. Yeiter explained that parts of the bill would take away the 20-year supply requirement until the year 2010. He said the reason staff had recommended opposing the bill because of the very restrictive require- ment that the City not be allowed to expand onto adequate or good farmland in the Willamette Valley. He stated that the requirement did not mesh well with other statutes about urban growth boundary (UGB) expansion in regard to how the City would decide upon such expansion. He noted that it was also unclear about what the City would do in the case of not being able to find land to expand on. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 5, 2007 Page 5 Ms. Taylor averred that it was very important to protect the farmland. Mayor Piercy wondered if the bill should be monitored. She asked what kind of changes the other members of the CCIGR would want to see in the language in order to keep “the good stuff” while retaining some flexibility. Ms. Bettman echoed Ms. Taylor’s comments. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the recommendation to Priority 2 Support. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Wilson stated that the hearing on this bill would be on April 11. Mr. Yeiter commented that perhaps the reason there was a postponement of the 20-year land supply was that Rep. Barnhart hoped to resolve that situation. He underscored that the City of Eugene had ridgelines and forestlands, agricultural lands, or rivers and aggregate resources constraining growth; so long as Eugene needed to keep accommodating its growth in a certain fashion, something would have to occasionally give. HB 2025 Ms. Taylor asked why the staff recommendation was to oppose the bill. Mr. Yeiter replied that he had recommended a Priority 3 Oppose stance because he did not believe it affected current agreements wherein an annexation agreement was required before connection was made to city sewers. He thought there may be conditions in which some urban services, such as the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) or wastewater services, were provided outside the city limits and the flexibility to require an annexation agreement prior to renewing the contract or extending services would be beneficial. He felt the bill would restrict the City’s ability to require an annexation. Ms. Bettman said it seemed to her that the bill might affect the City’s ability to require a developer to become annexed when applying for a permit. Mr. Yeiter responded that he had interpreted the bill as pertaining to places where a service was already provided in that the City could not pull the service or add an annexation requirement even in the case of a service that had been discontinued for up to 30 days. Ms. Wilson stated that the bill was one of 12 bills that had been taken up by a work group so none of the bills would move until the work group was done with them. Ms. Taylor preferred to monitor the bill or to take a neutral stance. She did not think there was a point in opposing something that seemed to be protecting the rights of people who opposed annexation. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the recommendation to Monitor instead of Priority 3 Oppose. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 3014 Ms. Wilson stated that this was not one of the bills that the work group was addressing. Ms. Bettman did not understand why the recommendation had a Priority 2. Mr. Yeiter explained that the bill provided a funding source for technical assistance for people trying to incorporate or consolidate areas MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 5, 2007 Page 6 into the city. He said given the discontent, particularly in the River Road/Santa Clara areas, and the fragmented development patterns, it would be good if there was a funding source available for the City to pursue in order to provide a means of bringing people together such as facilitation or mediation. Ms. Bettman asked if the bill applied to a situation in which an unincorporated area, such as Santa Clara, wanted to become a city. Mr. Yeiter replied that it potentially could apply in that situation. Ms. Bettman questioned why funding would be provided for something she averred was inconsistent with Eugene’s legislative policies. Mr. Yeiter responded that the Metro Plan allowed for the River Road area and Santa Clara to become their own cities, but potential attempts to do so had failed thus far. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the position on the bill to Priority 2 Monitor. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 3304 Ms. Wilson stated that this was one of the bills to be taken up by the aforementioned work group. Mr. Yeiter said the bill would allow a vote to be taken if a city wanted to annex an island of unincorporated properties. He related that the current law was not stated clearly and different cities had interpreted it differently. He explained that staff recommended opposition to it because it ran against council policy by precluding methods of consolidating areas inside the UGB. Ms. Wilson noted that representatives of Eugene were on the work group that was addressing all of the annexation bills. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mayor Piercy, moved to change the recommended stance on the bill to Monitor. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 3343 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the recommended stance on the bill from Priority 1 Monitor to Priority 1 Oppose. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Mr. Yeiter related that the Bethel School District owned property outside of the UGB and taking a position to oppose the bill could place the City of Eugene in opposition to one of its school districts. Ms. Bettman responded that there was a process that the school district could utilize to get an exception in order to build a school on the property. Mayor Piercy said it was important that the City’s opposition not be construed as being in opposition to the Bethel School District. She averred that the process that was in place was adequate and would address the school district’s need to build a school on that property. Ms. Wilson noted that there was a hearing on the bill on the following day and asked if the CCIGR would like her to speak on behalf of the City. Ms. Bettman said it would be good if Ms. Wilson would speak to the bill and also emphasize that Eugene had supported funding for the Bethel School district. HB 3371 Ms. Wilson stated that this bill was not one of the bills being taken up by the work group. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 5, 2007 Page 7 Ms. Bettman said it seemed to her that it was “overkill” to have home occupations accessible only by private rights of way handled at the state level. She thought it should be a local decision. Ms. Bettman noted that the staff recommendation had been to Drop the bill. Mr. Yeiter responded that if the bill passed the City could accommodate it; it was a matter of where to put the City’s lobbying energies. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the stance on the bill to Priority 3 Support. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB3410 Ms. Wilson indicated that this was also one of the bills that had been taken up by the work group. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mayor Piercy, moved to change the status of the bill to Monitor. The motion passed, 2:1; Ms. Bettman dissenting. Ms. Bettman indicated that she had supported the staff recommendation which was to take a Priority 2 Oppose position. HB 3436 Mr. Yeiter stated that the bill specified that if there was not a coordinated population projection from the County, jurisdictions could straight-line the populations out. Ms. Bettman averred that this would be planning for the future while “looking in the rearview mirror.” She asked why staff recommended supporting the bill. Mr. Yeiter explained that as the Metro Plan aged and given that the land use was tied to the official adopted population that was included in the Metro Plan. He said primarily utilities needed to plan further into the future. He related that utilities such as EWEB and the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) needed to plan further into the future in order to get grants and make plans for adequate facilities to meet future need. It did not make sense to Ms. Bettman because she felt EWEB had access to the same Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) data that the City of Eugene did. She thought projections based on more accurate data would better suit the public’s interest. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt a Priority 3 Oppose stance toward HB 3436. Ms. Piercy asked Mr. Yeiter why he thought the bill was reasonable to support. Mr. Yeiter replied that the countywide coordinator’s population projections might not be updated enough or go out far enough for some jurisdictions planning purposes. Ms. Piercy asked what the jurisdictions would do if the bill did not gain support. Ms. Bettman responded that jurisdictions would have to “purchase information from LCOG just like everybody else.” MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 5, 2007 Page 8 Mr. Yeiter noted that LCOG often straight-lined things out. He said the coordinated population projections had begun with the Office of Economic Opportunity. He related that the State made very detailed projections over time and then LCOG utilized this information as a starting point. He stated that the original Metro Plan had been formulated with low and high straight-line projections. He conveyed staff’s position which was that anything over ten years was inaccurate. Mayor Piercy said it did not seem like a very important bill. She questioned why the CCIGR did not just drop it. Ms. Bettman replied that she thought it was important in that it was a bad idea to base population projections on which planning was then based on something “as inaccurate” as a trajectory. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, withdrew her motion to Oppose and changed it to adopt a Drop stance on the bill. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 3446 Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mayor Piercy, moved to change the status of the bill to Monitor. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 3462 Mr. Yeiter explained that the bill made it permissive for the 20-year supply of buildable lands but it did not say how the cities would be expected to satisfy the state goals of providing housing. He noted that it was supported by the Farm Bureau because it sought to constrain UGB expansion. He related that the bill also said if the UGB was expanded to accommodate population-based schools, waste treatment, wetland mitigations, parks, playgrounds, and areas for reclaimed water must be included. He said the MWMC would be able to use reclaimed water for an agricultural use, as an example, or the City could purchase and improve parks outside the UGB to serve its population. Ms. Taylor thought the bill would limit expansion. Mr. Yeiter said the bill could provide higher densities within the urbanized area. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Wilson indicated that the bill had not had a hearing. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to Monitor the bill. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 795 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the stance on HB 795 from Prior- ity 3 Support to Priority 2 Support. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 827 Ms. Wilson reported that the bill had already had a hearing. She said it looked like the bill would be worked on further. Ms. Bettman stated that the City had a policy that said the developers pay for providing the cost of providing capacity for new development and not the taxpayers. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 5, 2007 Page 9 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt a status of Priority 2 Oppose for the bill. Mayor Piercy asked for staff comment. Mr. Yeiter said if there was a developer proposing an expansion of the UGB it would be easy to state that the City would not provide the trunk line and to direct the developer to put it in. However, in the case in which the City was planning in the future to accommodate population growth, the UGB was going to be expanded, and the City was planning an area for many properties prior to any development proposals, instead of waiting to collect enough Systems Development Charges (SDCs) from development elsewhere to allow utilities to be extended, the bill would allow a loan to where the City could provide utilities and the developers as incrementally as they developed would pay it back. Ms. Bettman asserted that passage of the bill would result in an explosion of UGB expansions. Mr. Yeiter cited the trunk line that the City needed to put into the Royal Node so that the incremental development could occur per the master plan as an example of infrastructure that would benefit from such a revolving loan fund. Ms. Bettman countered that it would remove an obstacle to expansion of the UGB. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 1019 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mayor Piercy, moved to change the Priority 2 Support stance to a Priority 1 Support stance on SB 1019. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Ms. Wilson noted that SB 1019 would have its first hearing on April 9. SB 1011 Ms. Bettman asked how the bill modified the process for designating urban reserves. She recalled that the City had vacated an urban reserve approximately six years earlier. Mr. Yeiter responded that the City had two big urban reserves and then the State had created a procedure for designating urban reserves and Eugene’s no longer conformed to the State’s requisites. He said when the City of Eugene had undertaken its housekeeping measures it had taken the urban reserves off. He felt the goal of providing a “sustainable and complete community” was a laudable goal but within the context of the bill it was ill-defined. He saw the bill as a source for appeals. In response to a follow-up question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Yeiter explained that the bill indicated that it referred to a Metropolitan Service District and Portland was the only area that qualified as such a thing. He noted that the bill referred to counties and the Metropolitan Service District, but to his knowledge a county could not provide urban services. Ms. Wilson stated that the bill had not had a hearing. Ms. Bettman indicated she would not pose a motion to change the status from Priority 3 Monitor. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 5, 2007 Page 10 HB 2891 Ms. Bettman questioned why staff had made the decision to adopt a position of Priority 3 Oppose. Ms. Towle explained that it had been reviewed by the League of Oregon Cities (LOC) committee that she sat on and the committee had taken the position to oppose it. She said the main issue was that there was a long- standing tradition in certifying a labor union of having an anonymous election. She related that the bill would change that long-standing principle that the process to certify a union should not be able to be influenced by the employer or the union. She noted that it was supported by the AFL-CIO but she was uncertain why. Mayor Piercy asked if Ms. Towle thought the bill was important to oppose. Ms. Towle replied that it would not likely impact the City. Ms. Wilson noted that the LOC would be testifying in opposition to the bill on April 9. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mayor Piercy, moved to change the status of the bill to Drop. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 690 Ms. Bettman felt the bill singled out medical marijuana among the other prescription medications employees could be taking. Ms. Towle said she had consulted the City Attorney but had not heard back at this point. She assured her that protection provided to someone who used a medication did not come from which medication a person was taken, rather it came from the underlying condition. Ms. Bettman observed that an employee would be required to notify the employer when he or she was going to consume the medical marijuana. Ms. Towle replied that the concern had to do with safety. She underscored that Eugene had a city policy and all of the labor agreements included a requirement that any employee inform the City if he or she was taking any medication that could potentially impact his or her work. She said the employee in question and his or her medical needs would be assessed by staff in order to determine whether the person should be given modified duty. Ms. Bettman asked if someone who consumed marijuana for a medical condition would have to knock on his or her supervisor’s door and ask to be able to “smoke a joint.” Ms. Towle responded that it was a one-time notice. Ms. Bettman asked why the bill called out medical marijuana specifically. Ms. Towle explained that it was due to a “reverse concern” as there was a bill that authorized medical marijuana and some were concerned that medical marijuana use was now more protected than other prescription medications. Mayor Piercy said she wanted a legal opinion in order to ensure that the bill was not trying to make it more arduous for that particular population. Ms. Towle reiterated that staff’s position was that medical marijuana should be treated the same as other drugs. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt a Priority 2 Monitor stance on the bill. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 3370 Ms. Taylor wanted to change the stance to Neutral. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 5, 2007 Page 11 Mr. Hill stated that his recommendation to adopt a Priority 3 Neutral stance on the bill was based on the financial impact of the bill. He deferred to Mr. Cushman in regard to the beneficial impact of financing drug, alcohol, and mental health treatment services provided as part of the drug court program. Mr. Cushman had recommended adopting a Priority 3 Support position. He stated that the City would be held harmless. Ms. Bettman ascertained that there was no support to change the recommendation to something other than Priority 3 Support and the recommendation stood. HB 2471 Ms. Bettman asked why the bill had been given a Priority 2. Ms. Young replied that the bill would relieve the City from having to license tobacco vendors and it would also increase the enforcement piece. Mayor Piercy thought it was worthy. The committee maintained staff’s recommendation. HB 3082 Ms. Bettman noted with concern that at present an ordinance establishing county registration fees had to be voted on by the electors and HB 3082 would change this requirement. She thought it was good for electors to have to vote on such fees because the County had to make a case for what the money would be spent on and the community would weigh in. Mr. Jones pointed out that there was no requirement that prevented the County from holding a vote. Mayor Piercy liked the amendment to the bill. Mr. Jones agreed, noting that there was a previous bill that the City had supported. He hoped that if any county vehicle registration piece moved, the part around clarifying the distribution to the cities would be cleaned up. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Jones said the County could follow the state law and give the city share of money from a county vehicle registration fee to the City of Springfield as it would satisfy the legal requirement to give 40 percent of the money to cities. He did not believe that was the intent of the law, however. Ms. Bettman wondered why the CCIGR did not wish to indicate that it supported the bill with the amendment that the City would receive a proportional share of the revenue that would be raised by the increase in registration fees. Ms. Bettman moved to adopt a Priority 2 Oppose position on this bill unless it had an amendment that would distribute the revenue proportionately based on population. Ms. Bettman asserted that at present the City of Eugene received some of the County Road Fund but it was constrained and dedicated to a project “ that had nothing to do with what the City’s priorities” were. Mayor Piercy remarked that she would support it as written. Ms. Taylor provided a second to the motion. The motion passed, 2:1; Mayor Piercy dis- senting. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 5, 2007 Page 12 HB 3265 In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Cutsogeorge affirmed that staff hoped the bill would get a “gut and stuff.” Ms. Bettman ascertained that there was no objection to changing the status from a Priority 3 Monitor to a Priority 2 Monitor. SB 596 Ms. Bettman thought the bill allowed a contracting agency to constrain competition to small businesses but it did not mandate. She thought the CCIGR might want to support it. Mr. Perry remarked that he was neutral on the bill. He said it was similar to HB 2557. Ms. Bettman likened the bill to affirmative action for small businesses. Mayor Piercy preferred to remain neutral. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt a Neutral stance to the bill. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 3251 Ms. Phelps explained that the bill would provide a grant process to be funded from the State and operated through the regional Public Safety Coordinating Councils (PSCC). She believed it would be a way to fund local issues that affect all of law enforcement. She said it appealed to the EPD because it encouraged cooperation and coordination between all of the law enforcement partners instead of competition between them. Mayor Piercy asked if the bill had come out of this area. Ms. Phelps responded that Eugene had been a leader in the State in collaborative planning issues. Ms. Bettman observed that State Representative Nathanson had served on the PSCC on behalf of the City Council. She said she had served on the council for seven years and had little understanding of what the PSCC did. She felt public safety was one of the areas that Eugene was “extraordinarily collaborative.” She averred that the bill would grant budgeting authority to an entity that was “self-selected.” Ms. Phelps stated that the law that governed regional PSCCs designated where the representatives come from. She explained that the membership included laypeople, public people, schools, different law enforcement bodies including the sheriff, EPD, and the Oregon State Police, representatives of various juvenile justice programs and county programs. She related, in order to provide some background information, that the federal programs that provided grants for local law enforcement had almost disap- peared because they had been “scooped up” and replaced with programs that had to do with post 9/11 issues, such as grants for Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team type programs. She said EPD did not have the opportunities to apply for grant monies to undertake local and regional projects. Mayor Piercy observed that there was a good list of supporters for the bill and there was local interest in it. She said it would be up to the Committee on Ways and Means if there was money to be given out. She underscored that the bill would only set the program up so that if there was money there would be a MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 5, 2007 Page 13 framework to allocate the grants with. She indicated her support for the bill. Ms. Taylor thought the organization that administered the grants was “superfluous.” Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt a Priority 3 Monitor stance on the bill. The motion passed, 2:1; Mayor Piercy voting in opposition. Ms. Bettman wanted to see where the money would come from. She thought it would be appropriate for the PSCC to create a list of criteria by which grants were spent, but she would rather get money for EPD than for the PSCC. Ms. Bettman asked Ms. Phelps if she could provide her with a short list of “something positive” the PSCC had accomplished. Ms. Phelps replied that the PSCC had conducted a project over the last couple of years that was a comparison of the effectiveness of different law enforcement programs. She said it had been one of the most helpful ways to compare all of the different components in the law enforcement system. She related that another project the PSCC had undertaken was a comprehensive study that the local police commission had been involved with on Failure to Appear cases and the costs to local jurisdictions on those kinds of inter-jurisdictional problems. Ms. Taylor averred that the PSCC employed some people who would not have jobs without it. Ms. Wilson stated that although Rep. Nathanson might want to directly provide funds to EPD she could not do that as the funding from the General Fund had to go through some sort of vehicle, in this case the PSCC. She felt Rep. Nathanson was trying to get money to the local communities and this was one way to provide funds to the local governments. Ms. Taylor said she was on the PSCC briefly and she was not convinced it was a worthwhile organization. Ms. Bettman did not believe the PSCC was a “well-balanced” body. She felt the bill would give the PSCC authority to make budget decisions, to receive money on behalf of jurisdictions, and to make decisions on how that money was to be spent without parameters around it in terms of what it would be spent on. HB 2992 In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Wilson stated that HB 2992 had gone to a hearing earlier in the day. Ms. Bettman asked if this meant that the staff position had been advocated without having been reviewed. Ms. Wilson replied that it had not been advocated. Mr. Jones added that staff was holding a letter indicating the staff position pending the disposition of the CCIGR. Ms. Wilson explained that the bill would allow the division of a parcel of land into two pieces if one of the pieces would be sold to a government entity that would use it as a park. Ms. Bettman surmised that the other piece could be developed. She felt that if the other piece was wetlands, forest land, or farm land the owner of the property could circumvent requirements by selling one piece as park land and then develop the other piece. Ms. Wilson responded that she did not believe this was so. She understood, from discussions with Mr. Wold, that previous development restrictions would still apply to the remaining portion of the lot. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 5, 2007 Page 14 Ms. Bettman requested further clarification regarding the potential ramifications of the bill. She did not feel she understood the bill well enough to take a position. Mayor Piercy averred that given that she and Ms. Taylor supported the bill if the other half of the property would in fact be unchanged, staff could feel supported in its Priority 2 Support stance. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt a Priority 2 Monitor stance on the bill. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. 3. Items from Members and Staff Meetings were scheduled for noon on April 12, April 19, and April 26. The CCIGR tentatively decided to meet on May 8 as well. 4. Approval of Minutes of March 22, 2007 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to approve the minutes of March 22, 2007, as amended. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved approval of staff recommendations for the bills that were not pulled for discussion and as indicated by the membership of the CCIGR for the bills that were pulled for discussion. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. The meeting adjourned at 3:32 p.m. (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 5, 2007 Page 15 ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon April 12, 2007 Noon PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Chair; Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, members; Mary Walston, Brenda Wilson, Jessica Cross, Randi Zimmer, Mary Feldman, City Manager's Office; Ellwood Cushman, Kristi Wilde, Eugene Police Department; Eric Jones, Lacey Risdal, David Breitenstein, Steve Gallup, Public Works Department; Nancy Young, Stuart Ramsing, Planning and Develop- ment Department; Myrnie Daut, Larry Hill, Sue Cutsogeorge, Glen Svendsen, Jeff Perry, Greg Rikhoff, Karen Hyatt, Char Mauch, Central Services Department; Glen Potter, Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department; Jerry Lidz, City Attorney. 1. Call to Order and Review Agenda Ms. Bettman called the meeting of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) to order at 12:03 p.m. and reviewed the agenda. 2. Review Pending Legislation HB 2872 Mr. Cushman explained that the bill was one of those intended to govern cell phone use while driving. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to oppose the bill unless it was amended to exclude two-way radios. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 810 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to accept the staff recommendation to take a Priority 3 Support stance on the bill. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 3106 In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Cushman stated that the potential negative impact to the City of Eugene included that it might create a situation in which the Department of Public Safety Standards and Training (DPSST) would not be able to provide all of the basic police training it was committed to providing when Eugene had to give up its academy and go there. He said any mandate for additional training on DPSST would exacerbate the budget problem. He related that he had looked into the training curriculum and it appeared that about 24 hours of training would fit into what the bill addressed. He believed that it would be like a 16-hour expansion, meaning that it would either cut 16 hours out of another curriculum area to accommodate it or they would have to lengthen the academy at an additional cost. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 12, 2007 Page 1 Ms. Taylor said she would prefer to monitor the bill rather than oppose it. She asked if there was another bill that related to the DPSST. Mr. Cushman replied that there was not another bill on this particular subject. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Wilson indicated she would find out why the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) was involved. Ms. Bettman felt there was a lot of community support for more training. She wanted to support the bill. She suggested the CCIGR adopt a Priority 3 Support stance with a proposed amendment to hold the rest of the training harmless. Ms. Wilson stated that the bill could not be amended at this point, but there was a separate bill that addressed the potential cut in training. She thought the two bills could be “used against each other.” Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to adopt a Priority 2 Monitor stance with the understanding that the City supported the training but it did not want to shift resources. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 3295 Mr. Hill stated that currently there was a state program for the deferral of property taxes for seniors and/or disabled people. He said the program allowed for complete deferral of property taxes for people who were eligible, with property taxes paid by the State out of a revolving fund. He related that when the senior or disabled person left the home or the home was sold property taxes would be recovered as a lien against the property. He explained that the bill in question would leave the program intact but would create a program that was an outright exemption which would mean it would be a straight loss of property tax revenue. He noted that the legislative policies document had a strong statement in opposition to additional tax exemptions that injure local tax jurisdictions. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to monitor the bill. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2795 Mr. Perry thought the bill was a “clean up” that would allow the Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) to access wage survey data. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt a Priority 3 Support stance. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 725 Mr. Ramsing reported that the way the bill was drafted it would give BOLI the authority to address fair housing complaints, the definition of which would be expanded. He was somewhat concerned as it would now include construction. He stated that with the bill BOLI would not collect Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) monies. He said the concern lay in that BOLI could take complaints that came to its attention and would delegate the investigation to the local jurisdictions, though the HUD money would remain at the level of BOLI. He stressed that staff was not concerned with the fair housing aspect of the bill, they just opposed the method by which it was being delegated to the local jurisdictions. He noted that MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 12, 2007 Page 2 BOLI indicated that it was not the intention to set this up in this way, but BOLI was being intentional in chasing HUD dollars. Ms. Bettman observed that the bill had “quite a list of sponsors.” Ms. Hyatt related that the Human Rights Program supported a prohibition on discrimination in housing, but this bill had seemed inconsistent to them. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to adopt a Priority 2 Monitor stance. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 813 Mr. Breitenstein stated that the bill sought to regulate non-point source pollution by adding a surcharge to point source dischargers, which would be, in the City’s case, both the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS-4) stormwater discharge permit and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDS) waste discharge permit that the wastewater treatment plant had in order to provide money for the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to regulate non-point source pollution. He believed that non- point source pollution was one of the biggest contributing factors to the impairment of the water quality. He noted that the most significant contributions of non-point source pollution were from agriculture and forestry practices. He thought this bill provided a subsidy which would affect ratepayers in this area by adding an extra charge on their bills. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to monitor the bill. Mr. Pryor averred that he was willing to support monitoring the bill but it seemed to him that someone wanted money. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 111 Mr. Cushman said the biggest concern lay in that the bill would make grand jury transcripts of proceedings that involved a police officer’s use of deadly force accessible to anyone. He averred that there was reason people who served on grand juries remained anonymous. He also thought if people knew their words would end up in the paper they would be more guarded about the way they would speak. Ms. Bettman said the plan would be adopted by the local jurisdictions. She thought the bill provided a standardized approach to “these kinds of extreme circumstances” and that was appropriate in this situation. She agreed that the bill should be amended so that transcripts would not be made public, though the findings would still be published. Ms. Wilson stated that the bill would have a fiscal impact. She noted that it the bill had a hearing but it still needed to go to the Ways and Means Committee. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to oppose the bill unless it was amended so that the transcripts would not be made public, but the findings would be published. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 12, 2007 Page 3 HB 2819 Mr. Cushman believed that the bill would not fly as it was written. He said it was a very broad exemption to the advisement requirement. He noted the department’s desire to waive the requirement for in-car videos specifically. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the position on the bill to Oppose. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2865 Mr. Cushman stated that the bill was written with the intent to bolster impaired driving enforcement, but it was badly written and contained some unintended consequences. He opposed the bill as written. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the recommended stance on the bill to Oppose unless amended. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2874 Mr. Cushman explained that the bill required the Attorney General to take charge of the investigation or prosecution of any death caused by a police officer in the line of duty. He said it was an unfunded mandate. He stated that what would make sense in terms of standardizing the situation would be to have the Attorney General’s office review every investigation. He felt this would ensure a thorough and objective investigation had been undertaken and that there would be some consistency in how they were handled. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the recommended stance on the bill to Monitor. Ms. Bettman averred that at this point the Lane County District Attorney oversaw such investigations. Mr. Cushman affirmed that statutorily the District Attorney’s office of each county was charged with the responsibility of those types of death investigations. Ms. Bettman asserted that there was much overlap between the Eugene Police Department (EPD) and the Lane County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) that it was “very much like having the police monitoring their own investigations.” The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2890 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to adopt the staff’s position that the bill be a Priority 3 Support with the amendment that would reduce possession of a handcuff key by someone with prior convictions to a misdemeanor. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2934 Ms. Bettman supported the underlying objective of the bill though she did not support this specific bill. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to take an Oppose stance against the bill MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 12, 2007 Page 4 unless it included the following three amendments: 1. Amend to grandfather in existing civilian oversight systems. 2. Amend to remove the provision that allows any member to subpoena and make it only possible if the majority of the review board supported it. 3. Amend it so that the protocol for criminal allegations would be modified – at pre- sent criminal allegations were forwarded and this could jeopardize the criminal in- vestigation. Mr. Pryor could not support the amendments as he felt this was a local control issue and that the State should not dictate to other cities and counties to do this. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pryor dissenting. HB 3176 Mr. Cushman stated that the EPD supported the concept behind the bill but that it was pretty broad. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to adopt the recommended stance of Priority 3 Support, with an amendment to limit the authority granted by the bill (to obtain the informa- tion without going through a subpoena process) were narrowed to include only situations where there were exigent circumstances. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 3240 Ms. Taylor moved to adopt an Oppose stance. The motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to Drop the bill. The motion passed unani- mously, 3:0. HB 3272 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to Drop the bill. The motion passed unani- mously, 3:0. HB 3299 Mr. Cushman explained that the bill would exclude marijuana that was not dried. EPD staff thought this would allow for a person to have a large quantity of marijuana plants as long as he or she had a medical marijuana card and the plants were not dried. Ms. Wilson noted that the bill was not going anywhere. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to Monitor the bill. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 3313 Ms. Bettman asked if the County was the only entity that dealt with decontamination of properties on which drugs had been manufactured. She thought the City might want to support an expansion of the bill so that Eugene also received some of the money from a lien on a property in that circumstance. Mr. Cushman responded that he would find out whether Eugene staff engaged in contamination clean-up activities of this MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 12, 2007 Page 5 kind. Ms. Bettman suggested that the CCIGR defer the discussion of the bill until this information had been determined. The committee was amendable to deferring its discussion of HB 3313. HB 2628 In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Risdal stated that the City did not have too many mercury vapor light fixtures left. She said the main issue that the Public Works Department had with the bill had to do with public safety. Ms. Bettman surmised that the bill tried to reduce the use of the mercury vapor lights. She felt a reduction in mercury overall would be a “good thing.” She asked if the City could support the bill and lobby for keeping a safer type of light on in a park after 11 p.m. Ms. Risdal replied that one of the amendments suggested by Mr. Jones was to exclude jogging paths and off-street bicycle paths. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the stance to Priority 2 Support with the following amendments, as recommended by staff: 1. Section 2, Subsection 2: Amend (d) so that fixtures on bicycle paths and jogging paths would be exempted from the requirement to be equipped with an automatic shutoff device that would prevent operation of the fixture between 11:00 p.m. and sunrise. 2. Section 2, Subsection 3: Amend (a), (Excluding) lighting fixtures on property owned or operated by the United States, to include State, County and City owned properties. 3. Amend (b), lighting needed for the safe operation of navigation of aircraft or ships, to include onstreet and offstreet bicycle paths, pedestrian paths, and jogging trails. Ms. Wilson noted that the bill was not moving. Ms. Bettman asked Ms. Wilson if she would recommend opposing the bill unless it was amended. Ms. Wilson indicated that she would. Ms. Bettman moved to adopt a Priority 2 Oppose stance with the aforementioned amend- ments. Mr. Pryor asked if it was known whether private businesses and residences used the mercury vapor light fixtures. Mr. Cushman responded that this was part of the problem with the bill; it was just not very clear. Ms. Bettman asserted that everyone knew that mercury impacted humans and that the disposal of the light fixtures had been inadequate. Mr. Pryor averred that a mercury light disposal bill might solve the problem more efficiently. Mr. Cushman stated that the main concern was not so much with the mercury vapor light as it was with some of the other provisions of the bill such as the shielding and the wattage. He said the bill almost combined provisions regarding light pollution with provisions regarding mercury vapor lamps. Ms. Taylor asked why the City would be opposed to preventing light pollution. Mr. Cushman replied that MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 12, 2007 Page 6 no one was opposed to that, but there was opposition to a bill that would reduce the ability of people to use lighting to provide increased security. Ms. Taylor said she would like to prohibit all lights at night. Mr. Pryor wanted more information. He wanted to know who currently used mercury vapor lamps and what the current disposal system for them was. Mr. Pryor provided the second. The motion passed, 2:1, Ms. Taylor dissenting. SB 642 Ms. Wilson stated that there had been a hearing on SB 642 but it was unlikely that it would advance. She noted that State Senator Vicki Walker had a lot of problems with the bill. Ms. Taylor averred that she never supported excluding anyone. Ms. Taylor moved to change the stance on the bill to Priority 3 Support. Mr. Pryor asked what the usual practice was in terms of how the City treated a person convicted of a crime as opposed to someone who had been arrested. Mr. Cushman replied that the exclusion zone the City had instituted on the downtown mall several years earlier was based on the arrest. He said people were not typically penalized until after they had been convicted because of being presumed innocent until proven guilty. However, he explained, the issue with the exclusion zones was that should a person be arrested for dealing drugs, the time between that arrest and the subsequent trial could be significant. He averred that if a person was excluded from an area there was potential that the behavior could be stopped during that period of time. Mr. Pryor found the exclusion of people based on arrest to be troublesome. Mr. Cushman stated that the bill preempted a jurisdiction from establishing an exclusion zone. Regarding Mr. Pryor’s concern, he said local jurisdictions can establish the kinds of criteria for an exclusion zone, the length could be limited and an appeal process could be part of it. Additionally, he noted that the Hearings Official could separately establish probably cause for the arrest. The motion died for lack of a second. HB 3157 Mr. Cushman stated that senior patrol enforced handicapped parking. He said this bill would allow the volunteer patrol to ticket people with forged permits. Mr. Pryor said he would change the stance to a Priority 1 Support. Ms. Taylor preferred to adopt a neutral stance. Ms. Bettman ascertained from her colleagues that there would be no second. The staff recommendation to Support the bill as a Priority 3 Support stood. HB 2839 MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 12, 2007 Page 7 Ms. Bettman noted that the bill was moving and because of this she wanted to increase the priority. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the stance on the bill from Priority 3 Support to Priority 2 Support. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2964 Ms. Wilson stated that HB 2964 was a companion bill to HB 2839 and was also moving. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the stance on the bill from Priority 3 Support to Priority 2 Support. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2031-B Mr. Hill explained that HB 2031-B and HB 2707-C had been part of the package negotiated by the Legislature and had been passed and signed into law by the Governor. Regarding the annexation bills, Ms. Bettman had hoped that the bills would go back to staff for reevaluation given the policy direction that occurred at the work session held on April 11. Ms. Wilson stated that at present staff was monitoring those bills. Ms. Bettman requested that the bills be reevaluated en masse with the recommendations reflected in the new policy for the next CCIGR meeting. HB 2731 Ms. Bettman asked if staff had any idea of what portion of the tax revenue would be dedicated to public safety. Mr. Hill replied that 25 percent of the monies collected under the additional tax on malt beverages would go to the mental health, alcoholism, and drug services account and the state police would receive 75 percent of the money. He said none of the revenue would be allocated to local governments. He noted that he had suggested in his comments that an amendment to send a share to local governments was worth considering. He related that the League of Oregon Cities had conducted a study that the City of Eugene had participated in that demonstrated that the City was spending in excess of the money it received from alcohol for alcohol-related purposes. He felt the City could clearly justify additional money from alcohol taxes for local government activities, especially law enforcement and social services. After some discussion, Ms. Bettman averred that the CCIGR should take a Support with amendment stand on the bill to request that some money be allocated to local jurisdictions. Mr. Hill suggested the amendment state that the money be allocated so that local government received 25 percent, mental health services received 25 percent, and the Oregon State Police received 50 percent. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to increase the Priority to Priority 2 with the aforementioned amendment. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 3257 Mr. Hill reported that the proposal to establish a state property tax had not had a hearing. He said it “alarmed” the people working in the Finance Division. Ms. Bettman asked if that was because the dollar was not in addition to the cap. Mr. Hill replied that it MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 12, 2007 Page 8 would probably move people into compression. Ms. Bettman did not feel the need to change the staff recommendation. HB 2998 Ms. Taylor wanted to take a Neutral stance on the bill. Mr. Pryor agreed with the staff position. Mr. Svendsen said he understood the representative’s intent in the bill, but he felt it would create a lot of administrative issues in how it would work as there were no definitions of what “non-standard equipment” was. He stated that the current regulations by BOLI define the eligibility or requirement for prevailing wages in terms of the construction site. He felt it was not clear how contracting for fabrication of items would relate to the way BOLI traditionally looked at construction. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Svendsen expressed concern that with no definition of “non-standard” the bill could potentially apply to the “exhaust-scrubbing” apparatus that attached to fire engines when they were parked at the station, which were fabricated in Sweden. Ms. Bettman was unwilling to oppose the bill until she was certain what it would apply to. Ms. Taylor thought it was related to outsourcing. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the stance on the bill to Monitor. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 3463 Mr. Gallup explained that the bill would restrict the extraction of rock from alluvial sources used in ODOT contracts. Mr. Pryor asked what the motivation was to restrict the extraction. Ms. Bettman averred that the extraction impacted the rivers and salmon. Mr. Gallup pointed out that it would force road construction to find new sources and would cause new impacts in other places. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt a Neutral stance on the bill. The motion passed, 3:0. HB 3063 Mr. Perry said he recommended a neutral stance on the bill because he did not want to limit any kind of competition. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to Oppose the bill. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pryor dissenting. Mr. Pryor asked what the impact of opposing the bill would be for the Finance Division. Mr. Perry replied MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 12, 2007 Page 9 that opposition to the bill would let things remain as they currently are. He said from the administrative side of things the current process tied their hands a lot of the time at the end of the season when a project could be punched out in a hurry if it did not have to go out for a bid. He noted that the City had a set amount of vendors who would receive the project information regardless of whether a project was a bid or a quote. Mr. Pryor surmised that supporting the bill would make things easier and more convenient and opposing it changed nothing. SB 716 Ms. Wilson reported that the bill was currently on the Senate floor and had been amended to remove the preemption of local governments from adopting a more uniform application of it. She noted that the original bill provided for different treatment for people in wheelchairs than other disabilities and would have prevented local governments from adopting more uniform treatment and this was no longer true. She said the only other change the bill would bring about was that the wheelchair user placard would be a different color than blue (the current color). In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Hyatt stated that the bill also provided for people who have wheelchairs to have a different placard and it allowed for one out of every eight spaces to be used only by people who had wheelchair placards. She explained that the distinction that had been removed was one the provided free parking for people with wheelchair placards. Ms. Bettman asked why the City was not supporting the bill. Ms. Wilson replied that the City was supporting it; Ms. Taylor had brought it up in order to take a Neutral stance. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt a Priority 3 Support stance. The mo- tion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2095-A Ms. Wilson reported that the bill had passed unanimously in the House. Ms. Bettman moved to take a Priority 2 Oppose stance. Ms. Bettman interpreted the bill to indicate that a person who earned $3 million could be subsidized to purchase a house worth $1 million. Ms. Taylor said the working poor needed help with housing as the housing prices went up. Mr. Pryor commented that opposition to the bill created hardship for many out of fear that a few could abuse it. He thought in the real world that he was less concerned that a few rich people could take advantage of the program than he was concerned that a lot of poor people could not take advantage of it. He preferred to err on the side of a lot of poor people Ms. Bettman revised her motion to take a Priority 2 Oppose stance with an amendment to create a definition for low income housing which was consistent with the definition for low income and affordable housing that was already being used in the City of Eugene. Mr. Lidz noted that Mr. Weinman’s comments indicated that the bill had been amended to address the concern about affordable housing. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 12, 2007 Page 10 Ms. Bettman reiterated her motion and the motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Bettman asked to pull the bill for City Council discussion. SB 839 Ms. Wilson reported that the bill was not moving. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, to change the stance to Monitor. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 869 Ms. Wilson noted that the bill was also not moving. Ms. Taylor was amenable to letting the staff recommendation to Drop the bill stand. SB 701 Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman moved to change the stance on the bill to Support. Mr. Pryor did not want the aspects of the bill that took away local control. Ms. Bettman disagreed that it was an issue of local control, calling the bill the “epitome of local control.” The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pryor dissenting. HB 3455 Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, stated that the bill was not going anywhere at this point. Ms. Bettman thought the CCIGR should support the bill with an amendment. She added that it would be good to have more information and requested that the bill be deferred until the following week. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to Monitor the bill. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 696 Ms. Bettman indicated she agreed with the staff recommendation to take a Priority 3 Support position on the bill. HB 3229 Ms. Bettman asked why there was no support for the bill. Ms. Young replied that it was one of many placeholders. She said the one that was going forward was SB 707. She understood that the bill had been “gutted and stuffed.” MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 12, 2007 Page 11 Ms. Wilson added that the bill seemed dead. HB 3018 Mr. Jones stated that the bill increased vehicle registration fees, a portion of which went to projects of statewide significance. He added that “statewide significance” was notably not defined. He believed that there was a possibility that a portion of this money could be distributed to cities and counties. He said the disposition of the remainder of the money was not clear at this time. He stated that the bill did not seem to be moving. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the stance to Monitor. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Mr. Pryor noted that the bill also deleted the requirement that vehicle registration fees be approved by county voters. He asked if that indicated that the Lane Board of County Commissioners could pass a vehicle registration fee without having to go to a vote. Mr. Jones affirmed this was true. HB 3413 Mr. Jones stated that the bill specified what projects of statewide significance were. He stated that it was not a helpful definition for the region because of the nature of the May, 2002, list. He noted that it also did not include operations, maintenance, and preservation as a defined use. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to adopt a Priority 2 Oppose position on the bill with a proposed amendment to update the project list to include local OM&P projects. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 855 Mr. Jones thought the bill mirrored HB 2778 which had already received a hearing. Ms. Wilson thought the bill was dead. Mr. Jones suggested the CCIGR adopt a Monitor stance on the bill. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to take a Monitor stance. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2200 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to increase the priority given the bill to a Pri- ority 2 Support. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 2 Ms. Wilson reported that this bill already passed through the Senate on a 21:7 vote. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to increase the priority given the bill to Prior- ity 1 Support. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 12, 2007 Page 12 HB 3520 Ms. Wilde explained that this was a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) consolidation bill that was undefined. Ms. Bettman asked why the stance on the bill was Priority 1 Oppose. Ms. Wilde replied that past policy was such that consolidation should be a local merit-based decision related to services and costs. She said the bill would take away local control for PSAP consolidation. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the priority for the bill to a Prior- ity 2 Oppose. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2644 Ms. Wilson reported that the bill was not moving. She noted that Ms. Taylor had suggested a Neutral stance on the bill. Mr. Jones related that Airport Manager Bob Noble had indicated that the bill had a broad usefulness in terms of economic development but was not significant for the Eugene Airport. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to Drop the bill. The motion passed unani- mously, 3:0. SB 971 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the priority for the bill to a Priority 2 Support. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2700-A Ms. Wilson reported that the bill had passed the house by a 49:1 vote. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the stance on the bill to a Priority 3 Support. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 3079 Ms. Wilson said she thought it was a dead bill. Ms. Bettman agreed to leave the staff recommendation as it stood. HB 2311-A Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the priority for the bill to a Priority 2 Support. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 915 Ms. Bettman said she would want to move to support the bill with an amendment to delete the requirement that the court should award the attorney’s fees. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 12, 2007 Page 13 Mr. Lidz stated that the concern regarding the bill lay in the addition of punitive damages. He said this would be almost the only situation in which a court could level punitive damages against a government body. He felt the whistleblower statute was a “tricky thing.” He believed the underlying policy to be very important, but he also believed that one person’s whistleblower was another person’s insubordinate employee. Ms. Bettman moved to adopt a Support stance with an amendment to delete the unlimited punitive damages and delete the mandated award of attorney’s fees. Ms. Wilson thought it would be easier to kill the bill rather than asking that it be amended. Mr. Pryor, noting the clause requiring someone to serve as ombudsman, asked if there was already someone who would act on behalf of the employees. Mr. Lidz replied that there was not anyone who served in that capacity other than the Union representatives. Ms. Taylor provided a second. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 948 Ms. Bettman related that she had heard concern expressed in the community that there was no planning process for locating services. She averred that there should be a planning process other than just having “some entity shopping around” and determining what its needs were. She liked the bill. Mr. Pryor declared a potential conflict of interest. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to take a Priority 3 Support stance on the bill. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2595 Mr. Lidz said while he had indicated there should be support for the bill he did not think active support was necessary. Ms. Walston commented that the bill was housekeeping from her reading of the bill. She thought the bill should be monitored given the current existing workload for the Intergovernmental Relations Manager in Salem. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to adopt a Priority 3 Support stance on the bill. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to approve the positions of the Council Com- mittee on Intergovernmental Relations on the bills that had been reviewed at the meeting held on April 12, 2007, and to approve the staff recommendations on the bills that had not been pulled for review. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Mr. Pryor left the meeting at 2:10 p.m. 3. Approval of Minutes MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 12, 2007 Page 14 This item was carried over to the next meeting. 4. Items from Members and Staff Ms. Bettman stated that the four bills that the CCIGR had not reviewed and the annexation bills would be carried over to the next meeting. She thought there should be some meetings set for the IGR operating procedure committee. She also requested that staff comments on bills contain both a pro and a con point of view. She also requested that information on the bills include who introduced the bill and who sponsored it. Additionally, she thought bills introduced on behalf of the City should be reviewed by the CCIGR before the bills were put forward. The meeting adjourned at 2:13 p.m. (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 12, 2007 Page 15 ATTACHMENT D M I N U T E S Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street, Eugene, Oregon April 19, 2007 Noon PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Betty Taylor, Chris Pryor, members; Mayor Kitty Piercy; Mary Walston, Jessica Cross, Brenda Wilson, Randi Zimmer, Mary Feldman, City Manager's Office; Helen Towle, Myrnie Daut, Human Resource and Risk Services; Richie Weinman, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Eric Jones, Therese Walsh, Public Works Depart- ment; Renee Grube, Sara Medary, Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services; Glen Svend- sen, Facilities. 1. Call to Order and Review Agenda Ms. Bettman called the meeting to order. 2. Approval of Minutes Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to approve the minutes of April 5, 2007. The mo- tion passed unanimously, 3:0. 3. Review Pending Legislation HB 3397 Ms. Towle explained that House Bill (HB) 3397 would have a significant impact on many services, beginning with the services delivered by the Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services and Public Works Department. It would increase the cost of temporary employees by 40 to 50 percent because it increased wages and included a 30 percent surcharge. A significant percentage of recreation services were provided by temporary employees, many of whom were college students. The same was true of summer work at Public Works. She said that one of the reasons employers given benefits and increase wages was as a means of employee retention. Ms. Bettman asked the impact of the bill on employment agencies. Ms. Towle said they would have to increase their wage scales as well. Ms. Towle clarified that when the City used temporary agencies, it paid the wages through the temporary agency. She said that generally the City hired such employees directly, and had only employed temporary agencies over the past two years. The bill would make the City a co-employer in such circumstances, and the bill have the same impact as it did on the City’s own temporary employees. It also applied to contractors. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 19, 2007 Page 1 Ms. Bettman asked if there was any momentum behind the bill. Ms. Wilson said no. It was introduced on behalf of the Northwest Workers Justice Project. Ms. Taylor was concerned about temporary workers who were actually permanent but kept in that status to be kept at lower wages. She thought the intent of the bill was good. Ms. Towle pointed out the City’s part- time employees were represented by bargaining units and were fully benefited. The bill would impact the City’s ability to provide the services now provided by temporary workers. Ms. Grube noted that the City recently added 20 regular positions to replace what were formerly temporary positions because those employees were regularly working more hours. The department continually evaluated its use of such employees and they were all seasonal or sporadic, based on existing needs. Ms. Bettman asked why the bill would have such a significant financial impact on the City if it was doing a good job for its temporary employees. Ms. Towle said it eliminate wage differentials between temporary and regular employees and required a 30 percent surcharge to be paid to temporary employees. Ms. Bettman did not want to create a financial burden on the City but suggested the bill might be a good bill otherwise. She suggested that the City’s take a position of oppose with an amendment that made the bill consistent with what the City offered its temporary employees. Ms. Towle explained that a unionized environment helped keep the use of temporary employees down as the union owned the work being done and had a right to bargain regarding the use of temporary employees. All the City’s union contracts limited the use of temporary employees to a certain number of hours in a calendar year. She suggested that the bill could be amended to exclude temporary employees who worked less than a certain number of hours; less than half time in a year was the City’s most generous definition. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman about the progress the bill was likely to make, Ms. Wilson said the bill was very complex but it did not take into account many other issues such as PERS and had it far- reaching implications and would be very difficult to administer. Ms. Towle thought it would be difficult to amend because it was so complex. Ms. Wilson thought it would be easier to kill the bill than amend it. Ms. Towle said the City did not support the misuse of temporary employees and had worked hard with the Recreation Division to identify the distinctions between employees. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to accept the proposed status of Priority 1 Oppose and seek amendments related to the definition to be crafted by staff. Mayor Piercy said it the bill emerged, the committee should be careful to say it supported the intention of the bill. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2118A Ms. Bettman indicated she had the opportunity to review the bill and accepted the staff recommendation for House Bill (HB) 2118A. HB 3264 Mr. Weinman said both bills, HB 3624 and HB 3363, were a lot of work without benefit to the City. He termed the reporting requirement in HB 3624 an unfunded mandate. Ms. Bettman agreed, but said she believed the bill provided a means of ensuring public disclosure and accountability in regard to how money was spent on economic development. She said that in the past, Eugene had attempted to target its subsidies MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 19, 2007 Page 2 to job provision but was thwarted by the existing State regulations. The bill removed that limitation and gave the City the ability to ask for “claw-backs.” She supported the bill as she believed it improved the statutes related to economic development. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 2, Support. Responding to a question from Mr. Pryor, Mr. Weinman did not know what the reporting requirement would cost the City. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman regarding the cost of the Multiple Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) and the enterprise zone, Mr. Weinman said the City’s costs were minimal as the Assessor’s Office was doing most of the work and the City’s applications fees covered its costs. Staff was concerned about the additional work load that would result from the bill. Mr. Pryor asked what problem the bill would solve. Ms. Bettman said the bill would require public disclosure of a subsidy, would create a nexus between the subsidy and the quality of the job created, and allow for the recapture of subsidies to businesses in default. Ms. Wilson said the bills were similar to bills introduced in the senate and a working group had been formed to merge the bills into a single bill. The individual leading the work group was from Minnesota, which had enacted a similar bill that was working well in that state. She said that she could return with more information about the work group process. Ms. Taylor wanted to support the bill. Mr. Pryor suggested the bill be monitored. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pryor voting no. HB 3363 Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 2 Support. Ms. Bettman thought the bill’s requirements were minimal as it essentially provided for a tracking mechanism. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pryor voting no. HB 2944-A Ms. Wilson noted widespread opposition to the bill, which was “gut and stuffed.” The original draft was written by the League of Oregon Cities and modified by the Committee on Business and Labor. Several prevailing wage bills had been moving, and this bill had some of the bad prevailing wage bills merged into it. Mr. Weinman said the bill would apply State prevailing wages to all low-income housing projects, which th would increase the cost of such housing by 30 percent. Projects like WestTown on 8 Avenue could not have been built at all. It exempted projects of four stories or less, which was at odds with the City’s goal of compact urban growth. He supported fair wages, but said some of the Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) rates were out of scale. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 19, 2007 Page 3 Mayor Piercy suggested the staff recommendation might be different if the bill did not address low-income housing. Mr. Weinman did not think so. He said the bill would also affect other City projects, such as downtown projects. Ms. Bettman determined from Ms. Wilson that the BOLI Commissioner supported the bill. Ms. Bettman said she would like to see a living wage bill that the City could support. Mr. Weinman did not perceive the bill as being a living wage bill. Mayor Piercy said the bill touched on living wages and equity and she needed more information to take a position. However, the bill appeared to be badly written and she could oppose it on that basis. She said there was a tension between wanting the best deal for the City and the best deal for citizens. Ms. Bettman recommended the committee monitor the bill. Ms. Wilson suggested that the committee support the prevailing wage element of the bill but limit the public works definition that the bill applied to. Ms. Bettman was willing to exempt low-income housing but did not think that other general public works projects should be exempted. She suggested the City should take on the issue of the BOLI wages rather than continue to oppose living wage bills. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to take a position of Priority 2, Monitor, on the bill. Mr. Pryor was willing to support the motion but thought the issues of wages needed to be well thought out. There were many factors that affected how people were paid because they were interconnected. He agreed the council should have a conversation on the topic. He thought it was difficult to take a position on such bills without that conversation. He thought that as other such bills come up, the committee should take a position of monitor pending that discussion. Mayor Piercy suggested it would be helpful to asterisk such issues because they come up every legislative session. At the end of the session, the council could have more extensive discussions to be prepared for the next session. Ms. Bettman also wanted to discuss bills that could be introduced by the City. She said the City continued to come against State statutes on particular issues, and if the council thought people should be paid adequate wages, it should introduce a bill to that effect. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 3005 Mr. Cushman said he recommended a position of Monitor because the bill, which was related to sex offender reporting, could be amended. He said that it was unlikely the City would support it because it was unlikely the Sheriff’s Office would be able to do the work needed. Ms. Bettman liked the idea of a local reporting structure for sex offenders as a better means of tracking such individuals. Mr. Cushman said the County already had many mandates and he did not think it had the staff to meet the three-day reporting requirements included in the bill. Ms. Bettman asked how many sex offenders were registered in Lane County. Mr. Cushman did not know. He said that currently, sex offenders could register with any police department, which diffused the work load. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 19, 2007 Page 4 Ms. Bettman wanted to support the bill at a high priority level and lobby for an amendment that provided funding to support it. Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy, Mr. Cushman said he would characterize the current system as working. He did not think the bill would make the system work any better. Mayor Piercy agreed with Ms. Bettman’s concerns but suggested the City continue to monitor the bill given the additional work load it would create. Ms. Bettman concurred. She asked why the definition of half-way house was deleted in the bill. Mr. Cushman did not know. Ms. Wilson noted that the bill had not moved at all. SB 846 Ms. Wilson said the bill, which would require law enforcement agencies to take DNA samples from persons arrested for certain felony crimes, had not yet been referred to a committee. She believed the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) would be opposed to it and said she could double-check that. The bill was sponsored by Senator Winters and Ms. Wilson speculated that it arose from a personal situation. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to drop the bill from consideration. The mo- tion passed unanimously, 3:0. Mr. Cushman recommended that the committee also drop HB 2949, which was identical. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to drop HB 2949 from consideration. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SJR 32 Ms. Bettman support Senate Joint Resolution (SJR) 32, which would amend the Oregon Constitution to allow revenue from gas taxes and vehicle registration fees to go to the State police, with an amendment to hold the existing allocations to the cities harmless. Mr. Jones said the bill appeared to be stalled while other related bills were moving forward. He asked if those were perhaps more viable bills to support. Ms. Wilson said if the joint resolution passed, the legislature would refer an amendment to the Oregon Constitution to the voters. She agreed there were other bills the legislature was considering, and if it could succeed with legislation, it would turn to the ballot. Ms. Wilson suggested the City also work toward a similar amendment for the related bills. The committee concurred. Ms. Taylor opposed the bill because it would place a constitutional amendment on the ballot. Mayor Piercy concurred. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to assign the bill a status of Priority 3, Sup- port with amendments. The motion passed, 2:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. HB 2372-A Ms. Bettman wanted to support the bill, which would require employers of 25 or more employees to provide unpaid rest periods to employees to express milk. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 19, 2007 Page 5 Mr. Pryor asked about the current law and what the bill changed. Ms. Daut said the law currently encouraged employers to make accommodation for breast feeding available. The bill was more specific than that. She had not recommended support for the bill because of the council’s policy related to mandates. Ms. Daut noted that initially, the bill was targeted at school districts. Ms. Bettman said breastfeeding was a health issue for both mother and baby as well as a gender equity issue. She believed that breast-feeding mothers were discriminated against in the work place. Mr. Pryor also supported the bill. Ms. Wilson noted that the bill had passed the House. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 3, Support. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2761 Ms. Feldman recommended the committee take a position of monitor on the bill, which would allow cities, counties, and special districts to employ instant runoff voting. She noted that the Association of County Clerks was very opposed to the bill because should individual jurisdictions opt to do use that approach, it would be the jurisdiction’s responsibility to cover all the added costs. The jurisdiction would have to pay for the needed technology or hand counting. It would require separate ballots, adding to the mailing costs. Ms. Bettman pointed out the bill did not mandate instant runoff voting. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 3, Support. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Mr. Pryor indicated support for the bill because it did not mandate instant runoff voting. HJR 43 Ms. Feldman said the resolution was the same as SJR 17, which she recommended the City oppose. She said the Oregon Revised Statutes provided for registered voters to update their registration until 8 p.m. on Registration Day, or until the polls closed. This would allow those who moved from out of state to register on Election Day without a way of verifying whether they voted that day in another state. Some believed it would lead to massive voter fraud. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 2, Oppose. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0 Mayor Piercy had concerns about people being able to register closer to the election date but was persuaded by Ms. Feldman’s comments to support the staff recommendation. Ms. Bettman pointed out that with mail- in ballots people had three weeks to vote and plenty of time to register. SB 972 MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 19, 2007 Page 6 Ms. Bettman thought the bill complicated and she did not know if it was better or worse than what was in place. She recommended the City drop the bill from further consideration. Ms. Walston thought there were other better bills, and concurred with Ms. Bettman’s recommendation to drop the bill. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to drop the bill. The motion passed unani- mously, 3:0. HB 3333 Ms. Bettman determined from Ms. Wilson that the bill was not making headway. Ms. Walston noted the bill was targeted toward protection of electronic cookies. Ms. Bettman indicated acceptance of the recommendation. Mr. Pryor said if cookies were made public they could be exploited by others. Ms. Walston said that Information Services Director Randy Kolb had indicated that the City would have to warn people it was collecting data it did not intend to use. HB 3531 Ms. Taylor questioned if the bill, which would prohibit counties from imposing a surcharge on Oregon income tax, was worth any effort. Ms. Wilson acknowledged the bill had not made any progress. The committee agreed to accept the staff recommendation to oppose the bill. SB 496 Ms. Walston believed the bill made some improvements and had recommended support. Ms. Bettman was concerned about the extension of time for the investigation phase of a complaint. Mr. Pryor said the bill added time that benefited both the commission and those making complaints as it gave them more time to marshal their arguments. Mayor Piercy said the commission had resource issues as well. Ms. Wilson said the bill had a hearing at the beginning of the session. She thought it would be merged with other bills. Ms. Bettman determined from Ms. Walston that the City had no registration process for lobbyist and to her knowledge no other Oregon city had one. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the status of the bill to Monitor. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. The committee then considered the bills related to annexation. Mr. Yeiter recalled the council’s direction regarding annexation as reflected in a series of motions distributed to the committee. Ms. Wilson indicated all the annexations bills being considered would be merged in HB 2760. HB 2025 MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 19, 2007 Page 7 Ms. Bettman questioned why the City would oppose the bill when it did not seem to apply to Eugene. Mr. Yeiter acknowledged that he could think where the bill would apply locally. Ms. Wilson thought the bill was introduced to address a specific situation elsewhere in the state. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to drop the bill. The motion passed unani- mously, 3:0. HB 2050 Ms. Bettman wanted staff to oppose the bill vigorously because it violated home rule. HB 2638 Mr. Yeiter recommended the City’s position on the bill be changed to Priority 3 rather than Priority 2, while maintaining opposition on the bill. Ms. Bettman wanted to oppose the bill with amendments that distinguished between voluntary and involuntary annexations. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to maintain a status of Priority 2, Oppose with amendments to distinguish between voluntary and involuntary annexations. The mo- tion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2760 Mr. Yeiter noted this was the bill that would be “gut and stuffed” in the end. Ms. Wilson recommended the City take a position of Monitor on the bill as it would be very different in the future. She said that staff would monitor the bill to ensure any amendments reflected the committee’s position on the related annexation bills. HB 3011 Responding to a suggestion from Ms. Bettman that the City monitor the bill, Ms. Wilson indicated she preferred the committee take an oppose or support position with amendments to address the principle items in the bill of interest to the City. Ms. Bettman confirmed with Mr. Yeiter that the bill eliminated noncontiguous annexations even if they were voluntary annexations. She thought that ability should be preserved because of the fact of the urban transition area. She also thought voluntary island annexations should be allowed in extenuating circum- stances or where a certain percentage of the street system being annexed created an island. Mr. Pryor noted the bill would prevent streets from being used to create a contiguous annexation, which he thought a bad thing. Mr. Yeiter agreed. He said the City had treated the urban transition area as though every thing was contiguous but other communities only annexed contiguous properties. He said that members of the committee working on annexation bills were concerned that annexation of streets could be misused. Ms. Bettman said she would be inclined to support many of the bills in question if the boundary commission was to continue, but it appeared the commission would be abolished, and if that was the case she wanted to preserve as much home rule authority as possible for the council. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 19, 2007 Page 8 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to oppose the bill unless amended to allow noncontiguous and island annexations. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 3012 Ms. Bettman suggested the City take a Priority 2 Oppose position on the bill. Mr. Yeiter had no objection. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 2, Oppose. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 3013 The committee accepted the staff recommendation that the City take a Neutral position on the bill. HB 3291 The committee had no objection to the staff recommendation of Priority 3, Oppose. HB 3303/HB 3304 The committee indicated acceptance of the staff recommendations for both HB 3303 and HB 3304. HB 3410 Mr. Yeiter said he had recommended the status of the bill be changed to Priority 2, Oppose. There was no objection to the staff recommendation. HB 3446 The committee had no objection toe the staff recommendation Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to accept the committee’s recommendations on the bills and the recommendation of staff on the bills not discussed. The motion passed unanimously. 4. Items from Members and Staff The committee agreed to consider its operating agreements at the next meeting. Mayor Piercy asked if the full council had taken a position on the legislation supporting the establishment of an Area Commission on Transportation in Lane County. Ms. Wilson said the council had not discussed the bill but the CCIGR had taken unanimous position of support. Mayor Piercy indicated she would raise the bill at the council. She had mixed feelings about the bill. She preferred to see a bill that directed the government partners to discuss the formation of an Area Commission on Transportation rather than have the legislature make that decision. She had shared that with Representative Holvey. Mayor Piercy acknowl- MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 19, 2007 Page 9 edged there was support for the concept but her objection was the lack of an inter-jurisdictional conversation on the topic. Ms. Bettman believed such a conversation had occurred over and over again throughout the years at the Metropolitan Policy Committee. Mayor Piercy said that it had not occurred in her time as mayor. Ms. Bettman said that under the Metropolitan Policy Committee model such a commission would never be formed. She supported the legislation because she believed it would give some semblance of structure to the decision making process for expending State money, rather than Lane County being its “own little fiefdom.” Mayor Piercy acknowledged Ms. Bettman’s reasoning, but thought there should have been a discussion. She pointed out that the legislation to separate the Springfield and Eugene urban growth boundaries and that occurred without a conversation with Eugene. Ms. Bettman believed that given some of the urban growth boundary expansions that had occurred in the past, it made no difference if the legislation succeeded. She said that Eugene had “just stood aside” and let Springfield do what it wanted. She cited the Blue Water Boats proposal as an example. Mayor Piercy did not agree, saying the metropolitan area should be making decisions together. Ms. Bettman said the two cities had philosophical differences and values and different constituencies. She thought another problem was what she considered disproportional representation on the Metropolitan Policy Committee because Eugene had the same number of representatives as the other communities rather than more representatives to reflect its greater population. She thought that represented a major dysfunction. Mayor Piercy said she preferred to have community conversations first. Ms. Bettman asked “then what would you do?” Mayor Piercy did not know where the conversation would lead to so could not answer the question. Ms. Bettman suggested that it would lead to Springfield having its way without compromise or it would go its own way. Ms. Taylor said there was never going to be agreement about an Area Commission on Transportation. Mayor Piercy wanted the City to model good behavior and to keep working with its interjurisdictional partners. Ms. Bettman replied that modeling good behavior was having a sustainable transportation system. Mayor Piercy did not think that one precluded the other. Ms. Bettman said so far, it had. Mayor Piercy said it did not have to be so. The next meeting was scheduled for April 26, 2007. Ms. Bettman adjourned the meeting at 1:36 p.m. (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 19, 2007 Page 10