Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2H: Ratification of Actions of Intergovernmental Relations Committee ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of April 26, 2007 Meeting Date: May 29, 2007 Agenda Item Number: 2H 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 meeting of April 26, 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. 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. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to ratify the IGR Committee's actions as set forth in the minutes of the April 26, 2007, IGR meetings. L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070529\S0705292H.doc ATTACHMENTS A. IGR Committee Minutes of April 26, 2007 FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Brenda Wilson Telephone: 682-8441 Staff E-Mail: brenda.s.wilson@ci.eugene.or.us L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070529\S0705292H.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 April 26, 2007 Noon PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Chair; Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, members; Kitty Piercy, Mayor; Mary Walston, Brenda Wilson, Jessica Cross, Randi Zimmer, City Manager's Office; Ellwood Cushman, Linda Phelps, Eugene Police Department; Eric Jones, Lacey Risdal, Public Works Department; Myrnie Daut, Larry Hill, Helen Towle, Central Services Department. 1. Call to Order and Review Agenda Ms. Bettman called the meeting of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) to order. She added a review of the draft of the CCIGR operating agreements to the agenda in place of Item 3, Approval of Minutes. 2. Review Pending Legislation HB 3261 Mr. Hill stated that the City had no policy on carbon taxes. Ms. Wilson reported that there had been no discussion on the bill and the first public hearing for it was being held on April 26. Mr. Hill said the bill had a “ways to go” before it would reach the floor. He believed it would receive serious consideration. He noted that it would not impact the local gas tax or preempt the City from enacting a carbon tax of its own. He stated that the bill would generate additional revenue for the State, but the revenue would be restricted by existing constitutional provisions on natural gas and oil revenue to being dedicated to the common school fund. He added that the revenue from natural gas and oil had “maxed out” its cap (it was capped at 6 percent of the real market value of the natural gas or oil). He said this brought up the question of whether the cap would include local taxes or franchise fees. He related that the portion of the carbon tax from motor vehicle fuels would have to go to into the State Highway Trust Fund. Ms. Bettman ascertained that the potential benefit to the City was as yet unknown. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to adopt a Priority 2 Monitor position on the bill. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 3407 Mr. Cushman had found the bill to be strange as it seemed to expand the availability of information on public safety officers in one way while further restricting the release of personal information in other ways. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 26, 2007 Page 1 Ms. Wilson said the wording of the bill was due to an error in drafting. She related that the bill was supposed to have a work session and amendments would be added to the bill on April 27. She stated the concern Mr. Cushman raised had been pointed out in the hearing on the bill. Mr. Cushman stated that if the bill expanded the restrictions on access to personal information of people working in law enforcement the Eugene Police Department (EPD) would support it. He commented that it was hard to articulate in words how important it was that a police officer’s address not be easily releasable to anyone who wanted it. Ms. Bettman concurred. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to Oppose the motion unless it was amended. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2333-A Ms. Wilson reported that the bill had already passed through the house. Mr. Cushman stated that the title of the bill was misleading. He explained that the bill exempted from sex offender reporting certain categories of sex offenses wherein the only reason it was a crime was because the victim was below the age of consent and there was no force involved. Ms. Bettman indicated she supported the staff recommendation to Monitor the bill. HB 2536-A Ms. Wilson stated that the CCIGR had previously adopted a Support with amendments to attach some sort of size requirement to the 13-year-old in order to allow that child to ride in the front seat of a car (the bill would institute a requirement to have all youth 13 and under in the back seat). She said the argument that the CCIGR had made, that 12-year-olds do not like to sit in the back seat, was not a strong argument against the pro argument, which was that statistically everyone who rode in the back seat was safer in the event of an accident. She related that the amendment made to the bill was that if there was no available seat in the back a 13-year-old could ride in the front seat. She added that the pro side had presented actual pictures of decapitated children and children with permanent brain damage that had resulted from an accident and that trauma nurses had testified during the hearing. She underscored that the amendment the CCIGR had sought would be very difficult. Ms. Taylor commented that the problem lay in that some people were a lot bigger at 11-years-old than others. She said it did not make sense to her to dictate an age limit. Mayor Piercy pointed out that the intent of the bill was to try to get children up to a certain age into the back seat. Ms. Bettman indicated she was fine with the existing recommendation to adopt a Priority 3 Support position on the bill. Ms. Taylor agreed. SB 1012 Ms. Wilson reported that the bill was believed to be dead. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 26, 2007 Page 2 The existing recommendation to Monitor the bill stood. HB 3432 Ms. Wilson explained that the bill would reduce the members of the Department of Public Safety Standards Training (DPSST) board. Mr. Cushman stated that after an initial analysis it did not seem like a big deal to the Eugene Police Department (EPD), but the Chief wanted to oppose it. He said the bill would take management-type people off of the board. He related that the bill would add some line-level positions and they were not opposed to this, rather it was the loss of the higher level of expertise on policies for what the training for officers should be. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to adopt a Priority 2 Oppose position. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 1035 Ms. Bettman said the bill would give an employee the right to sue and it did not mean the employee would win if he or she litigated. Ms. Towle stated that her concern lay in the amount of litigation the bill would create. She said while she had strong feelings about what was appropriate in the work place and how people should treat each other, she also had concerns regarding what should be litigated versus what should be handled administratively. She related from her experience in human resources that her staff was very often in the midst of conflict between employees. She noted that an employee could call it harassment if someone did not get along with him or her or if someone was deliberately not speaking to that individual. She opined that the bill was an “attorney employment” bill. She felt the terms were vague and the standards were not delineated. Ms. Wilson reported that the bill would have a public hearing work session on April 30. Ms. Bettman was more inclined to suggest amendments to the bill. She supported a person’s right to sue. Ms. Towle expressed concern with the specifics such as one clause that indicated that a derogatory remark or anything that undermines an employee’s work performance. She felt they were broad concepts. Ms. Bettman countered that it would still have to be proven in court. Ms. Towle responded that the City of Eugene had paid legal fees for harassment cases in which the City had ultimately prevailed that had still cost the City $200,000. While she believed that there were certain employment actions people should have the right to bring, she averred that language needed to be tight enough that it would be definable. Ms. Bettman said she did not see the amendments presented that would tighten up the language. Ms. Towle did not know how she would tighten the language. She underscored that amendments would be up to the CCIGR. Mr. Pryor thought the bill would create an enormous amount of lawsuits. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt a Neutral position on the bill. The MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 26, 2007 Page 3 motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2724 Ms. Wilson stated that the bill was related to the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). She related that she had spoken with the deputy director of PERS earlier in the day and it appeared that the bill was dead. Ms. Bettman ascertained that the CCIGR supported the staff recommendation to monitor the bill. HB2401-A Ms. Wilson reported that the bill was moving, having passed out of committee. Ms. Bettman surmised that a person could, under the bill, be eligible for retirement after only five years of service should that person be 55 years old. Ms. Wilson stated that this was how PERS worked now for public safety employees. She explained that the bill sought to include 911 operators. Ms. Bettman questioned why the bill was only being monitored if it would present an additional cost to the City. Ms. Daut replied that there were two points of interest regarding the benefits: opposition because of the costs and monitoring because it enhanced the benefits for public safety employees. She said this was a more modest proposal than had been seen in the past. She stated that Central Lane 911 had contacted her and requested that the bill not be actively opposed. She explained that they had an interest in the bill because they had a hard time recruiting and retaining employees. Additionally, she related the League of Oregon Cities was opposing the bill. Given that there were conflicting points of view she had opted to recommend monitoring the bill. Ms. Bettman felt like this would create a special class of employee. Ms. Daut stated that she had discussed the bill with the PERS Employers Alliance, who opposed the bill, and they had indicated they did not believe enhanced retirement benefits would help 911 recruitment and retention. Mr. Pryor supported monitoring the bill unless something more significant occurred. Ms. Taylor observed that 911 operators do not “get paid much.” Ms. Daut acknowledged that the salaries were relatively low and the work was stressful. She commented that it took a certain person to serve as a 911 call taker. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Wilson stated that it was a Union supported bill and that it was being voted on by a Union-friendly legislature. She believed the bill stood a good chance of being passed. Ms. Bettman asked whether Ms. Wilson thought Eugene taking a position on the bill would matter to the ultimate outcome. Ms. Wilson replied that if the CCIGR decided to oppose the bill she could take other tacks to try and kill it. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 26, 2007 Page 4 Mayor Piercy thought it was important to carefully choose which issues to pick to battle when things arose that the unions were interested in. She opined that if one was going to fight one’s friends, it should be about things that were worthy of having a fight over. Ms. Bettman thought the bill went too far. Ms. Bettman moved to adopt an Oppose position on the bill. The motion died for lack of a second. The staff recommendation to Monitor the bill stood. SB 645-A Ms. Wilson reported that the bill was moving. Ms. Risdal related that she had heard the second amendment, SB 645-B, earlier in the day. She stated that it was the same as SB 645-A but it allowed a business to contract for the retrieval of shopping carts. Ms. Bettman asked if the bill would target homeless people. Ms. Risdal replied that it would not. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Risdal explained that the recommendation to oppose was due to the template the bill set for a local government to enact an ordinance. She said it pre-established the fine and the holding period that the government must charge if it would assume the title to the cart. She felt there could be some preemption issues. She also was concerned because the increased amount of time the City would have to handle the cart would not be recovered with a $50 fine. Ms. Bettman ascertained that the CCIGR supported the staff recommendation to adopt a Priority 3 Oppose position on the bill. 3. Draft CCIGR Operating Procedures Ms. Bettman suggested the committee review the draft one section at a time. She did not see any changes necessary to Section 1. Regarding Section 2 she wanted to establish a process for membership so that the committee would maintain political diversity. Mr. Pryor concurred, adding that the Mayor should endeavor to represent the diversity of the City Council. Ms. Taylor noted, regarding Section 8, the importance of having staff prepare the CCIGR. Ms. Walston agreed. She said by codifying it in the operating procedures it would ensure that the briefing would occur. Ms. Taylor approved of the section that referred to the introduction of legislation. She felt the council should think of working on possible legislation to repeal the ban on “inclusionary” zoning and real estate taxes and should do so soon. Mayor Piercy said the operating procedures should indicate that the council might want to introduce legislation at times. Mr. Pryor suggested that the language state that City staff or the council could introduce legislation. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 26, 2007 Page 5 Mayor Piercy commented that it was difficult to keep on top of things that were moving quickly. She felt there was no room in the procedures for a process that addressed something that required imminent action. Ms. Wilson related that she had discussed the issue with City Attorney Glenn Klein. Her primary concern with rushing the process was to maintain compliance with the public meetings law. She said she would provide the CCIGR with the information Mr. Klein had provided her. Ms. Bettman suggested that they discuss what would constitute an emergency and how to meet the public meetings law. She thought there should be a section that addressed protocol in that case. Mayor Piercy noted that such emergencies would be rare. Ms. Walston pointed out that the legislative policy document would provide guidance for the majority of potential issues. Mayor Piercy recommended that the description of what constituted a Priority 1 bill include policy implications as well as financial implications. Ms. Bettman suggested that it be reworded to be value neutral. Mayor Piercy commented that the human rights positions that the City held could warrant a Priority 1 position on a bill that had no financial impact. Mr. Pryor asked what was meant by “unmanageable scale that could not be remedied.” Ms. Walston explained that it referred to bills that took away the City’s ability to maintain home rule on certain issues. Mr. Pryor responded that unmanageable made him think in terms of chaos. Ms. Walston offered to change the language. Ms. Bettman said the portion of the language under Lobby and Resource Allocation that indicated that a high level of support from the legislative coordinators assigned to the bill would involve the Mayor and/or the council testifying. She averred that it would either have to be individual councilors or CCIGR members. She asked whether this language intended to pull from the councilors at large. It seemed to her that the language indicated the whole council would testify. Ms. Bettman also perceived the language regarding Priority 2 and Priority 3 bills to have taken a defensive posture. She asked that it be reworded in order to be value neutral. Ms. Bettman suggested that the language referring to Priority 1 and Priority 3 should reflect that at times something would be made a Priority 3 thought it was a top priority for the City only because other entities were throwing a lot of lobbying resources at it or that it was already moving and likely to pass. She did not want to give the perception in some instances that a Priority 3 bill was simply less important. Continuing, Ms. Bettman called out the language under Lobby and Resource Allocation that said “any City staff that has reviewed and commented on a bill that is pulled for discussion should be prepared to discuss the bill at the IGR meeting.” She wanted the word ‘should’ to be replaced with ‘shall’ or ‘must.’ She expressed a preference for the word ‘must.’ Ms. Bettman reviewed the operating agreement having to do with a CCIGR vote that was not unanimous on the position to take on a bill. She opposed lobbying a position in Salem with less than a unanimous vote until the position was potentially changed by the council. She wanted to clarify that a neutral stance should MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 26, 2007 Page 6 be taken on bills with a 2:1 vote in the CCIGR until the council gave clear direction. Mr. Pryor concurred. Ms. Taylor asked how this would work during the council break. Mr. Pryor replied that he thought the council and the CCIGR could work around it. He said they could make every effort to get the council together on an important vote. Ms. Walston supported inclusion of this in the operating agreements for the benefit of future council coordinators in addition to the council. Ms. Bettman recommended that under the section regarding membership there be wording that indicated that if a CCIGR member could not make a meeting that member could opt to designate the Mayor as an alternate. Mr. Pryor suggested that the operating agreements specify that a unanimous vote in the CCIGR meant a 3:0 vote. Mayor Piercy averred that it was good for the mayor to sit in on the CCIGR meetings given that mayors were often asked to visit the legislature to represent the views of the City. She recommended that the mayor be included as an ex officio member of the CCIGR. Ms. Bettman supported including the mayor as ex officio. Ms. Walston agreed that the mayor serving as ex officio was a good idea. Ms. Bettman wanted something in the document that was clear about how and when the council and/or CCIGR participated in the federal lobbying process. She noted that the language indicated that the lobbying priorities would be reviewed by the council. She asked that it be changed to indicate that the council would review and approve the priorities. Ms. Wilson supported having a more formal process to determine what went on the list and what was discussed. Ms. Bettman stated that the priorities would be identified by the council and vetted through the CCIGR. She said then they would go to the United Front and then the entire United Front agenda would come before the council. Mayor Piercy averred that the City was in a partnership with the United Front members and because of this they needed the opportunity to give the City their take on the agenda before the council finalized it. Ms. Bettman suggested that when the approval process was completed a letter should be sent to Smith Dawson & Andrews because the firm was very instrumental in the decision-making process. In response to a clarifying question from Ms. Walston, Ms. Bettman said if the City of Eugene was seeking input from its legislative partners she would anticipate discussion and approval of the United Front lobbying efforts of its legislative partners as well. Ms. Wilson said she intended to sit down with the intergovernmental relations managers from Springfield and Lane County and work to redefine what being part of the United Front meant so that everyone felt comfortable with the process. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 26, 2007 Page 7 Mayor Piercy felt the intention of the effort should be to find the things all of the legislative partners could get behind. Ms. Bettman commented that perhaps the City of Eugene would be better off lobbying on its own behalf. She added that she was sometimes unclear who exactly was in the United Front. She noted her preference to leave the school districts out of the front. Mayor Piercy said the legislators liked to see the school districts there and the school districts had benefited from their lobbying work. Ms. Bettman commented that the City of Eugene had ended up cutting its numbers on the United Front trip. Mayor Piercy underscored the importance of focusing on what the partners could do together. She was loathe to focus on who the City of Eugene would “disinvite.” Ms. Bettman asserted that the front needed a process that was agreed upon by all of the jurisdictions and it needed criteria for getting proposals on the priority list. She said one criterion would be that all of the partners would agree on an item. Ms. Bettman wanted to add under the section regarding Grants and Funding Applications that a committee could give approval by email. She also wanted it to mention that staff should make efforts to bring grants before the CCIGR in a timely manner for action. She opined that there had been some “real melt-downs” the previous year because some grants had already been applied for before consulting the CCIGR. Mr. Pryor said since Section 7 of the operating agreements had been removed something that addressed human resource and collective bargaining needed to be added. He thought the CCIGR should be the primary vehicle for positions on human resources and collective bargaining issues, but he felt the City Manager needed to be involved in making recommendations around those issues because of the significant impact. He suggested language that indicated that the CCIGR should confer with the City Manager for advice and counsel on the impact those positions would have on the operation of the City. Ms. Bettman thought this was already the procedure. She said the City Manager or his designee responded to those issues and in this instance human resources staff served as his designee. She felt calling it out specifically implied that the City gave more weight to human resource issues than those issues entailed. Mr. Pryor agreed that he was giving those issues more weight. He explained that human resources issues had a potentially dramatic financial impact. Ms. Bettman reiterated her objection to specifically calling out human resource issues. Continuing, Ms. Bettman asked that the document contain some exposition on what the staff analysis included. Ms. Taylor said the staff analysis had gotten much easier to read and that she found having computer access to the bills to be very beneficial. Mayor Piercy recommended that when the CCIGR saw legislation coming that the City was proposing or legislation that would affect its community partners, the City should give its partners a “heads up” and discuss it with them at some level. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 26, 2007 Page 8 Ms. Bettman averred that it was important that the document indicate that the CCIGR would meet and review items that the CCIGR had a role in. She felt that the word ‘review’ was not firm enough. Mayor Piercy suggested that the City of Eugene have a neutral conversation with the City of Springfield early in the session in order to share information about their legislative agendas. She was uncertain as to whether the City of Eugene would have ended up doing anything different regarding the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) issue, but the fact that it had happened with no notification from Springfield had “not been very helpful.” Ms. Wilson commented that she did not think the bill could be killed in the House but she and Mr. Cuyler were working on it in the halls of the Senate. Mayor Piercy related that she had gone to Salem to work with the legislature on April 23. She felt it had gone “rather poorly.” She said Representative Barnhart had lectured the Eugene delegation for being “obstructive people” and there was a general “don’t get it from our perspective” from the entire delegation. Ms. Bettman opined that someone had done a better job of lobbying. Mayor Piercy said the Homebuilders Association had worked hard to pass the legislation. She related that the Homebuilders Association had taken the position that not expanding the UGB contributed to the lack of housing for low income people. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to approve the staff recommendations on the bills that were not pulled and to approve the recommendations as indicated by the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations on the bills that had been discussed. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. The meeting adjourned at 1:36 p.m. (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 26, 2007 Page 9