Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4: Ratification of IGR Committee Actions ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of May 8, 2007, May 22, 2007, May 29, 2007, June 6, 2007, and June 15, 2007 Meeting Date: June 25, 2007 Agenda Item Number: 4 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 May 8, May 22, May 29, June 6, 2007, and certain actions of the June 15, 2007, meeting. BACKGROUND As a matter of procedure, the City Council is routinely asked to ratify the actions taken by the Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) Committee. This is done by submitting the minutes of each committee meeting to the council. Actions on which the committee is not unanimous are brought before the full City Council for consideration. These bills must be addressed by the full council in order to provide direction to staff in Salem. SB 573-A and HB 5036 were reviewed at the May 8, 2007, IGR meeting. There were no non-unanimous votes at the May 22, May 29, or the June 6, 2007, meetings. The minutes for the June 15, 2007, are not ready for ratification by the full City Council at this time. At the June 15, 2007, meeting, however, the IGR Committee voted to refer to the full City Council a request from the Emergency Management Program for authorization to apply for grant funding under a Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) 2007 Technology Program. This grant provides funds to improve data and voice interoperability between public safety agencies and organizations. Also at the June 15, 2007, meeting, the IGR Committee voted to support the Western Environmental Law Center's (WELC) request to the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (OEQC) to use its legislatively granted authority to ban all open field burning, propane flaming, stack and pile burning in the Willamette Valley. Non-unanimous bills are listed below.Bills may be accessed via the Legislature’s website at http://www.leg.state.or.us/07reg/measures/main.html L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070625\S0706254.DOC May 8, 2007: SB 573-A: Requires driver to stop for pedestrian waiting at crosswalk. Relating to: Relating to pedestrians; amending ORS 811.028. Staff Recommendation: Priority 2, Oppose (By Ellwood Cushman) IGR Committee Vote: Priority 2, Oppose with Amendments (2/1, Bettman, Pryor Yes/Taylor, No) (See page 2 of the IGR Meeting Minutes of May 8, 2007.) HB 5036: Increases amount of lottery bonds authorized to be issued by Economic and Community Development Department. Increases amount of lottery bonds authorized to be issued by Department of Higher Education for deferred maintenance projects. Authorizes issuance of lottery bonds for Department of Higher Education capital renewal, code compliance and safety projects. Establishes Department of Higher Education Capital Renewal, Code Compliance and Safety Projects Fund. Appropriates moneys from fund to department for capital renewal, code compliance and safety projects. Authorizes issuance of lottery bonds for Housing and Community Services Department for development of housing for populations at risk of homelessness. Establishes Housing and Community Services Department Self- Sufficiency Housing Fund. Appropriates moneys from fund to department for purpose of providing housing to at-risk populations. Authorizes use of lottery bonds for specified Department of Higher Education capital construction projects. Establishes related funds and accounts. Declares emergency, effective July 1, 2007. Relating to: Relating to lottery bonds; creating new provisions; amending ORS 285B.551 and section 2, chapter 788, Oregon Laws 2005; appropriating money; and declaring an emergency. Staff Recommendation: Not reviewed by staff as of May 8, 2007 (fast moving bill) IGR Committee Vote: Priority 3, Oppose (2/1, Bettman, Taylor Yes/ Pryor, No) (See page 3 of the IGR Meeting Minutes of May 8, 2007.) June 15, 2007: COPS grant request: The Emergency Management Program is requesting authorization to apply for grant funding under the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) 2007 Technology Program, for funds to improve data and voice interoperability between public safety agencies and organizations within the region and state. The City of Eugene Police Department is identified by the COPS Office as the lead agency for receiving interoperable communications funds in the Lane County area and has been invited to apply for funding under the 2007 program. The Emergency Management Program would like to continue with work that has already been completed under the 2005 COPS Technology Program grant by adding Fire/EMS to the improved data and voice interoperability communications system for public safety agencies. The IGR Committee noted concern about the amount of the match required. There is a 25% cash match requirement for all applicants, which will need to be satisfied by the end of the three-year grant period. The scope and cost of the project is being developed, with current estimates at around $4 million; $3 L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070625\S0706254.DOC million will come from the COPS grant with the remaining $1 million from the local match. EWEB has stated that it would be able to contribute a large portion of the match. The remaining will be provided by the City of Eugene, City of Springfield, Lane Rural Fire Department and Santa Clara Fire Department proportional to the number of subscriber units purchased. It also appears that several other jurisdictions are interested in participating in the grant. The Eugene Fire Department portion of the match is estimated to be $183,000 over a three-year period. Western Environmental Law Center’s (WELC) letter of support: WELC has requested the City of Eugene’s support of its petition to the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) to use its legislatively granted authority to ban all open field burning, propane flaming, stack and pile burning in the Willamette Valley. WELC’s petition will be made on the grounds that smoke and associated pollutants from field burning cause significant and sometimes life-threatening health impacts to residents of the Willamette Valley and are an extreme danger to public health and safety. Alternatively, WELC intends to urge the EQC to make a finding that reasonable and economically feasible, environmentally acceptable alternatives have been developed that warrant cessation of this archaic, dangerous practice. The IGR Committee voted unanimously to support the Western Environmental Law Center's request to the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission to ban field burning in the Willamette Valley. Because the letter of support to WELC was due on June 22, 2007, the letter was prepared and signed by Mayor Piercy. Accordingly, the IGR Committee is requesting validation of its support position. 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. The council may also grant or decline to grant permission to the Emergency Management Program to apply for the COPS grant. Additionally, the council may validate or decline to validate the IGR Committee’s support of the Western Environmental Law Center's request to the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission to ban field burning. 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, as well as discussion on the grant request and the letter of support to ban field burning. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to ratify the IGR Committee's actions as set forth in the minutes of the May 8, May 22, May 29, and June 6, 2007, IGR Committee meetings. Motions to state positions for the bills, the COPS grant request, and the letter of support to WELC discussed at this City Council meeting may also be made. L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070625\S0706254.DOC ATTACHMENTS A. IGR Committee Minutes of May 8, 2007 B. IGR Committee Minutes of May 22, 2007 C. IGR Committee Minutes of May 29, 2007 D. IGR Committee Minutes of June 6, 2007 E. Memo dated June 15, 2007: Request for authorization to apply for COPS funding 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\M070625\S0706254.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 May 8, 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; Linda Phelps, Eugene Police Department; Eric Jones, Eric Wold, Public Works Department; Larry Hill, Central Services Department, Nancy Young, Richie Weinman, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and De- velopment Department; Sarah Medary, Library, Recreation & Cultural Services; Kristie Hammitt, Municipal Court; Jerome 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. 2. Review Pending Legislation HB 3319 Ms. Wilson said the bill was dead because it did not meet the work session deadline but the language would be “gutted and stuffed” into another prevailing wage bill. There was a unanimous vote to support Ms. Bettman’s suggestion to change the bill’s status to Monitor. SB 1036 Ms. Wilson distributed amendments to the bill. Mr. Hill explained that staff recommended opposing the bill because it would place limitations on a jurisdiction’s ability to impose a tax on real property construction improvements and require that revenue be remitted to the school district. He said the bill represented a limitation on home rule authority. Ms. Bettman concurred with the staff recommendation of an Oppose Priority 2 position, but requested additional information on the issue. HB 2422-A Mr. Hill said that a revenue analysis of the first year of the cigarette tax increase indicated the City of Eugene could expect to receive about $1,890 because a majority of the revenue was dedicated to senior and disabled transit services. He recommended a Priority 2 Support position as it provided a benefit for the MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations May 8, 2007 Page 1 citizens of Eugene. Ms. Bettman asserted that Lane Council of Governments operated senior and disabled transit services. Ms. Bettman suggested a Priority 3 Support position. There were no objections. HB 2541-A Mr. Hill said the bill represented the interests of the Oregon Association of Realtors and would limit the City’s authority to impose a business license tax on a realtor who did not maintain a main or branch office in the City. Ms. Bettman moved to adopt a Priority 2 Oppose position. Mr. Hill related that the bill had passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 55:0. He felt the bill could not be stopped and lobbying efforts could be better spent on other matters. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to adopt a Priority 3 Oppose position. The motion passed, 3:0. HB 2134-A Ms. Bettman asked about the nature of the changes to the legislation that staff had characterized as not substantial. Ms. Phelps replied that the changes in the current version did not modify the fundamental aspects of the bill. Ms. Wilson agreed that the changes were housekeeping and clarification. Ms. Bettman indicated she was fine with the recommendation but asked that the nature of modifications to a bill be more clearly described in the future. SB 573-A Ms. Taylor moved to adopt a Monitor position instead of an Oppose position. There was no second. Ms. Taylor said she though it was a conflict with the City’s policies to oppose a bill for pedestrian safety. Ms. Phelps said the concern was the inclusion of crosswalks where there was a traffic control device and it would be less confusing and dangerous if those crosswalks were eliminated from the bill. Ms. Wilson said it was unlikely that amendment would occur. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to adopt a Priority 2 Oppose position. The motion passed, 2:1; Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. HB 2626-A Ms. Bettman stated there was nothing in the bill related to reuse of electronic devices and the intent was to support the bill with an amendment to specifically address reuse. There were no objections. HB 2992-A Mr. Wold said the amendments provided additional clarity on the intent of the legislation and did not change its substance. SB 83-A Ms. Wilson reported the governor had signed the bill. Ms. Bettman asked if the bill created a different definition or threshold for disability. Ms. Wilson replied that testimony on the bill indicated the intent was to avoid labels and the implication that the term defined the person instead of their disability. She said the Oregon State Bar had strict guidelines on the removal of judges and those would still have to be followed; the bill just required that the judge be referred to as having a disability instead of being disabled. SB 827-A Mr. Yeiter said the amended bill appeared to be very similar to the original with the difference that the amount of the revolving loan fund was now established as $25 million. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt a Priority 1 Oppose position. The motion passed, 3:0. SB 926-A Ms. Bettman asked if the bill would require the State to pay for the velodromes as well as directing that they be constructed. Ms. Medary said the bill would appropriation $3.5 million from the State Parks and Recreation Department’s budget to construct three velodromes. She said the appropriate was regarded as seed money, with the intent that local communities would contribute the remaining funds. She said that no funding for maintenance and operation was identified, although in other communities velodromes generated enough revenue to pay for their operation and maintenance costs. Mr. Pryor remarked that as long as the bill did not require the City to build the velodrome he was willing to consider it. Ms. Bettman determined that there were no objections to a Priority 2 Support position. HB 5036 Ms. Wilson explained that Lane Transit District (LTD) was requesting the City’s support of their request for $10 million in lottery bonds revenue for the EmX project. Ms. Bettman stated that funds were identified for rail and LTD was asking for a percentage of them to go to bus rapid transit (EmX project). She said she would not support the request because she and many other people had indicated to LTD that they preferred rail to bus rapid transit. She said that LTD had argued in favor of BRT instead of Rail on the basis that they would not have to compete for funding with rail projects. She said that LTD had killed a rail or streetcar system by choosing the EmX project and she would not support their request. Ms. Piercy stated that she did support LTD’s request and also supported the EmX system as it looked to the future and had widespread support from the community and the area’s congressional delegation. Ms. Taylor stated her opposition to diverting money from rail because rail was the future and more important than bus rapid transit. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt a position of Priority 3 Op- pose. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pryor voting in opposition. HB 3537 Mr. Weinman explained that the bill was addressing the concerns of Habitat for Humanity, which had retail stores in some communities for the purpose of funding low-cost housing programs. He said there were no cases in Eugene where the bill would apply. 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. 3. Approval of Minutes Ms. Bettman offered the following corrections to the April 12, 2007, IGR meeting minutes: ? strike the phrase “and affordable” in her motion related to HB 2095-A ? revise the phrase “include local projects” to “include local operations, maintenance and preservation projects” in her motion related to HB 3413 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to accept the April 12 minutes as amended. The motion passed, 3:0. Ms. Bettman offered the following corrections to the April 19, 2007, IGR meeting minutes: ? Second paragraph under HB 3413: “She also thought voluntary island annexations should be al- lowed…” Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to accept the April 19 minutes as amended. The motion passed, 3:0. Ms. Piercy asked if the City had taken a position on bill related to extension of enterprise zones. Ms. Wilson said she would check. Ms. Piercy asked for an update on HB 3337. Ms. Wilson said she would provide that during the last agenda item. 4. IGR Operational Document Ms. Bettman pointed out that the IGR Committee make recommendations on legislative issues of interest as well as those that affected the City and the document should reflect that. Committee members accepted Ms. Wilson’s suggestion to remove the words “affecting Eugene” from the first sentence in Section 1. Ms. Bettman suggested removing the word “endeavor” from the last sentence of the second paragraph in Section 2. Ms. Piercy suggested removing the word “full” from that sentence as well. Ms. Bettman determined there were no objections to her and Ms. Piercy’s suggestions. Ms. Bettman offered the following changes to Section 10: ? First paragraph, last sentence: “Regardless, the City will maintain a neutral position on any bills not yet reviewed by City staff and considered acted on by the IGR Committee.” ? First bulleted item: Place the last sentence at the beginning of the item. Insert phrase: “Legislative Coordinators in the appropriate City department analyze all introduced bill that are of interest to or may affect the City.” ? Second bulleted item: Include language that a quicker turnaround is expected in certain situations, such as a scheduled hearing on a bill. ? Forth and fifth bulleted item: Change the word “should” to “shall” or “will.” Ms. Bettman suggested adding the phrase “or is of significant policy interest to the City” to the definition of all three priority levels. Ms. Bettman suggested adding language to the section on Priority 2 bills that indicated the mayor and city councilors could participate in lobbying activities. Ms. Piercy suggested removing the word “also” from the first sentence in Section 12. 5. Items from Members and Staff Ms. Wilson reported that the City had been notified by the U. S. Forest Services that it would receive $460,000 for a Forest Legacy project. Ms. Wilson said that HB 3337 was introduced by Representative Byers at the request of the Springfield City Council. She said the bill was awaiting assignment to a committee. She was concerned that the bill would have a fiscal impact as a buildable lands inventory was estimated to cost $200,000. She said that additionally, splitting the urban growth boundary (UGB) would void a part of the Metro Plan and require a substantial amendment, creating more fiscal impact. She would urge a referral to Ways and Means for the bill and argue that the buildable lands inventory was an unfunded mandate. She hoped that would divert attention from the policy arguments and focus on the costs involved and how those would be paid for. Ms. Bettman asked about the impact of dividing the UGB on the wastewater management plan for the metropolitan area. Ms. Wilson said that a number of Metro Plan components, including transportation and wastewater, were predicated on a shared UGB and that was why the State felt that if the bill passed the plan would have to be amended. She was not certain that Springfield had fully considered the costs involved. Ms. Taylor related her recent conversation with Representative Barnhart during which he urged the City to compromise by continuing to oppose splitting the UGB, but allowing the buildable lands inventory language to remain. Ms. Bettman stated that would be capitulation, not compromise. Ms. Wilson advised working to kill the bill rather than amend it. The next meetings were scheduled for May 15 at 4:30 p.m. and tentatively for May 22 at noon. The meeting adjourned at 1 p.m. (Recorded by Lynn Taylor) ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon May 22, 2007 Noon PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Chair; Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, members; Mary Walston, Brenda Wilson, Jessica Cross, Randi Zimmer, City Manager's Office; Jerry Lidz, City Attorney; Ellwood Cushman, Eugene Police Department; Linda Dawson, Keli Osborn, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Eric Jones, Peggy Keppler, Public Works Department; Larry Hill, Central Services Department. 1. Call to Order and Review Agenda Ms. Bettman called the meeting of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) to order. 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 2735-A & SB 17-A Ms. Wilson reported that there would be a public hearing this afternoon and it looked as if the bill, which would provide statewide protections for manufactured home owners who are at risk of losing their home and investment, would be approved. Staff recommended supporting the measure with amendments that eliminate the provisions preempting cities’ local control for enacting a stronger ordinance. HB 3407-A Mr. Cushman said staff strongly supported this bill as amended. It would prohibit the release of private residence addresses of police officers and district attorneys from private property tax records. HB 3318-A This bill would re-designate special campus security officers within the Oregon University System as public safety officers, after receiving necessary training. Ms. Wilson reported that even though this bill was introduced prior to the shootings at Virginia Tech University, the University of Oregon had concerns about public safety officers having weapons on campus. She believed the UO still opposed this. Mr. Cushman said Police Chief Lehner had talked with university officials, that they were opposed to the bill and the Police Department was inclined to support that. Under the original bill, he said the university could request to have public safety officers on campus and the board (of Higher Education?) could grant that request. The amendment mandates that the university have six armed commissioned officers on campus, whether the institution wanted it or not. He said the staff opposed a mandate. Ms. Bettman commented that it was a burden on the City police force to make up for the fact that there was no campus police force and this was a resource issue for the City. She said at the least she would favor a Priority 2 neutral position, to be involved in the discussions to amend it to make it permissive rather than mandatory. Mr. Cushman said the university now contracts with the City to get armed police officers, so the City did get some compensation from the school. Ms. Bettman wanted to work to get the bill amended to make it permissive. Ms. Wilson said she could work with the University to try to get that done. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt a Priority 2 Neutral position. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 3314-A The staff opposed this bill, which would create an offense for inflicting serious physical injury or death to a vulnerable user of a public way. Mr. Cushman said the staff’s opposition was twofold: The bill did not address whether the person identified as a vulnerable user had contributed to the accident, and if a person were injured or killed in an accident, it would not matter what kind of vehicle the other person was driving as long as he or she had been driving carelessly. Ms. Bettman said it did not distinguish situations such as a kid on a skateboard scooting out between two vehicles into the path of an oncoming vehicle. Mr. Cushman said it did require a threshold that the vehicle driver was driving carelessly or recklessly. Ms. Taylor felt people should use extra care if they saw a bicycle or a pedestrian and wanted to support the bill. Mr. Pryor said this bill did not address that. Ms. Wilson said she believed the bill would pass both chambers. Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Ms. Bettman, to adopt a Priority 3 Neutral position. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 480-A The staff recommended support Priority 3 for this bill that would set safety requirements for motor vehicle passengers under 13 years of age. Ms. Taylor said she wanted to change this to support Priority 3. Ms. Bettman noted that it already was support Priority 3; Mr. Pryor added that the bill was discussed at the last meeting. Ms. Taylor said it still did not address the size of the children. Ms. Wilson said the staff had tried unsuccessfully to get the bill amended to include a size requirement instead of age as the sole criteria in the section requiring 13 year olds to sit in the back seat. She said there had been an amendment to allow 13 year olds to sit in the front if there was no available space in the back. Ms. Taylor was satisfied with that. HB 2872-A This bill, which prohibits the use of mobile communication devices while operating a motor vehicle, has been amended so that it applies only to people who are under 18 years of age and have a provisional driver’s license, a special student driver permit, or an instruction driver permit. The staff recommended supporting the bill, with amendments so that it applies to all drivers under 18 regardless of type of license and deleting language related to its application only as a “second offense.” Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Pryor, to a Priority 3 Support with the amendments proposed by the staff. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 431-A The staff recommended opposing this amended bill, which restricts landlords from removing tenant vehicles from premises. Ms. Osborn said the amended bill could have the unintended consequence of hampering nuisance and zoning code enforcement by Eugene and other cities. Ms. Taylor wanted to support the bill because she felt people frequently suffered from having their cars towed without notice. Ms. Osborn said that was a real issue, and the premise of the bill--to provide protection for tenants--was sound. However, she said if the bill passed as amended, the City would have to amend its code in order to address the junk car issue. Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Pryor, to adopt a position of Priority 2 oppose unless it was amended to allow local governments to deal with junk cars. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 1011-A The staff recommended supporting the bill authorizing counties and metropolitan service districts to designate rural reserves not included in urban growth boundaries or rural communities for agriculture. As amended, Mr.Yeiter said, the bill affected only the Portland metropolitan area. Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to Support Priority 3. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 1036-A The bill restricts local governmental power to impose construction excise taxes. Mr. Lidz said the obvious downside of the bill was that it preempted some local authority; the downside of opposing the bill was that school districts could not impose these taxes without this statutory authorization. He added that if the City opposed the bill successfully, it would gut a proposed funding source for school districts. In reply to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Lidz said the City now had authority to impose a construction excise tax, but this bill would remove that authority. Ms. Bettman thought the bill should be opposed based on the City’s legislative policy that stated do not take away cities’ abilities to raise revenues or preempt their local authority. Mr. Hill said that was the basis of his recommendation to oppose the bill. Mr. Lidz said while he did not disagree with the legislative policies, he wondered if the City would be protecting a potential funding source because it was important to the City or only on principle. Ms. Bettman said to her, it was not a philosophical exercise and she wanted to explore the possibility of imposing such a tax in the future. She felt the bill would take away a funding tool the City had. Ms. Wilson said the League of Oregon Cities was adamantly opposed and had done a survey of the state’s school districts, finding that most had no intention of passing this type of tax because it would not raise enough revenue to fund school construction. Mr. Pryor expressed concern that opposing the bill would send a message to school districts that the City supported them as long it did not cost the City money, but said he would go along. Ms. Bettman declared the opposition unanimous. HB 3295-A Mr. Hill said the bill, which would establish principal residence property tax exemption for senior citizens and people with disabilities, had been rewritten to apply only as an exemption from school-related local option property taxes. He said there was no need for this exemption, because low income seniors and disabled persons can already obtain property tax relief under the existing homestead property tax deferral program. Ms. Bettman inquired about the bill’s status. Ms. Wilson replied that it had been referred to the Revenue Committee, one of the committees that would not shut down when the session ended. Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Mr. Pryor, to Oppose Priority 3. The vote was unanimous, 3:0. HB 2712-A Ms. Bettman said the measure seemed to be a preemption bill that did not create any funding for the land division task force that would be created by the bill. Ms. Wilson noted that the bill was in the Ways and Means Committee, because there was no funding attached to it. Ms. Bettman inquired about the amendments. Ms. Wilson said the bill would now require studying the issue, still with no provision for funding, and she expected it not to be funded. Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to Oppose Priority 3. The vote passed unanimously. SB 855-A This bill would provide relief to counties losing federal Secure Rural Schools Act funding. Mr. Jones said the measure would give counties $30 million from Oregon Department of Transportation’s share of State Highway Trust Fund revenue and would not diminish the share already apportioned to cities or counties. Staff recommended supporting the bill to support Lane County, which would be hard hit if federal funds dried up. Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Pryor, to Support Priority 2. The vote passed unanimously, 3:0. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to adopt the staff recommendations for May 15 and May 22 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. 3. Approval of Minutes Mr. Pryor moved, seconded by Ms. Bettman, to approve the minutes for the April 26 meeting. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. 4. Items from Members and Staff The committee discussed when to hold another meeting. Ms. Wilson said May 31 was the deadline for the “second chamber” work sessions so that would be too late for the IGR committee to have any influence on outcomes. She said legislators were doing a lot of stuffing, not so much gutting, pending legislation. The next IGR meeting will be held at 4:30 p.m. May 29 before the City Council meeting. Another tentative meeting was scheduled for noon June 6. Ms. Bettman adjourned the meeting at 12:50 p.m. (Recorded by Susan Wulfekuhler) ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations HRRS Conference Room (Room 101) – Eugene City Hall – 777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon May 29, 2007 4:30 p.m. PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Chair; Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, members; Kitty Piercy, Mayor; Brenda Wilson, Randi Zimmer, City Manager's Office; Eric Jones, Eric Wold, Lacey Risdal, Public Works Department; Joe Rizzi, Human Resources and Risk Services Department. 1. Call to Order and Review Agenda Ms. Bettman called the meeting of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) to order. There were no changes to the agenda. 2. Review Pending Legislation SB 506-A Ms. Wilson explained that the bill sought to clarify the definition of medical sequelae as there was no current definition in the statute. She stated that when a workers compensation claim was filed and accepted and compensation was determined there could be a motion for reconsideration. She said during the reconsideration the medical arbiter could add on a medical disability which did not allow for additional testimony from either the claimant or the employer and was without a right to appeal. She related that a lot of the testimony in hearings had raised the concern that this would prevent a claimant from claiming, for instance, that a blood clot resulting from a broken leg was a part of the original injury and merited a further claim. Even though the committee was assured that the bill would not prevent this type of claim in this type of situation, two committee members had been very uncomfortable with the bill. She reported that the bill had not moved out of the committee because it did not have the votes. Ms. Bettman asked why the supporters of the bill wished to prevent the claimant from adding on an emerging condition related to the original condition. Ms. Wilson responded that the bill did not prevent such a claim, rather it prevented the medical arbiter from adding it on after the claim had been closed. She noted that the supporters of the bill were employers, who would be prevented from testifying or investigating further whether or not a medical sequelae was actually a result of the on-the-job injury. She related that Representative Paul Holvey had expressed concern that the bill would cause the claimant to file a new claim and to have to start over. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to Monitor the bill. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations May 29, 2007 Page 1 HB 2656-A Ms. Wilson said originally staff had not perceived this bill as having a direct impact on the City. She related that after review staff had recommended adopting a Neutral stance on the bill. Ms. Bettman thought the bill would supercede the requirement to have an expert in this type of construction be consulted and would allow a contractor to hire an expert of his or her choice. Ms. Wilson provided the committee with copies of the staff review of the bill. Ms. Bettman said she supported the staff recommendation and committee members agreed. HB 3082-A Ms. Bettman opposed the bill unless it would be amended to require equitable distribution of the money garnered by the bill to the City of Eugene. She said if the City wanted to have any leverage regarding how the percentages of the money were allocated the City should oppose the bill unless it was amended. Mr. Jones understood that an effort had been made to offer such an amendment that had been unsuccessful. He related that there did not seem to be much hope that the State would change the formula. He averred that at this point the question facing the City was whether to support making it easier for the County to have a vehicle registration fee. Mr. Pryor said in this case he would agree that the bill should stipulate a more equitable distribution of funding. Mr. Jones related that by law 40 percent of the revenue raised by county vehicle registration fees would be distributed to cities. He added that in theory that 40 percent would be distributed on a fair basis such as population of the cities. Mr. Pryor asked how many of the cars in Lane County were registered in the City of Eugene. Mr. Jones speculated that approximately half of the cars were registered in the City. Ms. Bettman moved to adopt a Priority 1 Oppose stance unless the bill was amended to provide at least 40 percent of the revenue to the cities divided equitably according to popu- lation. Ms. Bettman asked where the bill was. Ms. Wilson predicted that the bill would remain under consideration beyond May 31 so there was still some time to work on it. Ms. Bettman commented that she was inclined to just adopt a Priority 1 Oppose stance on the bill. She asked Ms. Wilson for her thoughts on that. Ms. Wilson responded that at the beginning of the session the legislature had “grand ideas” about what they could get passed and one of those ideas had been the gas tax, which had failed. She thought there was a chance that the vehicle registration fees would not happen either. She felt it was possible to get the bill amended as Ms. Bettman had suggested. Mr. Jones observed that the bill was only related to the County’s authority to levy a tax without an election and it would not raise the State’s vehicle registration fees. He said the bill was the most removed from the fiscal impact at the state level. Ms. Taylor remarked that she was inclined to think it was a good tax. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations May 29, 2007 Page 2 Mr. Pryor provided a second to the motion. Mr. Pryor said his rationale was that he did not like the 40 percent ratio because it was too low. He questioned why the County should get 60 percent. He preferred to work on a solution where the cities received a higher proportion of the money. He thought support of the bill allowed the County to impose a tax without an election and utilize a distribution ratio that he could not support. Ms. Bettman asked Mr. Pryor if he would prefer the original proposed amendment, which sought to amend the bill to provide the cities with 70 percent of the revenue generated by the fees that would then be equitably distributed according to population. Ms. Wilson stated that given the precariousness of the Secure Rural Schools funding the leadership in both chambers of the Legislature had pushed for resolutions that included funding solutions. Mr. Pryor suggested the City say that it was opposing the bill because the City wished to leave things “as they are” until a better solution could be worked out. Ms. Taylor reiterated that the CCIGR should state that the City of Eugene opposed the bill unless the cities received a fair amount of the revenue. Ms. Bettman modified her motion to adopt a Priority 1 Oppose stance on the bill unless it was amended to provide 70 percent of the revenue to cities and that the revenue should be distributed equitably to the cities according to population. Ms. Taylor provided the second. Mr. Jones pointed out that the bill would apply to other counties and he was uncertain whether a 70 percent split to cities would be a fair ratio in Gilham County, as an example. Ms. Wilson noted that the current bill stated 40 percent unless the cities and counties had come to a different agreement. Mr. Pryor felt this indicated there were too many issues to be worked out. He reiterated his opposition to the bill. Mayor Piercy recommended, given that the bill was at this juncture, that the CCIGR be non-specific about the amount but refer to the fairness. Ms. Bettman revised her motion to read that the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations would adopt a Priority 1 Oppose stance on the bill unless it was amended so that the ordinance shall provide for payment of the money to cities equitably on a population ba- sis. Ms. Taylor seconded the revised motion. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2114-A Ms. Bettman surmised that the bill would exempt an operation conducted as part of a stewardship agreement from the requirement of a written plan and that it would exempt the land management plans toward stewardship agreements from disclosure unless public interest required disclosure. She asked why such information would have to remain secret. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations May 29, 2007 Page 3 Mr. Wold explained that the language protected private property owners who were voluntarily entering into a conservation agreement to not have to disclose to the world what was on their property and what they were managing it for. Ms. Bettman asserted that the private property owners were getting public money but the public had no ability to track or document what they were doing. Ms. Wilson explained that some of the agreements had to do with endangered species and it was important not to let the public know, especially in the case of endangered plant species, where they were located because people dig them up and take them. She stated that a lot of those species were covered under an Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) regarding non-disclosure where the public interest against knowing and not knowing was weighed in order to protect a species. Ms. Bettman asked where the grant monies came from. Mr. Wold stated that at this point there was no money in either the Stewardship Agreement Grant Fund or the Flexible Incentives Account. He averred that at this point both were “holding concepts” for future accounts. Ms. Bettman asked why they would go through this trouble without an identified source of funding. Ms. Wilson replied that her understanding of the bill was that the main purpose of it was related to housekeep- ing. She related that the grant fund had been enacted in a legislative session a couple of years earlier and it had not “come out” the way it had been intended. She said legislators were hoping to address some of the concerns that had been raised and some of the administrative issues. In response to a question from Ms. Wilson, Mr. Wold said there were a variety of ways such funds were allocated. He stated that the Stewardship Agreement Grant Fund was being administered by the State Board of Forestry. He understood that the existing rules were disadvantageous to forest management of oak habitat, which was a priority for this area. He related that grant programs such as this one were in demand because they allowed for a stewardship agreement grant to be written that would customize management for a unique property. Mayor Piercy asked what groups supported and opposed the bill. Ms. Wilson replied that defenders of wildlife and conservation groups supported it and no one opposed it. Ms. Bettman reiterated that the bill did not require a written plan. Mr. Wold assured her that the steward- ship itself was a written document. Mr. Pryor pointed out that if one applied for money it was required that the application indicates how the money would be used. Mr. Wold cited Section 4, regarding Stewardship Agreements, which dictated that the stewardships would be reviewed to see if they continued to meet criteria. Ms. Bettman asked why staff was advocating for strong support. Mr. Wold replied that the bill would increase the motivation to do this kind of work. He said there were a lot of different funding opportunities for properties that had a significant amount of wetlands, riparian areas, or rivers. He noted that the State had some of those opportunities through the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB). He commented that the only challenging element of the bill was the uncertainty as to where the money was coming from. Ms. Bettman reiterated that as long as the recommendation is a Priority 2 Support, and the resources are there with a method of accountability, then the committee is in support of the staff recommen- dation. Ms. Wilson noted that the bill had passed out of committee 40 minutes earlier but still had to be reviewed by the House Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. Pryor supported the concept. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations May 29, 2007 Page 4 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt the staff recommendations for the priorities and recommendations of all of the bills that were not pulled for discussion and the recommendations given by the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations on all of the bills that were pulled for discussion. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. 3. Items from Members and Staff Ms. Bettman stated that the next meeting of the CCIGR would be held at noon on June 6. The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m. (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations May 29, 2007 Page 5 ATTACHMENT D M I N U T E S Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street, Eugene, Oregon June 6, 2007 Noon PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Chair; Betty Taylor, Chris Pryor, members; Brenda Wilson, Jessica Cross, Randi Zimmer, City Manager's Office; Char Mauch, Municipal Court; Ellwood Cushman, Eugene Police Department; Trevor Taylor, Parks and Open Space Division; Glen Svendsen, 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. 2. Grant Proposal Ms. Wilson indicated the inclusion of the grant proposal in the packet was a “heads up” and the committee would consider the grant at its next meeting. Ms. Bettman indicated the committee would add the grant and the operating agreements to the next agenda. 3. Review Pending Legislation House Bill (HB) 2303-A Ms. Mauch indicated the high priority proposed by staff was due to the fact the bill expanded the jurisdic- tion of the Municipal Court to reduce fines for violations. Ms. Bettman said the bill also extended that authority to violations committed by corporations and limited partnerships. Ms. Mauch concurred, but was unsure of the implications of that as Municipal Court did not deal with those entities. Ms. Bettman suggested the bill be monitored or dropped as she was not interested in reducing fines for corporations or limited partnerships. Ms. Wilson said the bill allowed for a search warrant to be executed in the same manner as other search warrants under current rules of civil procedure and made it consistent with other administrative rules. The original house bill gave the court discretion to reduce fines where warranted. The City also supported that bill on the record; the question was whether to support the additional provision related to the search warrant. Ms. Bettman indicated acceptance of the staff recommendation and said more staff comment would be useful. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations June 6, 2007 Page 1 HB 3535/HB 2745-A Mr. Cushman indicated staff support for the two bills in question was based on the need for consistent funding for the Oregon State Police (OSP). He had asked Larry Hill of Financial Services if the bills would impact the City fiscally and Mr. Hill could find no adverse impact. Ms. Bettman asked how there could be no adverse impact if the State General Fund was to be reduced one percent to fund more State troopers as called for in HB 3535. She supported having more State troopers but did not see how the City would not be affected. Another issue of concern to her was how many of troopers the funding added would be based in Lane County. Mr. Cushman said that not many, but even two would assist in regard to coverage. Mr. Pryor suggested the financial impact of the added troopers would be offset by the increase in patrols. Mr. Cushman acknowledged he was not qualified to say whether the bill would impact the City financially. Ms. Wilson said there were several bills in the Ways and Means Committee dealing with OSP funding. She said at this point, HB 3535 was the main vehicle for increasing the OSP budget, but the source of the funding was not certain. Ms. Bettman asked what amount one percent of the State General Fund represented. Ms. Wilson did not know and indicated she could find out. She reiterated the final funding numbers and funding source was not clear at this time. Ms. Bettman suggested both bills be assigned a status of Priority 2, Monitor, with a message of support but concern about the impact of funding. Mr. Pryor pointed out that HB 2745-A had an identified source of funding. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the HB 3535 from Priority 3, Support, to Priority 2, Monitor. There was consensus to support the motion. HB 3543-A Ms. Bettman thought the bill, related to climate change, had been changed to the degree it was now ineffective. She suggested the status of the bill be changed from Priority 3, Support, to Priority 3, Oppose. Ms. Taylor did not want to oppose the bill. Mr. Pryor suggested the bill could be dropped from considera- tion. Ms. Wilson noted the bill was in the Ways and Means Committee because all bills forming commis- sions were directed to that committee. She said the City could oppose the bill unless amended to include funding. Ms. Bettman said that funding was not her main concern. She said that previously the bill was to “coordinate state and local” efforts to halt or reduce emissions, the modified version merely had the commission make recommendations. Ms. Taylor suggested the City could support the bill if it was amended. Ms. Bettman said if the bill was not amended, the City would be on record as being in support. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to drop the bill. The motion passed unani- mously. Senate Bill (SB) 929-A MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations June 6, 2007 Page 2 Noting that the bill created a tax credit for donations of easements of property to private or public conservation agencies, Ms. Bettman asked if such easements or property donations were protected in perpetuity or if the agency holding them seek a zone change or general plan amendment. Mr. Taylor said the land was protected in perpetuity. Ms. Bettman asked if preservation of outdoor lands for recreation could encompass such uses as hunting and golf courses. Mr. Pryor doubted that could occur given the intent of preservation of habitat called out in the bill. Ms. Wilson noted that the bill was supported by such groups as The Nature Conservancy. Ms. Bettman wanted more information in response to her question. Ms. Wilson said she could follow-up with an e-mail to the committee. She noted the bill was sent back to the bill’s sponsors and supporters for the inclusion of a cap. She anticipated the bill would include either a cap or would establish a pilot project. HB 3099-A Ms. Bettman called for assigning the bill, which would require municipalities of a certain size to hold elections regarding water fluoridation, a status of Priority 1, Oppose given the home rule issue involved. By consensus, the committee took a Priority 1 Oppose position on the bill. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to adopt the staff recommendations for priori- ties and recommendations for all bills that were not pulled for discussion at this meeting, and for all bills that were discussed and acted upon at this meeting. The motion passed unanimously. 5. Approval of Minutes There were no minutes to approve. 6. Items from Members and Staff Referring to the committee’s operating agreements, Ms. Bettman said the document included all the steps for creating the legislative policy document but it did not indicate the policy document was to go to the City Council for adoption. She offered Ms. Wilson some minor corrections to the operating agreements, which Ms. Wilson recorded. Ms. Bettman asked if the Ballot Measure 37 “fix” offered by Senator Floyd Prozanski was specific as the size of the parcels that could accommodate three houses. Ms. Wilson believed it was. Ms. Bettman asked for more firm information. The committee scheduled its next meeting for June 15 at 3 p.m. Ms. Bettman adjourned the meeting at 12:30 p.m. (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations June 6, 2007 Page 3 ATTACHMENT E Memo to IGR Committee Grant Funding – 2007 COPS Technology Program June 15, 2007 Page 1 Human Resource & Risk Services City of Eugene 777 Pearl Street, Room 101 M Eugene, Oregon 97401 EMORANDUM (541) 682-5061 (541) 682-6831 FAX www.eugene-or.gov Date: June 15, 2007 To: Intergovernmental Relations Committee From: Joe Rizzi, Emergency Management Program Manager Subject:Grant Funding -- Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Interoperability Communications for Fire and EMS SOURCE/PURPOSE : The Emergency Management Program is requesting authorization to apply for grant funding under the COPS 2007 Technology Program, for funds to improve data and voice interoperability between public safety agencies and organizations within the region and state. The City of Eugene Police Department is identified by the COPS Office as the lead agency for receiving interoperable communications funds in the Lane County area and has been invited to apply for funding under the 2007 program. We would like to continue with work that has already been completed under the 2005 COPS Technology Program grant by adding Fire/EMS to the improved data and voice interoperability communications system for public safety agencies. Interoperable communication is a top priority when it comes to emergency management and public safety. Interoperable communications allows multiple departments and agencies the ability to communicate more effectively in an emergency, as well as in their day-to-day operations. MATCH REQUIRED: There is a 25% cash match requirement for all applicants, which will need to be satisfied by the end of the 3-year grant period. The scope and cost of the project is being developed. The current estimates are that the project will cost $4 million. $3 million will come from the COPS grant. The remaining $1 million will be local match. Current draft financial schedules are similar to the 2005 Grant, but with additional agencies to share in the match over the 3 year period. EWEB has stated that they would be able to contribute a large portion of the match similar to their contribution to the 2005 COPS Grant project. The remaining will be provided by the City of Eugene, the City of Springfield, Lane Rural Fire Department and Santa Clara Fire Department proportional to the number of subscriber units purchased. The Eugene Fire Department portion of the match is estimated to be $183,000 over a three year period. DESCRIPTION: With the implementation of the 2005 COPS Interoperable Communications grant there remain three key problem areas to be addressed: an inadequate Fire/EMS communications system, ATTACHMENT E Memo to IGR Committee Grant Funding – 2007 COPS Technology Program June 15, 2007 Page 2 lack of radio interoperability, and radio-hostile geography. The Eugene Fire Department proposal is to request 2007 COPS grant funding, to accomplish the following: ? addition of the Metro area Fire and EMS agencies to the UHF shared system; ? additional build-out of the UHF system with the addition of a link and P25 UHF site at Belknap to access the Carmen-Smith area; ? an additional link and P25 UHF site on Prairie Mountain to improve system coverage to the west of the Metro area; ? addition of a receiver site in the Metro area to improve in-building coverage; ? additional VHF P25 Conventional narrow-band repeaters at Bear and Prairie Mountains to improve rural fire/EMS communications capabilities; ? and fixed links between rural VHF and Metro area UHF to ensure complete interoperability between urban and rural agencies. Additional agencies which will collaborate on phases of the project include: Oregon Department of Transportation; Oregon State Police (OSP); US Department of Justice (DOJ); US Bureau of Land Management; and US Forest Service. TIMELINE: We received the invitation to participate in the 2007 COPS grant program on May 15, 2007. The deadline for submitting a grant application is June 29, 2007. If awarded grant funds, the project will be completed over a three year period. RELATION TO CITY PRIORITIES: In the urban core of Eugene-Springfield, the second largest metropolitan area in Oregon, as throughout the rest of the county, law enforcement cannot directly communicate with Fire and EMS responders. Even though strong mutual aid agreements are in place, in crisis situations where mutual aid is most critical, the communication barrier slows response, endangers life and property, and severely limits timely collaboration The City of Eugene is currently completing work on a $3 million dollar COPS grant for an interoperable communication system awarded in September 2005. The work under that grant is scheduled for completion by February 2008. Current interoperable communication system partners include Eugene Police, Springfield Police, Lane County Sheriff’s Office, and EWEB. The goal was to develop the system and add Fire/EMS at a later date. This grant will provide the City of Eugene with the opportunity to add this functionality for Fire/EMS without having to carry the full financial burden. RELATION TO OTHER PRIORITIES: Interoperable communications for public safety is the top priority for Oregon Emergency Management, in addition to being a high priority for the Department of Homeland Security. Not only will this project help communication between City of Eugene Police, Fire and EMS but it will also help our surrounding public safety agencies. The Lane County Fire Defense Board has been engaged in communications planning for the last three years and has just received an interoperable communications plan for Fire and EMS communications prepared by RCC, the consulting firm used by Oregon Emergency Management. This COPS proposal is in alignment with the recommendations in the RCC plan. Prior efforts also include the 2004 Eugene-Springfield Metro Communications Interoperability Plan encompassing urban police, fire, emergency medical, and public works functions within and between the two cities. Springfield has been able to enhance communication by adding a site on the Coburg Hills north of the city to the microwave network. The region is developing a single, unified Regional Communications Plan for Interoperability, ensuring that future Lane County public safety systems comply with Federal Communications Commission rules ATTACHMENT E Memo to IGR Committee Grant Funding – 2007 COPS Technology Program June 15, 2007 Page 3 and the national emphasis on interoperable communications between emergency service disciplines to the first-responder level. HISTORY: To begin to solve communications problems for law enforcement and other first responders, in 1998, the Lane County Sheriff’s Office began working with Oregon State Police to develop an ambitious, phased Regional Wireless Communications and Interoperability Plan (updated in 2005). This plan, when fully implemented, will result in a microwave backbone throughout the county to ensure all areas – urban and rural – are able to communicate regardless of geographic barriers or challenges. Over the years, LCSO has engaged Oregon Department of Transportation, US Bureau of Land Management, the US Forest Service, and Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) in this effort. They have pieced together funding to begin the first rural phases of the plan, beginning to add microwave towers on strategic peaks throughout the County. In 2003, LCSO was awarded a $68,000 FEMA Emergency Operations Plan grant and contributed an additional $41,000 to develop an Emergency Communications Plan depicting the most cost effective way to enhance radio communications countywide for 42 potential user agencies representing over 750 users. LCSO contributed $160,000 for an engineering survey and site acquisition contracts for microwave connections to LCSO Headquarters, EWEB Headquarters, Bear Mountain, and Mt. Hagen. Bear Mountain serves as the hub for connecting to state and federal systems. With leadership from Congressman Peter DeFazio, additional funding for some of the more rural pieces was provided in the SAFETEA-LU transportation bill. This “7-County Project” also provides a Motorola Master Site controller, allowing disparate radio systems to operate together seamlessly. In 2005, the Eugene Police Department was awarded a COPS Interoperable Communications grant to develop a trunked, simulcast UHF P25 compatible system in the Metro area, with a separate P25 trunked site on each of Mount Hagan and Bear Mountain; link Central Lane PSAP, LCSO dispatch and Springfield Police dispatch centers to provide for hot backup capabilities; develop a regional radio governance structure and committee; and complete a Lane County regional interoperability communications plan. This system is shared by the Eugene and Springfield Police Departments, LCSO, and the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB.) with each agency contributing additional funding, as well as using a Department of Homeland Security grant obtained by the Eugene Police Department.