Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2E: Ratification of IGR Actions ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of January 21, 2009 Meeting Date: January 26, 2009 Agenda Item Number: 2E 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 actions of the Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) Committee on bills contained in the January 21, 2009, Bill Report. BACKGROUND The Regular Session of the Oregon State Legislature convenes in January of odd numbered years and generally lasts for six months. The IGR Committee reviews all bills and their associated staff recommendations and provides direction for each piece of legislation introduced during the legislative session. Review of legislation by staff and the IGR Committee: - Bills are assigned to Legislative Coordinators (LC) for review. The LC staff is expert in various areas of the City organization. The LC staff review individual bills and make recommendations to the IGR Committee on ecommendations are “support,” “oppose,” “neutral,” the direction the City should take on each bill. R “monitor,” or “drop” for all reviewed bills with a priority of 1, 2, or 3 on all reviewed bills. - The bill is placed on the IGR Committee agenda for review as soon as possible after all applicable staff has commented on the bill. - The IGR Committee meets and reviews all bills on the IGR Committee agenda and may pull any or all bills off the agenda for discussion. - Any LC staff which has reviewed and commented on a bill that is pulled for discussion will be prepared to discuss the bill at the IGR Committee meeting. - If a bill is not pulled for discussion, the staff recommendation stands. If a bill is pulled for discussion, the IGR Committee may keep or change the staff recommendation. - The IGR Committee votes on all bill priorities and recommendations; the votes must be unanimous – with The City will maintain a neutral position on any bills where the IGR unanimous being three votes. Committee’s vote is not unanimous until the full City Council weighs in. Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M090126\S0901262E.doc 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. During the legislative session, the bill report with all staff recommendations will also be submitted to the council for review and ratification. Actions by the IGR committee which are not unanimous will be highlighted in the AIS when they are brought before the full council for consideration. These bills must be addressed by the full council in order to provide direction to staff in Salem. The IGR Committee unanimously approved all staff recommendations on bills contained in the January 21, 2009, Bill Report. 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, modify, or decline to ratify the IGR Committee’s actions on bills contained in the January 21, 2009 Bill Report. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends ratification of the IGR Committee's actions. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to ratify the IGR Committee's actions on bills contained in the January 21, 2009 Bill Report. ATTACHMENTS A. IGR Bill Report for January 21, 2009 FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Brenda Wilson Telephone: 682-8441 Staff E-Mail: brenda.s.wilson@ci.eugene.or.us Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M090126\S0901262E.doc ATTACHMENT A IGR REPORT January 21, 2009 CITY OF EUGENE HB 2026 Relating Clause: Property tax exemption for veterans; creating new provisions; and amending ORS 307.250. Title: Increases amount of property tax exemption for war veterans with certified disabilities and surviving spouses to $20,000 of value of homestead or personal property. Increases amount of property tax exemption for war veterans with service-connected disabilities and surviving spouses to $30,000 of value of homestead or personal property. Applies to property tax years beginning on or after July 1, 2010. LC # 130 Sponsored by: House Committee on Veterans Affairs URL: http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/hb2000.dir/hb2026.intro.pdf ContactRespondentDept Updated Priority Policy Poli Numb Recommendation Brenda Wilson Larry Hill CMO-IGR 1/9/2009 Pri 3 II. A1 Oppose Comments: "I recommend opposition to LC 130. This would be a case of the state imposing an unreimbursed cost on local governments. This is in violation of Eugene’s Legislative Policies. The measure would increase property tax exempt amounts for disabled war veterans and surviving spouses. The City of Eugene would see some loss of property tax revenue, though I cannot estimate the amount of loss at this point. The lost revenue would not be replaced by the state." HB 2027 Relating Clause: Property tax deferrals for disabled veterans; creating new provisions; and amending ORS 311.666. Title: Modifies definition of “person with a disability” for purposes of homestead property tax deferral to include disabled veterans. Applies to assessment years beginning on or after January 1, 2010. LC # 131 Sponsored by: House Committee on Veterans Affairs URL: http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/hb2000.dir/hb2027.intro.pdf ContactRespondentDept Updated Priority Policy Poli Numb Recommendation Brenda Wilson Larry Hill CMO-IGR 1/9/2009 Pri 3 II. A1 Neutral Comments: I recommend a neutral position on LC 131. It would significantly broaden eligibility for the state homestead property tax deferral program. It would not impact city property tax revenue because, under the program, deferred property taxes due to local governments are funded by the state. The City of Eugene would not experience any loss of revenue, although the state’s General Fund could be impacted. Under the measure, all disabled veterans would be eligible even if they are not receiving social security benefits for a current disability. “Disabled veteran” means a person entitled to disability compensation under laws administered by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, a person whose discharge or release from active duty was for a disability incurred or aggravated in the line of duty or a person who was awarded the Purple Heart for wounds received in combat. This definition includes persons without any actual current disability. HB 2028 Relating Clause: Relating to military homestead property tax exemptions; amending ORS 307.289 and section 6, chapter 520, Oregon Laws 2005; and prescribing an effective date. Title: Limits eligibility for military homestead property tax exemption to qualifying military personnel and to persons living in home of qualifying person killed in action in current or prior tax year. Permits retroactive claim for military homestead property tax exemption for qualifying persons for tax years beginning on July 1, 2005, and July 1, 2006, to be filed within 180 days after effective date of Act or within 30 days of person’s return from service. Takes effect on 91st day following adjournment sine die. LC # 132 Sponsored by: House Committee on Veterans Affairs URL: http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/hb2000.dir/hb2028.intro.pdf ContactRespondentDept Updated Priority Policy Poli Numb Recommendation Brenda Wilson Larry Hill CMO-IGR 1/9/2009 Pri 3 II. A1 Neutral Comments: I recommend neutrality on LC132. The impact of the measure on local property taxes is not clear, but is unlikely to be significant. HB 2037 Relating Clause: Disclosures concerning public contracts. Title: Requires Oregon Department of Administrative Services and local contracting agencies to maintain records concerning certain public contracts and to submit reports concerning that information to Governor and Legislative Assembly. Provides that records that agencies maintain are public records, but requires agencies to redact information other than individual’s name that could identify individual before disclosing records. Requires agencies to make records available electronically by means of Internet. Sponsored by: House Committee on GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY URL: http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/hb2000.dir/hb2037.intro.pdf ContactRespondentDept Updated Priority Policy Poli Numb Recommendation Mary Feldman CS-CMO-CRO 1/9/2009 Pri 2 Oppose Comments: Purchasing should weigh in on this but I believe the bill would be unreasonably burdensome to Eugene and even more so to smaller cities that would now become reporting agencies but that lack personnel and technological resources to meet the requirements to create and maintain an additional contract reporting system that captures new information and to summarize, manipulate and provide such information to the State regularly. It would also require development of publicly accessible databases in which certain information would be available and other captured information would be redacted. These new requirements would necessitate additional FTE resources in the Finance Division and I am unaware that a need or demand for such additional information has been adequately demonstrated. Brenda Wilson Larry Hill CMO-IGR 1/9/2009 Pri 2 Oppose Comments: LC 1476 would have a significant adverse financial impact on the City of Eugene due to the extensive prescriptive record-keeping requirements it contains. It would be an unfunded state mandate, and our Legislative Policies require opposition such a measure. I recommend strong opposition. Paul Klope Paul Klope PWE 1/12/2009 Pri 2 Yes YesVIII. B Oppose Comments: This bill requires public agencies conduct tracking and documentation regarding compensation, number of contracts, type of contract, specific information regarding each contract awarded, comparison between contracts awarded independently and contracts awarded as part of a cooperative procurement, number of minorities and women contractors and subcontractors and their employees providing consulting services, goods and services and public infrastructure construction, as well as the selection method used to select each contractor and post this information on-line for public access and provide annual reports to the Governor and Legislative Assembly. The bill will have an impact on Eugene Public Works because of the number of public contracts we bid every year. It will add a large volume of administrative work to staff at a time when our budgets are being decreased and staff reduced. Glen Svendsen Glen Svendsen CS-FAC 1/12/2009 Pri 2 No No Oppose Comments: I would agree that this is a lot of work, for no clear benefit. It isn't clear what problem this is trying to address, so there may be a simpler solution out there. It seems like it could be a diversity issue, or a "save gov jobs" issue, or "transparency in spending"..... Out of curiosity, who is requesting this bill be submitted? Thanks, GlenS HB 2038 Relating Clause: Use of mobile communication device while driving; creating new provisions; and amending ORS 811.507. Title: Prohibits person of any age from operating motor vehicle while using mobile communications device except under certain circumstances. Authorizes suspension of driving privileges for repeat offenses. LC # 1367. Sponsored by: House Committee on TRANSPORTATION URL: http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/hb2000.dir/hb2038.intro.pdf ContactRespondentDept Updated Priority Policy Poli Numb Recommendation Ellwood Cushman CMO-IGR 1/9/2009 Pri 2 Oppose Comments: "Priority 2 oppose as written; support if appropriately amended. First, the mandatory suspension for a second or subsequent conviction (Section 3 of the bill) is ridiculous. There are much more directly hazardous violations (such as disobeying traffic signals and stop signs, and speeding) which do not have a mandatory suspension component; to attach one to this behavior, is very bad policy, and that component makes this bill unacceptable. Further, Section 1(4) appears to make the violation a secondary offense if the driver is under 18 years of age, but not if the driver is 18 years of age or older. This is a really odd distinction. In our view, this entire paragraph should be deleted. If it is going to be against the law, it should be able to be enforced directly. In addition, rather than have a bill targeting wireless communication devices, we would rather have a bill which targets any form of distracted driving. There are other forms of distractions that drivers engage in while they are driving which are at least as hazardous as using a wireless communication device (such as reading newspapers and books, eating lunch, shaving, etc.). We would rather have legislation which targeted the variety of activities rather than focusing on just one of those activities. One other approach that could be considered is to use operation of a wireless device as an ""enhancement"" if the person is operating a wireless device and commits another violation or is involved in a traffic crash. For example, if the person disobeys a stop sign while talking on a cell phone, the penalty could be significantly enhanced. This would penalize those drivers whose behavior actually did create some type of traffic problem, without penalize those drivers who do so with relative safety." Eric Jones Eric Jones PW-ADM 1/14/2009 Comments: Defer to Police. (I do think this will be a hot topic.) HB 2040 Relating Clause: Use of mobile communication device while driving; creating new provisions; and amending ORS 811.507. Title: Prohibits person of any age from operating motor vehicle while using mobile communications device except under certain circumstances. Authorizes suspension of driving privileges for repeat offenses. LC # 1534. Sponsored by: House Committee on Transportation URL: http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/hb2000.dir/hb2040.intro.pdf ContactRespondentDept Updated Priority Policy Poli Numb Recommendation Ellwood Cushman CMO-IGR 1/9/2009 Pri 3 Monitor Comments: "Priority 3 - MONITOR We have mixed feelings about this bill. On one hand, it would arguably increase the safety of those employees operating roadside assistance vehicles (including ODOT employees) and tow truck operators, who must work beside the roadway (including freeways with high-speed traffic). On the other hand, for purposes of this statute, it puts those vehicles in the same category as emergency vehicles, which may not be a good thing. In addition, it will increase the number of times that motorists will need to either move over or slow down, potentially creating additional traffic problems, especially if the involved roadside assistance vehicle is well away from the traffic lane. This bill should be monitored to see where it goes, and it would be useful to know who is supporting this bill and their arguments for it." HB 2042 Relating Clause: Authority to construct facilities along public roads. Title: Provides that person’s right and privilege to construct maintain and operate water, gas, electric or communications lines, fixtures or facilities free of charge along public roads does not extend to public roads under jurisdiction of county. LC # 1816 Sponsored by: House Committee on Transportation URL: http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/hb2000.dir/hb2042.intro.pdf ContactRespondentDept Updated Priority Policy Poli Numb Recommendation Brenda Wilson Pam Berrian CMO-IGR 1/9/2009 Pri 3 Neutral Comments: "I believe but cannot be sure that his is a bill sponsored by the Counties to providing a funding mechanism so that they have the authority (like cities do) to charge compensation for the commercial use of the public rights of way (ROW). However, why they are limiting it to water, gas, elec and communications lines, I am not sure unless they already have the authority for all use of County ROW except those services. For example, why not have that authority for railroad lines that cross County ROW, as cities do? It would be nice to confirm with AOC as to whether this is their bill and what plans they envision as the LOC [Andrea Fogue] is working on related issues. 'Communications' is also not defined in the bill. In addition, if this is a AOC bill, I do not think they go far enough in seeking authority over users of the rights of way, especially those who are beneficiaries of the ROW but do not OWN the facilities there - they use the ROW by leasing another carrier's facilities. In Eugene, we call that type of provider a 'reseller' and DO charge ROW use fee on their Eugene-earned income. The ability in Eugene to charge resellers a ROW use fee generates almost $2million in additional revenue to the General Fund than pre-1997 when the City did not have that authority. As this does not inhibit cities authority, I suspect our position would be neutral? That said, in the event EWEB lines are in any unincorprated County ROW, you may wish to request their impact statement as a FYI but EWEB does in fact pay Eugene's fee and tax on elec and telecom ROW use. I am copying Ginger as she supervises ROW utility permitting issues and may be interested, in general. Hope this is helpful for now " HB 2054 Relating Clause: A mental health database; creating new provisions; and amending ORS 181.641. Title: Requires Department of State Police to create mental health database to aid law enforcement agencies in assisting persons with mental illness in obtaining services. Requires Department of Public Safety Standards and Training to include at least one hour of training in use of database for certification as police officer. LC # 1235. Sponsored by: House Committee on HUMAN SERVICES AND WOMEN’S WELLNESS URL: http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/hb2000.dir/hb2054.intro.pdf ContactRespondentDept Updated Priority Policy Poli Numb Recommendation Ellwood Cushman CMO-IGR 1/9/2009 Pri 3 Support Comments: "Priority 3 - SUPPORT - amendment recommended. We support the concept of a statewide, voluntary database which contains information that would be useful in helping law enforcement personnel to provide assistance to persons with mental illness. This concept was discussed recently at a meeting where our draft department policy on dealing with persons experiencing mental health crises was being reviewed. This is a voluntary database, which would not require anyone's information to be included, but would allow him/her to include it. By having this established in the statewide LEDS system, any law enforcement agency in the state could access the information via the computer---a system which would be much more useful than a local system, since a person needing assistance could be in a community a significant distance from his/her residence. We recommend that the bill be amended so that the age parameters in Section 1(2)(b)(C) and Section 1(3)(c) are changed from ""less than 14 years of age"" to ""less than 18 years of age"" to be consistent with other provisions of Oregon law which treat persons who are less than 18 years of age as minors unless they have been formally emancipated. The selection of the age of 14 in this bill seems rather arbitrary, and a person between 14 and 17 years of age should be subject to his/her parents' judgement as to whether entering his/her information into this proposed system would be appropriate." HB 2083 Relating Clause: Oregon Telecommunications Coordinating Council; amending sections 1 and 2, chapter 699, Oregon Laws 2001, and section 3, chapter 350, Oregon Laws 2005; and declaring an emergency. Title: Alters membership of Oregon Telecommunications Coordinating Council. Extends sunset date for council. Requires council to report to Legislative Assembly on certain date during each regular session of Legislative Assembly until 2017. Sponsored by: House Committee on GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY URL: http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/hb2000.dir/hb2083.intro.pdf ContactRespondentDept Updated Priority Policy Poli Numb Recommendation Pam Berrian Pam Berrian CS-ISD 1/13/2009 Pri 3 Yes IX Support Comments: The City has been a longtime member of the ORTCC, having been designated as one of two City reps by the Leage of Oregon Cities. Monthly mtgs and tech presentations are public; the ORTCC is advisory to the Legisalturre and the Governor and many recommendations are issued, including the 2008 draft of a first-time Oregon Broadband Policy. It is an advocacy body and made up of both public and private sector members. Continuation would be beneficial to the City's Telecommunications objectives. HJR 6 Relating Clause: Expressing policy of state to improve broadband availability. Title: Expresses policy of state to improve broadband availability and to encourage utilization of broadband applications for benefit of Oregonians and Oregon communities. Sponsored by: at the request of House Interim Committee on Government Accountability and Information Technology URL: http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/hjr1.dir/hjr0006.intro.pdf ContactRespondentDept Updated Priority Policy Poli Numb Recommendation Pam Berrian Pam Berrian CS-ISD 1/13/2009 Pri 3 Yes IX Support Comments: The City is a longtime member of the ORTCC, sponsor of HJR 6, and is one of two City reps nominated by the League of Oregon Cities. HJR 6 would be the Oregon's first Broadband Policy. The ORTCC is advisory to Legisalture and the Governor and includes public and private sector members. The City's telecommunications objectives would benefit from a coordinated Statewide policy to Broadband deployment that includes principles important to municipal governments. SB 0033 Relating Clause: Sales of catalytic converters; and declaring an emergency. Title: Prohibits sale or purchase of catalytic converter unless seller or purchaser has permit issued by Department of Transportation. Provides certain exceptions. Punishes violation by maximum of one year’s imprisonment, $6,250 fine or both…. LC #1363 Sponsored by: Senate Committee on TRANSPORTATION URL: http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/sb0001.dir/sb0033.intro.pdf ContactRespondentDept Updated Priority Policy Poli Numb Recommendation Ellwood Cushman CMO-IGR 1/13/2009 Pri 2 Support Comments: "Priority 2 - SUPPORT - amendments recommended Catalytic converters are stolen for the precious metals contained in them, so it might make more sense to regulate those metals. A different approach from this bill might be to strengthen ORS 165.107 (Failing to maintain a metal purchase record) to make clear its applicability to the metals contained in such items as catalytic converters, and to apply the statute to a broader range of individuals than a ""scrap metal dealer."" If this bill targeting catalytic converters is to move forward, we would recommend several amendments to eliminate some potential loopholes: Section 1(2): Add the term ""transfer"", so that transfers other than a traditional sale or purchase are covered. (…a person may not sell, transfer, or purchase….) Section 2(4): The identifying information required to be obtained should also include the selling individual's date of birth and the number of some government-issued identification (such as a driver's license number), and if the person is filling out an affidavit that the catalytic converter was stolen, should be required to provide the VIN of the vehicle from which it was stolen. Section 2(4): A copy of the affidavits should be forwarded to---rather than simply made available to upon request---a local law enforcement agency of jurisdiction, either by the person collecting the affidavit or by the DOT, within a reasonable time frame (such as within 7 days of receipt). The bill should contain a requirement that any person or entity purchasing a catalytic converter maintain a record of the purchase in a manner similar to the requirements currently in ORS 165.107. A dismantler (""person in possession of a dismantler certificate under ORS 822.110"") should be required to complete an affidavit stating specifically, by VIN, which vehicle was dismantled, or totaled for a particular converter, and such affidavits should be retained and handled in the same manner as the affidavits completed by individuals referenced in Section 1(3)(b)." SB 0034 Relating Clause: Taxation; and declaring an emergency. Title: Ties tax on motor vehicle fuel to percentage of average price of motor vehicle fuel in Oregon. LC #1364 Sponsored by: Senate Committee on TRANSPORTATION URL: http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/sb0001.dir/sb0034.intro.pdf ContactRespondentDept Updated Priority Policy Poli Numb Recommendation Larry Hill Larry Hill CS-FIN 1/13/2009 Pri 3 Oppose Comments: I concur with Eric Jones’ recommendation of opposition on LC 1364. This measure would cause fuel tax revenue to the city to be unstable. Cathryn Stephens PW-APT 1/13/2009 Pri 3 Oppose Comments: For SB 0034 I recommend a priority 3, oppose (per recommendation from Eric Jones and Larry Hill. The changes proposed in this law would impact the general aviation community (private pilots) and potentially impact the fixed base operator for the Airport, and in turn potentially impact the Airport. We should be looking for changes that would further increase the proposed tax increase on aircraft fuel, or that would increase the tax above one cent per gallon on fuel usable in aircraft operated by turbine engines (turbo-prop or jet.) This comment specifically addresses only the aircraft fuel aspect of this SB. Brenda Wilson Eric Jones CMO-IGR 1/13/2009 Pri 3 Oppose Comments: My initial analysis is that this bill could create fiscal instability for the City of Eugene and, therefore, should be opposed. The City of Eugene does support reasonable solutions to the transportation funding problems facing Oregon and its communities. The recommendations of the Transportation Vision Committee and Gov. Kulongoski in his proposed jobs and transportation act of 2009 offer a variety of good ideas. To the best of my knowledge, this idea of tying the state fuel tax to a percentage of the average price of motor vehicle fuel is not included in either of those studies. As proposed, LC 1364 could create significant revenue fluctuations from year to year. This, in turn, could cause major public policy problems if state, county and local jurisdictions are unable to plan ahead for OM&P decisions regarding the transportation system – a critical part of Oregon’s infrastructure. (For example, if the average price of gas declined 10% from the previous year, Eugene would receive approximately $600,000 less from the State Highway Trust Fund, with no mechanism in place to offset that loss except to cut services.) The fluctuations could be mitigated through a stability fund; however, significant amounts of money would have to be set aside at the state or local level to create such a fund, and funding for transportation OM&P is already insufficient – where would the $$ come from for a stability fund? Additionally, indexing the gas to increase at the same time that the price of a gallon of gas is increasing could reduce revenues as consumers choose to not purchase fuel because of cost concerns. Recently we have seen that the demand for motor vehicle fuel is no longer inflexible. Also, the price of gas is not something that is set either by the state or by local jurisdictions. In fact, there’s a lot of uncertainty about just exactly how the price of gas is determined from day to day. That uncertainly would become inherent in Oregon’s transportation funding system if this bill were approved. Oregon should not gamble that fuel prices will always increase (shades of the housing market!). Oregon cannot afford to lose road fund revenue. Therefore, LC 1364 should be vigorously opposed in favor of a more stable source of transportation revenue.