HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3: Follow-up on 2009 Legislative Policies
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Action: Follow-up on 2009 Legislative Policies Document
Meeting Date: November 10, 2008 Agenda Item Number: 3
Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Brenda Wilson
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-8441
ISSUE STATEMENT
The Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (IGR Committee) works with staff to develop
the Legislative Policies document. The IGR Committee, which is composed of councilors Taylor, Ortiz,
and Poling, reviewed the document and presented it to the full council for consideration and adoption at
its October 29, 2008, work session. The document was adopted in a 4 to 1 vote, with Councilor Clark
stating that he would like a subsequent opportunity to make a motion to amend the document. Note that
subsequent to the adoption, a mistake was discovered in the Public Safety section under Traffic
Enforcement; it has been removed. The document was also checked one final time for typographical
errors and formatting issues.
The purpose of this agenda item is to provide the City Council with an opportunity to raise any issues
regarding the document.
BACKGROUND
The City Council has biennially approved iterations of a Legislative Policies document that is inclusive
of emerging legislative issues and possessing general principles that can be used to provide general
information about the City’s positions and be applied to unforeseen events in a legislative session.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
The Legislative Policies document will apprise legislators and intergovernmental partners of the
policy outcomes favorable or unfavorable to City interests and goals, and highlight recommendations
that achieve these outcomes. When appropriate and possible, the document references and uses
adopted City Council and City policy as guiding principles. The document is iterative and is based in
past practice and policies.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
The City Council adopted the 2009 Legislative Policies document on October 29, 2008. The City
Council may take no action and the document will be printed for distribution within the Oregon State
Legislature and with intergovernmental partners; or the City Council may make a motion to amend the
document and subsequently re-adopt it and direct it be printed for distribution.
Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M081110\S0811103.doc
ATTACHMENTS
A. 2009 Legislative Policies Document
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Brenda Wilson
Telephone: 682-8441
Staff E-Mail: brenda.s.wilson@ci.eugene.or.us
Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M081110\S0811103.doc
ATTACHMENTA
City of Eugene
Legislative Policies
2009
Oregon Legislative Session
City of Eugene Legislative Policies for 2009 Oregon Legislative Session
Eugene Mayor Kitty Piercy
Councilor Ward 1 Bonny Bettman
Councilor Ward 2 Betty Taylor
Councilor Ward 3 Alan Zelenka
Councilor Ward 4 George Poling
Councilor Ward 5 Michael Clark
Councilor Ward 6 Jennifer Solomon
Councilor Ward 7 Andrea Ortiz
Councilor Ward 8 Chris Pryor
For more information contact the City of Eugene Intergovernmental Relations Program
Eugene Office
541-682-8441
541-682-5414 (Fax)
777 Pearl Street, Room 105
Eugene, OR 97401
Salem Office
503-378-1505
503-378-1323 (Fax)
Local Government Center
1201 Court Street, N.E., Suite 200
Salem, OR 97301
www.eugene-or.gov
This document was adopted by the Eugene City Council on XX, XX, 2008.
2
City of Eugene Legislative Policies for 2009 Oregon Legislative Session
TC
ABLE OF ONTENTS
INTRODUCTION..............................................................................X
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................X
FINANCING STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT.....................X
TRANSPORTATION..........................................................................X
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY SERVICES.................................X
PUBLIC SAFETY...............................................................................X
YOUTH................................................................................................X
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES.............................................................X
GENERAL GOVERNMENT..............................................................X
TELECOMMUNICATIONS..............................................................X
3
City of Eugene Legislative Policies for 2009 Oregon Legislative Session
I
NTRODUCTION
As the state's second most populous urban area, Eugene and Springfield serve as the economic,
recreational and cultural center for the southern Willamette Valley and much of southwestern
Oregon. The urban area population is now more than 200,000. The regional economy is
diversified, with emphasis on technology, timber, education and service industries.
The City of Eugene operates under a home rule charter providing for a council/manager form of
government. The offices of the mayor and city councilors are nonpartisan, with the mayor elected
at-large and one councilor elected from each of eight city wards.
In the past two decades, as a result of property tax limitation measures, specifically Measure 5 in
1990 and Measures 47/50 in 1996/1997, the City has gone through a number of budget reduction
processes. In the early 1990s as a result of Measure 5, Eugene went through an extensive 18-month
process to evaluate City services and potential budget cuts. The City identified and made $5.3
million in budget cuts through eliminating services and reducing personnel. In 1996, voters in
Eugene rejected Measure 47 by a 64.5% to 35.5% vote. However, the Measure passed statewide.
As a result of Measure 47 and subsequent Measure 50, the City cut services by an additional $8.7
million in services in fiscal years 1998 and 1999.
Despite voter approval of several local option levies, the City’s revenue has not kept pace with the
service needs of the community since then. Service levels have been reduced and General Fund
reserves have been tapped to forestall deficits that were projected to occur. Despite the fiscal
challenges faced by the City, Eugene has to-date maintained an AA bond rating from Moody’s
Investors Service. This rating is a positive reflection of the management and performance history
of the City. It is supported by the fact that a large percentage of the citizens rate City services
positively, and demonstrates that the City is attempting to strategically address the fiscal and
service issues facing the community in this decade.
I.
ES
XECUTIVE UMMARY
To assist lawmakers in understanding the broad array of issue areas which can directly affect the
City of Eugene, this legislative policy overview provides an issue-by-issue resource. For 2009, the
City of Eugene will focus on three broad themes in evaluating legislation: preserving home rule and
local flexibility, ensuring revenue for needed services, and preserving livability.
4
City of Eugene Legislative Policies for 2009 Oregon Legislative Session
II.
FSLG
INANCING TATE AND OCAL OVERNMENT
?Eugene supports termination of state preemption of local taxes.
?Eugene supports the use of System Development Charges (SDCs) to fund capital
improvements for police, fire, schools and other local government services affected by new
development.
?Eugene supports the adequate funding of the State’s “Rainy Day Fund” to provide revenue
stability.
?Eugene supports increases in the corporate minimum income tax.
?Eugene supports enhancing existing funding levels for state programs that are allied with
and support public park and recreation agencies and programs; and maintaining park and
recreation agencies’ eligibility for funding in existing programs and promote eligibility for
funding in new programs.
?Eugene supports opportunities to create innovative alliances with existing agencies and
partners to develop new ventures with private, commercial, non-profit and public
organizations that will promote recreation programs and park facilities operation and
construction.
?Eugene supports maintaining the current budget appropriation for the Local Government
Grant Program within the State Parks budget.
?Eugene opposes actions that would erode local flexibility in initiating revenue sources.
?Eugene opposes actions that would preempt a cities’ authority to raise revenue unless cities
are reimbursed for lost revenues or increased costs.
?Eugene opposes actions that would reduce revenue or increase costs to cities.
?Eugene opposes actions that would negatively impact the ability for local governments to
assess, collect, and use Park SDCs for growth related improvements including such
provisions as limitations on charges, inappropriate changes in methodology, and/or
elimination of Park SDCs.
?Eugene opposes actions that would divert constitutionally designated Measure 66 Lottery
funds from park uses.
State tax policy has direct and indirect effects on the financial welfare of Oregon’s cities. The
adoption and subsequent implementation of Ballot Measures 5 and 47/50 has substantially changed
cities' approach to certain financial issues. With control of property taxes slipping further from
local governments, it is imperative for cities to retain and expand both the revenue-raising authority
and the revenue sources available to cities and for city residents, through their officials, to be able
to determine the types and levels of services needed.
5
City of Eugene Legislative Policies for 2009 Oregon Legislative Session
Accordingly, proposals to restructure or change the State's tax system must allow local
governments to finance the level of services demanded by their citizens. Cities must maintain local
flexibility to initiate revenue sources and to retain local apportionment of revenue from State gas,
liquor, beer and wine taxes, and other revenues.
B. PROPERTY TAXES
B1. Property Taxes for Local Government Services
?Eugene supports easing the constitutional double-majority requirement for general
obligation bonds for capital construction.
?Eugene opposes the levying of property taxes by the State to fund State-level services.
Property taxes are critically important to local governments and their ability to provide services to
citizens. Property taxes are expected to provide $76 million, or 50%, of the resources to the
Eugene’s General Fund in fiscal year 2008-09.
The State may from time to time use the general obligation pledge, which may include a pledge to
levy property taxes, to provide security for bond issues and obtain lower interest rates. The
payments on the bond issues should not, however, be made from property taxes.
B2. Exemptions
?Eugene supports revisiting all property tax exemptions granted in the past in light of the
revenue impact on local government.
?Eugene opposes the granting of new exemptions, deferrals or forgiveness of property taxes
by the Legislature without reimbursement of revenue loss to cities.
?Eugene opposes the granting of any exemption from taxation for the intangible personal
property of centrally assessed companies. If such an exemption is granted, the State should
reimburse cities for lost revenue.
Before the passage of Ballot Measure 50 and the resulting introduction of a rate-based tax system,
there was little competition between the public-policy goals associated with exemptions and the
public-service activities carried out under a local government’s budget. Even if a property was
exempted from taxation, the City’s levy remained intact, and the revenue was replaced by shifting
the obligation to the remaining taxable properties.
This is no longer the case. Now, property tax exemptions reduce revenue to cities. If the amount of
assessed value is reduced because a property is exempted, then the amount of tax revenue collected
is reduced. Without another form of revenue to replace the property tax loss, the result is fewer city
services or reduced service levels.
6
City of Eugene Legislative Policies for 2009 Oregon Legislative Session
B3. Urban Renewal Districts
?Eugene opposes reductions in urban renewal revenue.
?Eugene opposes mandating that a portion of urban renewal funds be spent on particular
types of projects.
?Eugene opposes expanding the types of governments that are allowed to create urban
renewal districts.
?Eugene opposes additional consent requirements for new or amended urban renewal plans.
Urban renewal districts provide a tool for cities and counties to use in funding economic
development and critical public infrastructure projects. Eugene has used urban renewal to assist in
a number of important downtown projects.
Loss of revenue to urban renewal districts would result in a reduced ability by the City to fund
highly desired projects. And mandating the types of projects on which all or a portion of urban
renewal funds could be spent reduces local flexibility to determine the types of projects that are
appropriate in the local area. The goal of urban renewal is to broadly eliminate blighted areas and
improve the economic situation in communities. Use of urban renewal by school districts to build
schools or by other types of local governments to fund their capital projects would not achieve that
goal. Requiring consent from other taxing districts for a new or amended plan would erode local
control over urban renewal plans and basically give veto power to other jurisdictions.
B4. Assessement and Taxation Appeals, Funding and Standards
?Eugene supports statewide standards for assessment and taxation services to ensure that
assessment records are correct and up-to-date, and thus can be used to provide accurate
calculations of property tax revenue.
?Eugene supports stable and dedicated sources of statewide funding for assessment and
taxation activities.
?Eugene supports a requirement that cities be notified of appeals of assessed value for non-
residential property. Cities should be given a formal opportunity to comment on the record.
?Eugene opposes any shift to cities for funding of county assessment and taxation activities
unless an additional source of revenue is identified.
7
City of Eugene Legislative Policies for 2009 Oregon Legislative Session
C. OTHER LOCAL BUDGET CONCERNS
C1. State Shared Revenue
?Eugene supports increasing the amount of state shared revenues sent to local governments
and opposes any action that would reduce current funding levels.
?Eugene opposes any action by the State to direct or restrict the use of state shared revenue
by cities.
In FY09, the City expects to receive $3.4 million each fiscal year in state shared revenue from
cigarette, beer and wine, and liquor sales. This money is placed in the City's General Fund and
helps the City provide a full range of essential urban services, including police services and fire
protection.
C2. Ability to Charge for State-Mandated Services
?Eugene supports the ability to recover the full cost of providing a service when performing
mandated activities on behalf of the State.
The State may have an interest in setting guidelines for the fees charged by local government, but
cities should be able to request fee increases when their documented costs exceed State
recommendations.
C3. Disbursement of State Fines and Fees
?Eugene supports any effort to allow cities and the State to equitably distribute any monies
collected, so that the burden of uncollected monies is shared by both.
C4. Ability to Recoup Costs of State Collections
?Eugene supports any effort to allow cities, when a city acts as a collection agent for the
State, to retain its legitimate overhead costs before forwarding funds to the State consistent
with City collections of County court assessments.
C5. Fee for Services to Tax-Exempt Organizations
?Eugene supports any effort to allow cities to collect payments in lieu of property taxes for
municipal services provided to tax-exempt organizations.
C6. Payment in Lieu of Taxes for Police, Fire and Emergency Medical Services Provided
to State-Owned Property
?Eugene supports requirements that State-owned property within city boundaries contribute
to police, fire and emergency services using payment-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOT) funding
mechanisms.
8
City of Eugene Legislative Policies for 2009 Oregon Legislative Session
As an example, State-owned properties with an estimated assessed value of about $400 million
receive police, fire and emergency medical services provided by the City of Eugene, yet are exempt
from payment of property taxes to help support those services. Other Oregon cities, like Salem,
with many State-owned properties, face similar demands for services.
C7. Public Employees Retirement System (PERS)
?Eugene supports efforts to uphold PERS reforms and mitigate volatile rate increases to
public employers, in a fashion that upholds a fair and adequate retirement for public
.
employees
C8. Repeal of Local Real Estate Transfer Tax Preemption
?Eugene supports efforts to repeal the prohibition of local real estate transfer taxes.
C9. Local Flexibility for Enterprise Zone Criteria
?Eugene supports efforts to allow additional local flexibility to enterprise zone criteria for
qualifying businesses.
C10. Provision of Services
?Eugene opposes subsidizing, through taxes or services, those living in unincorporated areas.
Cities are the most logical and most effective providers of urban level municipal services, and tax
policies should avoid duplication of city services by other local governments.
9
City of Eugene Legislative Policies for 2009 Oregon Legislative Session
IV.
T
RANSPORTATION
A. FUNDING FOR STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
?Eugene supports supplemental transportation funding that:
provides a more equitable share of funding for cities and counties;
o
establishes system maintenance, preservation and operation as a priority for funding;
o
ensures the greatest possible flexibility for the use of funds to meet local needs;
o
supports the development of mechanisms to fund transit, including access for elderly
o
and disabled people;
supports the coordination of land use and transportation planning and
o
implementation;
supports livable communities and innovative strategies, like modal development, to
o
improve transportation efficiency; and
preserves all local option transportation system funding alternatives including local
o
option fuel taxes and local transportation system maintenance fees.
Funding needs for maintenance and preservation of the Eugene’s existing transportation system
remain in a critical stage. Inflation is eroding the buying power of current funding, yet the
Eugene’s population and transportation system usage continues to grow. Present funds do not
allow Eugene to preserve its current investment in maintaining existing transportation infrastructure
or address the increased safety and seismic needs of the people and business in the community.
Without additional funding, the existing system will continue to deteriorate.
Presently there exists an unfunded backlog of capital preservation projects for the City’s streets
(street overlays and reconstructions) of over $173 million. Eugene’s 2008 Pavement Management
Report shows that this backlog could grow to $304 million by 2015 unless additional capital
funding is located. The City is facing a shortfall in funding for transportation system operation as
well.
A1. Highway Trust Fund
?Eugene supports Highway Trust Fund use for:
the operation and maintenance of local transportation systems;
o
bike path right-of-way acquisition, construction and maintenance;
o
public transit;
o
alternative transportation modes, including, but not limited to, light rail, electric
o
trolley and shuttle bus systems.
?Eugene supports distribution of Highway Trust Funds that are equitable.
?Eugene supports priority funding for projects when a local match is available.
10
City of Eugene Legislative Policies for 2009 Oregon Legislative Session
A2. Oregon Transportation Plan
?Eugene supports all efforts to implement the Oregon Transportation Plan which are
consistent with adopted City policies.
?Eugene supports the State’s partnership, including funding, in efforts to implement projects
on state highways in Eugene that address the goals of the Oregon Transportation Plan which
are consistent with the City’s growth management policies.
?Eugene supports continued efforts to seek the City’s fair share of funds for local
transportation projects as available in ConnectOregon III.
The City has strongly supported the Oregon Transportation Plan, ODOT's long-term, intermodal
transportation planning effort. The City urges the Legislature to adopt measures to incrementally
implement the plan's strategies for providing Oregon with a comprehensive, adequate transportation
system.
B. RAIL SERVICE
?Eugene supports a service budget level of $10+ million in State funding for intercity rail
service.
?Eugene supports improved, high-speed, customer-friendly passenger rail service in Oregon.
?Eugene supports continued efforts to advocate for additional funds and technologies to
reduce interference and delays between freight trains and passenger trains sharing the same
tracks.
?Eugene supports additional planning and construction funds for local communities to
improve safety at grade crossings, upgrade rail beds and acquire rights-of-way to facilitate
“passing” areas for passenger trains and freight trains.
?Eugene supports matching funding for the State for federal rail and station projects in the
corridor.
High-speed rail corridor track improvements reduce travel times and increase grade crossing safety
in urban areas. High-speed rail will not only bring closer cultural and economic ties throughout the
Pacific Northwest, but will also mean fewer cars on Interstate 5. This reduction in vehicle-miles-
traveled will, in turn, help to decrease greenhouse gas (carbon) emisisons, lessen our dependance
on fossil fuels, postpone the need for expensive road expansions, allow passengers and freight to
move more quickly, and improve air quality.
11
City of Eugene Legislative Policies for 2009 Oregon Legislative Session
C. COMMUNITY LIVABILITY - OREGON LIVABILITY INITIATIVE
?Eugene supports the Oregon Livability Initiative and encourages additional funding for the
Community Incentive Fund.
?Eugene supports the continuation and expansion of the joint Oregon Department of
Transportation and Department of Land Conservation and Development Transportation and
Growth Management Program, and urges that its approach to providing funding and
assistance to local communities be incorporated throughout ODOT.
?Eugene supports ODOT pilot projects conducted in conjunction with local governments to
explore lower-cost remedies to traffic and congestion problems faced by cities and counties
across the state.
?Eugene supports the use of State Highway Funds allocated to ODOT spent “off system”
when it provides a more flexible, cost-effective and livable alternative to spending funds on
the State system.
?Eugene supports changes in ODOT access management policies that enhance community
livability.
?Eugene opposes attempts to shift costs related to highway capacity to local government.
Livable, healthy cities form the foundation of a healthy, vibrant state. State agencies, through the
Community Solutions Team and other efforts, including the “Oregon Livability Initiative,” are
focusing attention on community-based solutions and investments. The initiative seeks to revitalize
downtowns and main streets, reduce sprawl and traffic congestion, reward development of
affordable housing and rebuild rural and distressed economies.
D. CONGESTION PRICING
?Eugene supports efforts to implement road pricing methods that significantly reduce
congestion and implementation of demonstration pricing projects.
Traffic congestion can affect the economy and the environment. One strategy to reduce congestion
in growing urban areas may be congestion pricing, in order to shift vehicle travel times through
pricing mechanisms.
12
City of Eugene Legislative Policies for 2009 Oregon Legislative Session
V
.
PCS
LANNING AND OMMUNITY ERVICES
A. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
?Eugene supports sustainable and green building practices, research into the effectiveness of
green building, and economic incentives for designers, developers, owners and builders of
more sustainable and green buildings.
?Eugene supports sustainable development that improves environmental standards and
community wellbeing.
?Eugene supports regulatory processes that provide incentives and financial measures for
preservation of natural resources and that promote sustainable energy policies.
?Eugene supports expanding efforts to promote water efficient practices and ensure a clean,
affordable water supply, including, but not limited to, adopting graywater use regulations
that facilitate reduced water consumption in urban households through safe and effective
graywater use.
?Eugene supports energy tax credits for buildings built to LEED standards, whether
residential or commercial.
?Eugene supports eliminating restrictions that prevent private sector installation of waterless
urinals consistent with manufacturers’ specifications.
?Eugene supports tax credits for products and practices which achieve energy conservation or
other sustainable development goals.
As part of the building permit process, the City is increasingly encountering residents, builders,
architects, and developers who seek to improve their properties in a way that results in less impact
on the environment and helps create a more livable community. The standards most seek to attain
have been developed by the United States Green Building Council, Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED). The state should foster public policies that sustain natural
resources and minimize the impact of the building environment on the natural environment.
B. BUILDING CODES
?Eugene supports state accountability for the additional financial resources that are required
when legislative action results in changes not related to traditional building codes that
require local administration.
?Eugene supports dedicated revenue from the current state surcharge on building permit fees
to fund education and training programs, particularly for local building department staff.
?Eugene supports time lines that ensure plan quality and do not unnecessarily expand work
volume or increase administrative costs while ensuring timeliness.
13
City of Eugene Legislative Policies for 2009 Oregon Legislative Session
?Eugene supports the state role to police licensing laws while not imposing this enforcement
as an unfunded burden on local jurisdictions which distracts from their primary charge of
ensuring safe, energy efficient, and accessible buildings.
?Eugene opposes restricting local programs or local authority.
Building codes have become a complex burden for jurisdictions administering the codes and for
those in the building industry. Certain actions would simplify the codes for all parties, making their
administration more cost-effective and maintaining the integrity of their intent to promote public
health, welfare and safety. Additionally, the inconsistent manner in which building codes are
currently administered and enforced throughout the state has caused an atmosphere of uncertainty
and unpredictability and has created competition between jurisdictions with regard to development
activity. Finally, funding should be identified before enactment of legsilative changes that require
local adminsitration to compensate for such items as personnel training, information and training
for the public, and added review. Examples include enforcement of trade licenses, verification of
contractor licensing, monitoring of architect and engineer law, proper disposal of mercury
thermostats, etc., all added to the permitting process.
C. HOUSING
?Eugene supports assistance to residents when manufactured home parks are closed or when
rental units are converted to condominiums.
?Eugene supports incentives for compact urban growth.
?Eugene supports incentives and subsidies for housing that features sustainable building
materials and practices.
?Eugene supports the development of low-income and affordable housing while considering
the interests of cities and their citizens.
?Eugene supports the repeal of ORS 197.309 which prohibits local jurisdictions from
requiring affordable housing as a condition of development approval (“inclusionary
zoning”).
?Eugene supports the prohibition on insurance companies from either denying insurance
coverage for housing because it has public financing or increasing its premiums for such
coverage.
?Eugene supports broadening the eligibility requirements for housing assistance, without
compromising the existing low-income assistance requirements.
?Eugene supports continued and immediate funding of affordable housing development
through the Housing Trust Fund and a funding goal of at least $100 million this biennium.
?Eugene supports state supported homeless shelters.
14
City of Eugene Legislative Policies for 2009 Oregon Legislative Session
Among our area's most pressing need remains the creation of emergency shelters or new, low-cost
housing. Our emergency shelters are overcrowded and despite a variety of shelter and homeless
assistance programs and our local ordinance that allows churches, businesses, government entities
and residents to invite homeless people to camp on their property, people are still turned away
nightly. The need for low-income housing is at crises levels.
The U.S. Census American Community Survey for 2006 provides significant evidence. They place
the rental vacancy rate at 1.7%. This is very low, despite recent additions to the supply. Out of
30,758 renter households, over half (16,677) pay over 30% of their income for rent and utilities. Of
these, nearly all (14,531) pay over 35% of their income for rent and utilities. According to local
industry experts, the average monthly cost of a typical 20 year old two-bedroom rental in Eugene
was $626 per month in 2005, not including utilities. Recent data isn’t available but it can be
assumed that rents are now at least 10% higher. A household relying on minimum wage ($8.40 as
of January 1, 2009) can only afford $436.00, including utilities. The Lane County Housing
Authority closed its Section 8 waiting list in 2006 when it reached over 7,000 names and a longer
than three-year wait. Although it is anticipated to reopen in the near future, it is anticipated that it
will be only for a limited time.
One of Oregon's more successful programs to increase the supply of affordable housing is the
,
Housing Trust Fund (HTF) created by statute in 1991. The trust fund supports programs ranging
from the development of affordable housing to home ownership assistance and an Emergency
Housing Account. Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS), supported by affordable
housing advocates, needs additional funding for affordable housing development through the trust
fund, and for emergency housing and rental assistance.This would allow the department to both
increase the level of its current services, as well as make additional investments in social service
programs to support those who cannot afford unsubsidized housing.
D. LAND USE PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT
D1. Ballot Measure 37
?Eugene supports the “Big Look” review, including reasonable replacements to Measure 37.
?Eugene supports the elimination of piecemeal land use rule changes until after the
completion of this assessment.
?Eugene supports exempting all Goal 5 protections from Measure 37 claims.
?Eugene supports the constitutional requirement that property owners who have been
deprived of all reasonable economic use of their property by government action be
compensated.
?Eugene opposes a requirement that compensation be paid if a land use decision deprives a
property owner of only some, but not all or nearly all, reasonable economic use of the
property.
15
City of Eugene Legislative Policies for 2009 Oregon Legislative Session
D2. Land Use Application Review Process
?Eugene supports clarification of the requirements for determining when a land use
application is complete.
?Eugene supports increasing the time line for city processing of land use applications,
especially when the applicant’s proposal is changed substantially during the review process.
?Eugene supports allowing adopted plan policies to be incorporated by reference in the Land
Use Code rather than reprinted in the code.
?Eugene supports local discretion in standards for needed housing.
D3. Twenty-Year Land Supply
?Eugene supports legislation to amend ORS 197.296 to allow policy and land use code
amendments to be considered in the determination of housing capacity and need.
?Eugene supports legislation that would evaluate and account for rural residential
development’s impact on housing capacity within the urban growth boundary.
?Eugene supports the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC)
requirement for a 20-year buildable lands inventory, but continues to oppose the
requirement that the housing needs analysis be based only on actual past development.
?Eugene opposes legislation that would establish a comparable requirement that the
determination of commercial and industrial capacity and need must be based only on actual
past development.
D4. Annexation
?Eugene supports legislation to allow withdrawal of territory from special service districts.
?Eugene opposes legislation that eliminates or weakens existing methods of annexation.
D5. Oregon Land Use Planning Program and Land Conservation and Development
Commission
?Euegne opposes the weakening of the statewide land use planning program or the role or
structure of the Land Conservation and Development Commission.
?Eugene opposes intensification of use in rural areas outside city urban growth boundaries.
D6. Preemptive Zoning and Supersiting
?Eugene opposes legislation that establishes statutory preemptive zoning or State supersiting
authority.
16
City of Eugene Legislative Policies for 2009 Oregon Legislative Session
While it is the responsibility of the Legislature to identify land use issues of statewide concern,
local governments should have the flexibility to implement State land use policy within the context
of their acknowledged comprehensive plans. State agency plans and decisions should be consistent
with local acknowledged comprehensive plans and local planning processes.
D7. Condemnation Authority
?Eugene opposes legislation that restricts cities’ condemnation authority or makes it more
difficult to use this authority to achieve public policy goals.
Local governments’ existing condemnation authority is a rarely used but important tool that is
available to cities and urban renewal districts to help achieve public policy goals relating to
transportation, housing, and economic development in particular. Limitation of this authority could
result in increased costs to the City and make it more difficult to achieve important public policy
goals.
17
City of Eugene Legislative Policies for 2009 Oregon Legislative Session
VI.
PS
UBLIC AFETY
A. MUNICIPAL COURTS
?Eugene supports increases for jail programs, including road and work crews.
?Eugene supports the ability to recover unpaid parking fees and fines by withholding vehicle
registration renewals.
?Eugene supports the ability to recover unpaid court fees and fines by attaching income tax
refunds through the State Department of Revenue.
?Eugene supports continued use of collection agencies.
?Eugene supports the ability of local authorities to use garnishment as a collections tool
without being required to register with the State Department of Revenue.
?Eugene supports a balance of the burden of uncollected fines and fees between the City and
the State.
?Eugene supports judicial discretion in the amount of assessments imposed, as well as
legislation to reimburse the City for the cost of collecting the mandated State and County
assessments.
?Eugene supports allowing local governments to equally share court security funds.
?Eugene opposes any unilateral increases in fines or assessments as means of increased
support to State-sponsored programs or activities.
?Eugene opposes any mandate on the types of cases which may or may not be heard in
municipal courts, while recognizing the limited jurisdiction of municipal courts. Local
government should have the right to set community standards and be able to maintain those
standards through public safety and justice activities.
Municipal courts provide a speedy and cost-effective way to deal with violations of the law, many
of which would not be heard in Circuit Court, with a focus on ensuring that sanctions are enforced,
including the collection of fines. Although the availability of jail space for municipal offenders
who are given mandatory jail sentences is important, Municipal Courts are also dependent on other
sanctions being available such as work crews, community service, and deferred prosecution
programs.
18
City of Eugene Legislative Policies for 2009 Oregon Legislative Session
B. EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS AND 9-1-1 SERVICES
B1. Protection of 9-1-1 Tax Revenues
?Eugene opposes the use of dedicated 9-1-1 funds from being expended for any purpose
other than 9-1-1 services.
2001 and 2002 legislative actions resulted in the loss of 9-1-1- tax revenue and the elimination of
all operating reserves. Since then, the revenue has not kept pace with expenditures, resulting in an
FTE reduction in FY06. In FY09, the tax is expected to provide $1.7 million in revenue. Although
the tax was reauthorized in 2007 to continue seamless 9-1-1 service throughout Lane County and
the State of Oregon, it is important to keep those dedicated funds from being expended for any
purpose other than 9-1-1 services. Diversion of 9-1-1 funds from the intended purpose for which
they were collected from the public, can significantly set back the implementation and advancement
of life-saving enhanced 9-1-1 technology.
B2. 9-1-1 Telephone Excise Tax – Adequacy and Distribution
?Eugene supports increased revenue to local jurisdictions to operate 9-1-1 systems.
?Eugene supports a reevaluation of the 1% guaranteed distribution floor to counties.
Revenue from the 9-1-1 telephone excise tax needs to be closely monitored to ensure that it
adequately covers the full local cost of providing this mandated service.
B3. Flexibility For PSAP Alignment
?Eugene supports legislation authorizing merit-based flexibility for multiple PSAP
configuration in a county, using levels of services and realized cost savings as criteria.
The City recognizes that some consolidation of Public Safety Answering Points (PSAP) should
occur statewide. However, a one-size-fits-all approach of consolidating to a single PSAP per
county could prove costly and reduce levels of service in Lane County and other regions. Lane
County includes four PSAPs geographically spread out across the Oregon Coast, Willamette Valley,
and Cascades, providing high standards of emergency response that a single PSAP alignment would
be hard pressed to meet. Additionally, consolidation to a single PSAP might necessitate costs for
new facilities.
B4. Non-Emergency Number
?Eugene opposes the establishment of a single, statewide non-emergency number. Instead,
the City supports local control in listing non-emergency police agency numbers in the front
section of the telephone book.
19
City of Eugene Legislative Policies for 2009 Oregon Legislative Session
C. POLICE AND ENFORCEMENT
C1. Law Enforcement Mandates
?Eugene opposes user fees on agencies and local governments using the State-run Law
Enforcement Data System (LEDS).
?Eugene opposes state requirements for additional paperwork, information collection and
forms, unless such additional paperwork is used for long-term data collection and/or
research.
Crime-related laws should be designed to limit administrative burdens. Local law enforcement
resources should continue to be directed at crime suppression and prevention.
C2. Reimbursement for Negligent or Reckless Behavior
?Eugene supports allowing responding entities to recoup their costs for handling events
caused by negligent or reckless behavior.
In some instances, there are high public costs for public safety responses to incidents caused by the
negligence or reckless behavior of individuals. For example, a citizen may swim or boat in a river,
find himself stranded, and require an expensive rescue operation with costs that are not recouped by
the City. A drunk driver can cause a major accident and down utility lines which require extensive
and uncompensated public expense.
C3. Criminal History Checks for Child Care Workers
?Eugene supports allowing law enforcement agencies to conduct nationwide criminal history
checks on prospective child care workers. The City of Eugene provides a before- and after-
school program called Kid City Adventures. Currently, the State Children’s Services
Division provides Oregon criminal history checks.
C4. Streamline Abatement Process
?Eugene supports changes to streamline the process of abatement proceedings on drug
houses and other properties on which illegal activities are occurring.
Loopholes in the current abatement process have led to extended abatement proceedings, taking
months, and in some cases more than a year, to complete. The current loopholes allow violators to
lengthen the process by faking compliance, making perfunctory efforts to clean up a property and
taking advantage of generous deadlines.
C5. Firearms Regulation
?
?Eugene supports strengthening reasonable requirements for the purchase of handguns.
20
City of Eugene Legislative Policies for 2009 Oregon Legislative Session
The City will work to protect its regulatory authority with respect to firearms. Infringement on
these powers reduces the City's ability to protect its citizens from criminal acts involving firearms
and ignores the diversity among communities within this state.
C6. Local Ability to Deal With Unsupervised Youth
?Eugene supports local ability to detain runaways and other juveniles who are beyond
parental control and facilitate their referral to appropriate agencies.
?Eugene supports strengthening the ability of the juvenile system to intervene and provide
services to these juveniles. Some services currently are not available to them because they
have not committed "criminal" offenses. This reduces the ability of agencies to provide
services, and provides no incentive for the juvenile to change his or her behavior.
C7. Traffic Safety
?Eugene supports passage of laws which are practical in their application and will enhance
the safety of the public.
C8. Enforcement of Immigration Laws and Collection of Information
?Eugene opposes the broadening of the authority and responsibilities of local law
enforcement to conduct interviews to collect information on certain individuals not
suspected of a crime and/or detect and apprehend persons whose only offense is violation of
Federal immigration law.
C9. Use of Polygraph for Police Officer Hiring
?Eugene supports a revision to current State law (ORS 659A.300 and any other relevant
sections) so that a polygraph and/or other established technology for truth verification can
be used as part of the hiring process for police officers.
C10. Police Systems Development Charges (SDCs)
?Eugene supports expanding the existing definition of capital facilities for which SDCs can
be imposed to include police protection, to help offset the costs of new police/public safety
facilities as new growth places additional demands on city services.
.
C11. Health Hazard Exposure Information for Public Safety Employees
?Eugene supports ensuring, in cases where a public safety officer (e.g., police officer,
firefighter, paramedic) or court employee was exposed to bodily fluids of another person
while performing his/her duties, that the other person be required to submit to a blood test to
determine whether s/he is positive for a serious contagious disease (e.g., HIV, AIDS,
Hepatitis C) and that the results of that test be released in a timely manner to the affected
public employee.
21
City of Eugene Legislative Policies for 2009 Oregon Legislative Session
Some cases of such exposure require immediate treatment of the employee to counteract the effects
of exposure and protect his/her health. Currently, that information can only be obtained if the
person voluntarily agrees to be tested and to release the results of the test. This issue is important
because any delay or refusal on the part of the person contacted to allow such testing and/or the
release of the results can put the public employee at risk of death or sustaining a serious,
debilitating illness.
C12. Metal Theft
?Eugene supports enhancing the seriousness of an offense in cases where an item stolen or
intentionally damaged constituted a part of governmental or public utility infrastructure,
such as wiring for electrical generation or lighting.
?Eugene supports stricter regulations over the sale and purchase of scrap metal, including the
prohibition of cash transactions over a certain limit and that commercial metals may only be
bought from those with authorized and verified commercial accounts documented with
metal seller.
?Eugene supports creating a misdemeanor crime for a scrap metal business that knowingly
fails to satisfy compliance for metal transactions.
?Eugene supports legislation which would aid in investigating and prosecuting those who
purchase such stolen items.
The epidemic of theft of copper wire creates not only a serious economic burden on local
government, but creates a risk to the public by making ineffective devices which are in place to
enhance public safety, such as street and bike path lighting.
C13. Identification of Persons Stopped for Violations of Law
?Eugene supports the requirement that a person stopped for a violation of law identify
himself/herself to a police officer. Current law makes it a crime to give false information
(i.e., false name, address, or date of birth) to a police officer; but, except for statutes dealing
with the operation of motor vehicles (which require that a person present a valid driver’s
license), there is no requirement that a person stopped for a violation not involving
operation of a motor vehicle identify himself/herself.
C14. Fleeing from Police Officers
?Eugene supports making it an offense for a person to flee from a police officer if an officer
has the legal authority to stop him/her.
Current law makes it a crime for a person operating a motor vehicle to attempt to flee from a police
officer, and is a second (less serious) offense if a person operating a motor vehicle leaves the
vehicle and flees on foot. However, people who are utilizing a non-motorized means of
transportation (e.g., bicycle, skateboard) or who are pedestrians are not covered at all. In order for
a police officer to be able to enforce violations of law against these other individuals, there should
22
City of Eugene Legislative Policies for 2009 Oregon Legislative Session
be some sanction if the person attempts to flee from the officer, in the same manner as if a person
flees on foot after operating a motor vehicle.
D. FIRE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
D1. Fire System Development Charges (SDCs)
?Eugene supports expanding SDCs to include fire and emergency response infrastructure and
capital facilities costs related to new growth.
D2. Firefighter Certification
?Eugene opposes the certification of firefighters by the Department of Public Safety and
Standards Training (DPSST).
D3. Mutual Aid: Wildfires
?Eugene supports the current mechanisms for responding in instances where the State Fire
Marshal assumes command of a wildfire emergency in the state the current mechanisms for
responding.
?Eugene opposes mandates requiring that local governments maintain specific fire equipment
or staffing levels to respond to these events or any legislation that mandates response.
D4. Wild Land Fire: Prevention and Recovery
?Eugene supports maintaining or enhancing the ability of municipalities and districts to
recover wild land fire response costs from responsible parties. The City currently operates
educational programs to reduce the risk of wildfires in the urban/rural interface zone.
D5. Toxics Right to Know
?Eugene supports the elimination of the provisions under ORS 453.370 and 453.402 which
restrict local jurisdictions from imposing hazardous substance fees equitably to Eugene
employers enrolled in the program. Currently, an arbitrary cap spreads an uneven burden to
smaller employers.
23
City of Eugene Legislative Policies for 2009 Oregon Legislative Session
VII.Y
OUTH
?Eugene supports a bipartisan, adequate and sustainable funding policy for Oregon’s public
education system.
?Eugene supports quality after-school and school-break programs,anti-obesity programs,
mentoring, supplemental meal programs, community schools and other coordinated
prevention programs, as well as other programs promoting the general good health and well
being for youth, children and families of all abilities.
?Eugene supports additional services and resources to meet the needs of homeless and at-risk
children and youth. This includes the recommendations from the Oregon Commission on
Children and Families that were identified as a result of House Bill 2202 in 2005.
?Eugene supports increased services to youth who are aging out of the foster care system.
Currently nearly half become homeless in six months.
?Eugene supports additional mental health, substance abuse, and health care for children and
young adults under the age of 21.
?Eugene supports the ability of park and recreation agencies to engage in efforts to further
develop an environmental ethic among all Oregonians with a special focus on youth.
?Eugene supports the No Oregon Child Left Inside concept and other similar environmental
education programs.
24
City of Eugene Legislative Policies for 2009 Oregon Legislative Session
VIII.
EI
NVIRONMENTAL SSUES
A. CLIMATE CHANGE, POLLUTION, SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING
A1. Climate Change
?Eugene supports efforts to reduce greenhouse gas and carbon emissions and plan for
appropriate adaptations.
Changes to the climate will have effects on our community – economically, socially and
environmentally. We need to undertake action to mitigate emissions and plan for adaptations in the
way our community operates, particularly with regard to use of fossil fuels.
A2. Air Quality
?Eugene supports the enhancement of Lane Regional Air Protection Agency’s ability to
adopt and implement Clean Air Act requirements.
A3. Hazardous Materials
A3a. Household Hazardous Waste
?Eugene supports advance disposal fees which would help provide inexpensive disposal
alternatives, such as recycling and periodic household waste "roundups."
There is little regulation in Oregon of household hazardous wastes, such as paints and pesticides.
Consumers often improperly dispose of these substances and other materials which are not
classified as hazardous waste (e.g., used motor oil and antifreeze) by dumping them onto the
ground or into storm sewers.
A3b. Hazardous Waste from Small Businesses
?Eugene supports the development of a system under which small businesses would be able
to pool their hazardous waste for collection, transport and disposal.
These costs can be prohibitive, especially to businesses that generate only very small quantities.
Any such proposal would have to comply with Federal law requirements imposing liability on the
individual generator of the hazardous waste.
A3c. Certification of Environmental Laboratories
?Eugene supports a State certification program for environmental laboratories.
25
City of Eugene Legislative Policies for 2009 Oregon Legislative Session
A4. Solid Waste and Recycling
A3a. Market Development of Recovered Materials
?Eugene supports public agency procurement of recycled materials and advocates for the
removal of policies and legislation constraining that procurement.
?Eugene supports “take back” programs encouraging products designed for recycling.
?Eugene supports unredeemed bottle deposits to be returned from the manufacturer and
earmarked for recovery programs.
?Eugene supports continued funding of the Oregon Recycling Markets Development
Corporation’s efforts to improve, stabilize and expand markets for recyclable and
compostable materials.
?Eugene supports the impostion of charges at the point of sale on packaging that is not
recyclable or is not manufactured from recycled materials, and dedicating revenues from
such charges to programs for developing markets for recycled materials and/or local waste
reduction programs.
?Eugene supports statewide recognition of retailers and producers who voluntarily implement
and report packaging reduction.
?Eugene supports procurement guidelines for State and public agencies that encourage
purchase of construction materials with recycled content.
Meeting statewide waste recovery goals requires improved markets for recycled materials. The
State should continue addressing material recovery and market development plans as contained in
the Integrated Resource and Solid Waste Management Plan. If markets make it economically
infeasible for collectors and intermediate processors to recycle paper, glass, plastic and other
materials, the Legislature should take specific actions.
A4b. Waste Reduction Goals
?Eugene supports measuring recovery by emphasizing multiple waste reduction measures.
?Eugene supports reuse and recycling of construction and demolition debris. Where possible,
State law should count recovered construction materials toward the waste recovery rate each
watershed is required to achieve.
?Eugene supports regular composition studies by the Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) to better understand waste disposal patterns within local discard streams and
improve targeting of waste reduction, recycling and composting efforts.
?Eugene supports promotion of waste prevention/resource efficiency through Extended
Product Responsibility.
26
City of Eugene Legislative Policies for 2009 Oregon Legislative Session
Measurement of waste recovery must recognize local efforts that reduce waste and reuse items.
A4c. Toxic and Hazardous Waste
?Eugene supports an advance disposal fee (ADF) on the first possessor of all hazardous
materials sold or used in Oregon and/or license fees on wholesale or retail sellers of such
materials, and the reinstatement of the ADF on automobile tires.
?Eugene supports a statutory requirement for sharing revenues between the State and local
governments participating in providing household and exempt small-quantity generator
hazardous waste collection services.
?Eugene supports deposit or exchange programs, managed by wholesalers and retailers, for
household batteries and other toxic consumer goods. Businesses should not be required to
take back more items than they sell, but should provide a convenient collection service for
the toxic items they sell to their customers.
Waste reduction efforts must focus on reducing the toxicity of waste, as well as the amount.
Revenues earned would be statutorily dedicated to funding programs, including waste exchanges,
for proper collection and disposal of toxic waste.
A4d. Responsible Materials Processing
?Eugene supports incentives and/or requirements for manufactured products to be assembled
in such a manner that they can be disassembled for reuse and recycling.
?Eugene supports greater support to businesses and nonprofit agencies that process materials
for reuse and recycling.
B. WATER AND ENDANGERED SPECIES/HABITAT
B1. Water Quality
B1a. Innovative Approaches to Water Quality Management
?Eugene supports regulatory initiatives to facilitate development of new approaches to water
quality management, such as effluent trading and “green” permits.
B1b. DEQ Permit Fees/Water Quality Program Funding
?Eugene supports a clear accounting of the basis for any permit fees and of the allocation of
fee revenue to permit program activities. The City alsobelieves more attention and
resources should be focused on the current backlog of expired NPDES permits.
?Eugene supports clearer definions as to who has the responsibility of non-point sources in
the funding strategy for water quality program support.
27
City of Eugene Legislative Policies for 2009 Oregon Legislative Session
?Eugene supports a level of accountability incorporated into the DEQ's permit fee structure
similar to local requirements. Local governments are required to establish fair and equitable
user charges to sewage system customers.
?Eugene opposes any effort to increase reliance on fees from local government to support
statewide programs, believing that statewide water quality programs should be funded from
the State General Fund. Permit and other fees should be based only upon the actual cost of
issuing and administering the permits for the different permittees. The distribution of the
costs should not result in one class of permittees subsidizing another class (large vs. small
permittees or municipal vs. industrial permittees).
B1c. Stormwater
?Eugene supports the use of resources to coordinate municipal urban stormwater permitting
activities between the regions of the state, including establishing procedures for storage and
analysis of statewide stormwater monitoring data.
?Eugene supports efforts to promote innovative partnership agreements with the state and
local agencies for the effective implementation of the stormwater regulations. The City has
established a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the DEQ to administer portions
of the department’s obligations under the industrial stormwater program within the City
limits. Included in the MOU is a cost-sharing formula for the permit fees associated with
the program.
?Eugene opposes additional requirements for stormwater controls unless evaluation and
documentation of the effectiveness of the management practices in the existing plan are
done first.
B1d. Non-Point Sources
?Eugene supports the continued use of State resources to fund comprehensive basin studies
of water quality, such as the Willamette River Basin Water Quality Study, and will continue
to support related efforts such as the McKenzie River Watershed Council and the Long Tom
Watershed Council.
?Eugene supports including non-point sources when water quality management plans are
developed in the Willamette Basin.
B1e. Water Quality Standards
?Eugene supports regulations that will improve water quality and decrease pollution.
?Eugene opposes any efforts to change State water quality standards through the legislative
process. The DEQ has established a comprehensive process for evaluating current water
quality standards and proposing new or changed standards which involves all stakeholders
as well as recognized technical experts. This process, followed by opportunities for the
public to comment, has led to the Environmental Quality Commission adopting changes to
several water quality standards. Future changes to water quality standards, including
28
City of Eugene Legislative Policies for 2009 Oregon Legislative Session
beneficial use designations, should be obtained through a similar collaborative process, and
not achieved through legislative action.
B1e. DEQ Oversight of Underwater Injection Control
?Eugene supports funding for DEQ’s statewide oversight of Underwater Injection Control, or
dry wells.
Local governments receive the best level of service, fairness and flexibility by working with a State
agency. Turning this oversight over to federal agencies could result in a reduced level of
service/communication, delays, and inflexibility with regard local management and operation of
Underwater Injection Control.
B2. Pollution Source Equity
?Eugene supports increases in industrial wastewater fees and require DEQ to be accountable
as to how the fees are being used by the agency.
?Eugene supports the use of State revolving funds for non-point sources and advocates for
increased funds for the State Revolving Loans Fund program.
Since Congressional passage of the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1972, cities and industries which
discharge effluent from a “point source” have been under EPA jurisdiction. Authority to discharge
from a point source (for example, a sewage treatment plant) requires a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit.
Officials from Oregon cities have acknowledged their responsibility for maintaining and improving
water quality and have developed measures to reduce discharges from city facilities. Over the next
10 years, Oregon cities with populations of 100,000 or more and Corvallis will spend more than
$10 billion on measures to reduce stormwater pollutants. While urban areas are a significant source
of stormwater pollutants, it is estimated that non-point sources are responsible for more than half of
the pollutants in water systems. However, regulatory requirements focus almost exclusively on
discharges from point source and urban runoff.
If the objective is to remove pollutants from Oregon’s waterways, then all sources of non-point
source discharges need to assume an equitable share of responsibility. Local taxpayers should not
be expected to continue funding water clean-up while rural non-point sources are exempt from
responsibility.
B3. Salmon Recovery and Watershed Health
?Eugene supports the ability of local governments to pursue recovery of salmon populations
through a mix of regulatory compliance, restoration projects, community outreach and
involvement.
?Eugene supports state and federal salmon recovery efforts that are responsive to and
coordinated with locally adopted and developed recovery plans.
29
City of Eugene Legislative Policies for 2009 Oregon Legislative Session
?Eugene supports the restoration and full implementation of the Pesticide Tracking Bill
passed by the 1999 Legislature. The City encourages the State of Oregon to work closely
with local governments to identify and share pesticide data, and to better assist with salmon
recovery and water quality planning efforts at the local level.
?Eugene supports salmon protection and recovery in a comprehensivemanner.
?Eugene supports the development of endangered species recovery plans within the context
of a comprehensive watershed health plan, and specifically address salmon recovery needs
in urban areas.
B4. Notice for Spraying Pesticides/Insecticides
?Eugene supports changes to ORS 634.057 to allow localities to use home rule authority to
require advance notice of spraying of pesticides or insecticides.
?Eugene supports advance written notification to the City and recognized neighborhood
organizations of pesticide and insecticide spraying along railroad tracks to the extent
allowed by Federal law.
B.5. Land and Water Conservation
?Eugene supports additional funding for the Land & Water Conservation Fund to support
local parks, trails, open space, programs and recreation facilities.
?Eugene opposes efforts to eliminate the Land & Water Conservation Fund state assistance
program.
30
City of Eugene Legislative Policies for 2009 Oregon Legislative Session
IX.
GG
ENERAL OVERNMENT
A. BUSINESS LICENSING
?Eugene supports the ability to license business activities in order to promote public health
and safety.
?Eugene supports the ability to charge sufficient fees to recover regulatory costs.
?Eugene supports the right to regulate activities when State regulations are insufficient to
address local community concerns. For example, the City of Eugene regulates a limited
number of business activities such as taxi service and sidewalk vending in order to
safeguard the public's health, safety and welfare.
B. CONTRACTING
?Eugene supports fair and open procedures in awarding contracts with the flexibility to
respond to local conditions and resources, including costs of monitoring the contracts and
the availability of competent suppliers to ensure competitive bidding.
?Eugene supports modifying Qualified Rehabilitation Facilities (QRFs) statutes to exempt
security employment from the areas QRFs are awarded selection preference.
?Eugene supports the promotion of local sustainability by permitting purchasing and
contracting by public entities to be awarded based on sustainable criteria such as “locally
grown or produced” and “family wages with benefits.”
C. LABOR
C1. Local Control of Wages, Benefits and Employment Practices
?Eugene opposes restrictions on the rights of local governments to exercise local control over
benefits, wages and employment practices.
?Eugene opposes adding any more groups or categories of employees to those already
eligible to receive police and firefighter benefits.
C2. Adequate Benefits Levels
?Eugene supports the provision of public employee benefits that are consistent with formal
needs assessments and/or actuarial studies establishing standards of adequacy. Benefits
exceeding such standards should be provided at the discretion of individual employers, and
should not be mandated.
31
City of Eugene Legislative Policies for 2009 Oregon Legislative Session
C3. Deference to Voluntary Negotiations
?Eugene supports the resolution of employment disputes through voluntary agreement
between the parties over procedures which impose settlements by a third party.
C4. Installation of Electrical Equipment
?Eugene supports expanding the existing exemption afforded to cable television companies
from electrical permit and licensing requirements to include all forms of communications
cable (e.g., coaxial and fiber optic).
These types of installations do not require the knowledge, skills and abilities represented by a
commercial electrician's license. Cities should not be required to pay the associated fees and
expenses of using licensed electricians to install telephone and computer cable and equipment.
These requirements do not result in improved personnel or building safety.
D. LIQUOR LICENSING
?Eugene supports providing local governments with presumptive effect regarding the
issuance of liquor licenses.
To sustain safe, livable neighborhoods, local government recommendations regarding the issuance
of liquor licenses should have greater weight when the Oregon Liquor Control Commission acts on
license applications. Adverse recommendations by local governments should have “presumptive”
effect, meaning that a liquor license applicant would have to show good cause to overcome an
adverse recommendation from a city.
Prior to 1988, adverse local government recommendations regarding issuance of liquor licenses did
have a presumptive effect. In 1988, the Attorney General issued an opinion stating that OLCC
licensing criteria concerning a local governing body endorsement was invalid; that by giving
presumptive effect to adverse local government recommendations, the commission was delegating
its licensing authority to local governments unlawfully.
Creating (or re-establishing) a presumption against a license when an unfavorable recommendation
is forwarded by a local jurisdiction should be pursued. Such a change in the statutes would allow
local governing bodies a greater role in the licensing process. Local recommendations would carry
greater weight, while OLCC would play more of a reviewing role and would maintain statewide
criteria, thus maintaining consistency in licensing matters across the state.
32
City of Eugene Legislative Policies for 2009 Oregon Legislative Session
E. LIBRARY
E1. Library Funding
?Eugene supports partial funding to provide library resources to all Eugene residents through
a variety of State programs including the Ready to Read Program.
E2. Freedom of Expression/Free Access to Ideas
?Eugene opposes any restriction of freedom of expression or access to ideas presented in
literature and art, with a view toward ensuring that both State and U.S. Constitutional
guarantees of these freedoms are not eroded.
E3. Basic Public Library Service
?Eugene supports efforts to ensure that every library has easy and affordable access to a high
quality, high bandwidth telecommunications network.
?Eugene opposes any additional charges for basic library service, which should be available
to all citizens and taxpayers free of additional charges.
F. PUBLIC RECORDS
F1. Employee, Judge and Contractor Records
?Eugene supports the protection of privacy of employees, judges and contractors, as
pertaining topersonnel records and personal information such as home addresses and phone
numbers.
F2. Victim/Witness/Juror Privacy
?Eugene supports amendments to State public records law to protect the privacy of reporting
parties, crime victims, witnesses, and jurors.
F3. Payment for Public Safety Records
?Eugene supports requiring State or criminal defendants to pay for records requested through
discovery or by subpoena.
The City charges fees authorized by the Public Records Law for records requested by criminal
defendants or their attorneys. Requesters have learned that the same records are available at no
charge if the request is made through discovery or by subpoena. Frequently, these requests are
voluminous and seek records not directly related to the case at hand. While it is less expensive to
honor the request than to use expensive attorney time to narrow the discovery request or quash the
subpoena, the City should not be required to provide this service free of charge.
33
City of Eugene Legislative Policies for 2009 Oregon Legislative Session
F4. Expungements
?Eugene supports stiffening expungement criteria.
?Eugene supports allowing juvenile criminal records to be sealed rather than destroyed.
?Eugene supports allowing the City to recover its actual costs in complying with
expungement court orders.
The City is frequently ordered by the State District and Circuit Courts to expunge individual adult
or juvenile criminal records which meet certain criteria. The State charges and collects a fee to
cover the processing costs for adult expungements, but local government also bears a workload
burden in this process. Expungements are a complex and staff-intensive process. While the
expungement process allows individuals to clear their records after certain periods of time, they
also impede investigations of criminal activity that has formed a pattern over the course of several
years.
G.TOBACCO REGULATION
?Eugene supports the restriction of youth access to tobacco including a prohibition on the
sale of tobacco products to minors, a license for retailers selling tobacco products, and a
prohibition on self-service tobacco sales.
H.USE OF INITIATIVE PROCESS, ELECTION REFORM
?Eugene supports increasing the number of signatures required for an initiated constitutional
amendment.
?Eugene supports limiting the extent to which an initiated constitutional amendment can
require the state and/or local governments to make appropriations or incur expenditures in
excess of a certain amount to be fixed by law.
?Eugene supports the requirement that prospective petitions be submitted to an appropriate
state agency (Legislative Counsel or Attorney General) for advisory technical review prior
to approval for circulation.
The number of statewide initiatives measures has steadily increased in recent elections. As a result,
some problems have arisen that affect both state and local government in Oregon. While state and
legislative bodies are required to balance budgets, initiative lawmaking is under no such constraints.
Some initiative measures have imposed heavy financial burdens on state and local governments,
and yet made no provision for paying the cost of those burdens. Several initiatives have enacted
new programs or policies directly into the State constitution rather than by statute, creating
difficulties of interpretation, implementation and financing.
Initiative campaigns are increasingly placed on the ballot by private sponsors, without public or
legal review, and are promoted by professional high-tech campaigns. Voters are faced with a
34
City of Eugene Legislative Policies for 2009 Oregon Legislative Session
dizzying array of complex measures on their ballots. Reforms are needed to ensure that the
initiative process is no longer distorted and balance is returned to the system.
I. ELECTION OF BOARD MEMBERS ON THE LANE TRANSIT DISTRICT
?Eugene supports the creation of an elected board for the Lane Transit District.
35
City of Eugene Legislative Policies for 2009 Oregon Legislative Session
X.
T
ELECOMMUNICATIONS
?Eugene supports existing City responsibility to manage the public ROW, including
opposing the preemption of any portion of Eugene’s telecommunications ordinances, upheld
by the Oregon Supreme Court.
?Eugene supports the existing City right and duty to collect fair compensation from
telecommunications and cable providers for use of public infrastructure and ROW.
?Eugene supports clear and forthright billing practices between telecommunication providers
who use the public ROW and their customers. Providers should treat any costs they incur
from using the public ROW as a business operating cost, not as a tax.
?Eugene supports current City zoning authority for land use decisions regarding the siting of
telecommunications towers and other facilities.
?Eugene supports the existing ability of cities and municipal utilities (i.e., Eugene Water &
Electric Board) to own, operate, construct and provide telecommunications services on a
level playing field with private providers.
?Eugene supports existing local authority to make decisions regarding acceptable in-kind
services in lieu of franchise fees for use of the public ROW.
?Eugene supports continued localized telecommunications and cable rights-of-way use
agreements. We oppose transition to state franchising if local revenue protections,
management authorities, and customer service standards are not maintained or increased.
?Eugene supports actions that would increase public access to the Internet through wireless
access.
?Eugene opposes actions that would decrease equal access to the Internet through tiered
pricing structures or other strategies.
Telecommunications includes cable communications, and broadband use of the public right-of-way
including voice-over Internet protocol (VOIP). Under federal, state and local law, cities have the
authority, duty and obligation to manage the public to manage the public right-of-ways (ROW) for
their citizens and collect fair compensation for its use by private communications providers. As
cities develop, the public ROW represents a substantial public investment and resource. Franchise
fees are not taxes. They are business operating costs incurred by providers when they use the public
rights-of-way for their commercial endeavors.
36
City of Eugene Legislative Policies for 2009 Oregon Legislative Session
This document printed on 100% recycled paper.
It is also available on the City of Eugene website: www.eugene-or.gov
City of Eugene: World's Greatest City of the Arts & Outdoors
37