Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3E: Ratification of IGR Actions ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of January 28, 2009, February 4, 2009 and February 11, 2009 Meeting Date: March 9, 2009 Agenda Item Number: 3E Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Brenda Wilson www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-8441 ISSUE STATEMENT This is an action item to ratify the recommendations of the Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) Committee meetings of January 28, 2009, February 4, 2009, and February 11, 2009. BACKGROUND As a matter of procedure, the City Council is routinely asked to ratify the actions taken by the Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) Committee. This is done by submitting the minutes of each committee meeting to the council. Actions on which the committee is not unanimous are brought before the full City Council for consideration. These bills must be addressed by the full council in order to provide direction to staff in Salem. RELATED CITY POLICIES Ratification of IGR Committee actions is the making or affirming of the City of Eugene’s policy with respect to Federal and State legislative issues or such other matters as may come to the council from the committee. COUNCIL OPTIONS The council may ratify or decline to ratify the IGR Committee’s actions as set forth in the minutes of the committee's meeting. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends ratification of the IGR Committee's actions as set forth in the minutes of the committee's meeting. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to ratify the IGR Committee's actions as set forth in the minutes of the January 28, 2009, February 4, 2009, and February 11, 2009, IGR meetings. Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M090309\S0903093E.doc ATTACHMENTS A. IGR Committee Minutes of January 28, 2009 B. IGR Committee Minutes of February 4, 2009 C. IGR Committee Minutes of February 11, 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\M090309\S0903093E.doc ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon January 28, 2009 1:30 p.m. PRESENT: Betty Taylor, Chair; Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, members; Brenda Wilson, Jessica Mumme, City Manager's Office; Richie Weinman, Ethan Nelson, Planning and Develop- ment Department; Larry Hill, Financial Services; Ellwood Cushman, Eugene Police De- partment; Eric Jones, Public Works Department. 1. Call to Order and Review Agenda Ms. Taylor called the meeting of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) to order. She added proposed field burning legislation to the agenda. Ms. Wilson noted that she had just received the legislative concept the previous day for the field burning bill and staff was reviewing it. Ms. Wilson indicated she had two additional bills for the committee to review, House Bill 2383, related to the selling of manufactured home parks, and Senate Bill 51. Mr. Poling indicated a preference to see Representative Holvey’s field burning bill before the committee took a position on it. Ms. Wilson said the bill had not been introduced yet. 2. Review of Pending Legislation House Bill 2383 Mr. Weinman joined the committee to answer questions about House Bill 2383. Ms. Wilson said she had been asked by the bill’s sponsor if the City could take a position on the bill, which would not impact the City of Eugene. Mr. Weinman reviewed the bill, sponsored by Representative Nancy Nathanson, reporting that the bill would give tenants the right of refusal if a manufactured home park was to be sold. He recom- mended support for the bill. Responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Weinman said that the bill would allow for the purchase of the entire manufactured home park rather than individual lots. Responding to a question from Mr. Poling about current laws related to the issue, Mr. Weinman said that the bill would strengthen existing law passed in 2007 that was intended to provide more protection to those living in such parks. Ms. Wilson recalled that the City was one of four cities with their own ordinances that were grandfathered in by the 2007 Legislature. Ms. Wilson said the proposed legislation provided for the right of first refusal, a protection lacking in the legislation passed in 2007. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to give the bill Priority 2 Support. The motion passed unanimously. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations January 28, 2009 Page 1 House Bill 2052 Mr. Lidz joined the committee to answer questions about the bill. Ms. Wilson noted that the bill was a legislative priority for the League of Oregon Cities (LOC) and would require the State to notify a commu- nity about its plans to site a facility to serve sex offenders in that community. Mr. Lidz said the bill provided for notice to the local district attorney, mental health director, and either the police chief or sheriff, depending on the jurisdiction involved. Ms. Ortiz asked if the bill applied to organizations other than the State. Mr. Lidz said the bill did not apply to a private organization attempting to open such a facility. It applied only to State agencies. He clarified, in response to a question from Ms. Taylor, that he had no rationale to either support or oppose the bill. Ms. Taylor suggested the City monitor the bill. Mr. Poling saw no reason to take a position on the bill. Mr. Poling and Ms. Ortiz preferred to remain neutral about the bill. Ms. Taylor preferred to monitor the bill. Ms. Wilson indicated she would forward the bill to the council with the split committee recommendation. HB 2184 Ms. Wilson indicated the bill was a follow-up to the Bottle Bill Task Force recommendations. Mr. Nelson indicated he did not know if the bill meant grocery stores would no longer accept bottles. Ms. Taylor feared that the bill would result in fewer bottles being turned in. She wanted to know where the redemption centers would be located as everyone goes to the grocery store but the centers might not be so convenient. Mr. Nelson indicated that the State analysis indicated there would be an increase in the tonnage redeemed. The bill would provide an incentive to consumers without burdening small business. He suggested the potential large grocery stores might still be obliged to accept returnable bottles Ms. Ortiz supported the bill, noting that in an economic downturn, people did not care where they had to return bottles. She had sympathy for the point of view of grocers as it regarded the mix of fresh food and used bottles. Mr. Poling also supported the bill. He supported centralized redemption centers because not all stores accepted all returnable bottles. Ms. Taylor pointed out that the special trips required to reach a redemption center would add to air pollution and people might just choose to throw them away. She wanted to know if the centers would be conveniently located. Ms. Wilson noted that Mayor Piercy supported placing a higher priority on the bill. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to change the City’s position on the bill to Prior- ity 1, Support. The motion did not pass, 2:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. HB 2385 Ms. Taylor wanted to support the bill, which would penalize someone for smoking in a car with a minor child. She thought that such exposure was more likely to be harmful than a home or place of business. Mr. Cushman said the bill made sense from a public health standpoint, but he did not think it was practical to expect such a bill to be actively enforced. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations January 28, 2009 Page 2 Ms. Ortiz supported the Neutral position recommended by staff as she thought it was another reason for officers to engage in “fishing” expeditions. She thought enforcement would be challenging. Mr. Poling agreed. He agreed as to the public health aspect of the issue. He thought smoking was a choice individuals made, even if not a wise choice. Ms. Taylor was not generally in favor of having more laws but thought that such a bill would prevent some people from smoking in a car with a child in it. Ms. Taylor moved to support the bill. The motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to retain a Neutral position on the bill. The mo- tion did not pass, 2:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. Senate Bill 39 Ms. Wilson noted the staff recommendation that the City take a position of Priority 1, Monitor, on Senate Bill (SB) 39, which dedicate cigarette tax revenues to certain rural health safety net programs and services. Mr. Hill said that he recommended that the City monitor the bill because it might be tempting for the legislature to make adjustments in the allocation of tobacco revenues. The committee indicated acceptance of the staff recommendation. SB 192 Mr. Hill explained that the bill provided for a new property tax exemption for commercial and residential historic properties that met certain requirements and would result in a reduction of tax revenue coming to the City’ the State did not reimburse the City for such exemptions. He pointed out the existing program, which provided for exemptions for 15 years. He said the cumulative impact of such exemptions was a concern. Ms. Taylor wanted to support the bill because she thought there was a value to protecting historic properties, which were disappearing. She preferred a Support, Priority 2 position. Mr. Poling concurred with the staff position. He interpreted the bill as providing a permanent tax exemption because it could be renewed every 15 years. Ms. Ortiz agreed with the staff position. She said the bill also raised the issue of local control for her. Ms. Taylor pointed out that the exemption would not be automatic and certain requirements must be met. Mr. Hill agreed, but noted that the decision to grant the exemption would be a State decision, not a local decision. Responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Wilson said the bill was not scheduled for a hearing but was part of a larger legislative package with its origin in the 2007 session. She reminded the committee that one of City’s legislative priorities was for the State to reexamine all its property tax exemptions. Ms. Ortiz supported monitoring the bill’s progress but could not support the bill itself. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the position of the bill to Monitor, Priority 2. The motion did not pass, 2:1; Mr. Poling voting no. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations January 28, 2009 Page 3 SB 5548 Ms. Wilson reviewed the details of the bill, which established the operating budget for the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). Ms. Taylor noted that Mayor Piercy recommended the City monitor the bill. Mr. Jones indicated support for that change. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to change the position of the bill to Monitor. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2420 Ms. Wilson reviewed the details of the bill, which would mandate cancer testing for fire fighters. She recalled that a similar bill was introduced in 2007. She recommended the City monitor the bill, which was sponsored by State representatives Shaffer and Nolan and was introduced at the request of the special districts and Oregon State Fire Fighters Council. Mr. Poling wanted to know more about the types of cancers involved. Ms. Wilson indicated she would monitor the hearing and provide more information. She reviewed the list of cancers involved and noted there must be clear and convincing evidence the cancer was caused by a fire fighters employment. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to take a position of Monitor on the bill. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Mr. Poling asked if there was consideration of adding police officers to the bills as they were exposed to some of the same hazards as fire fighters. Ms. Wilson was not aware of any such discussion, adding that the bill was part of a national push to provide such protections. HB 2072 Ms. Taylor noted that Mayor Piercy thought the entire council should discuss the bill, related to the fuel tax, because it had many ramifications. Staff had recommended the City take a monitor position as it repre- sented a significant change in the way the fuel tax was allocated. Ms. Wilson said the bill was not scheduled for a hearing but staff would continue to monitor the bill and bring more information back. HB 2755 Ms. Wilson noted the bill called for an increase in the tobacco tax to support senior and disabled services. She clarified that the bill in question was not the bill that Lane Transit District asked the City to support. The increase that would be diverted would come from the cities’ share of the tax. The committee indicated its agreement with the staff recommendation to oppose the bill. Ms. Wilson noted that Mayor Piercy preferred to monitor the bill. HB 2155 Ms. Wilson said the bill was related to the removal of fill and modified the definition of intermittent stream. Staff recommended support for the bill, but she believed it would have little impact on the City. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations January 28, 2009 Page 4 HB 2225 Ms. Wilson said the bill related to the establishment of affordable housing; Mr. Weinman recommended a position of Priority 2, Support, which had been entered incorrectly into the system as an oppose position. She indicated that she would ask the committee to take a position on the bill at the next meeting after the Planning Division had an opportunity to take a position on the bill. HB 2365 Ms. Wilson recalled that she had asked the committee to consider the bill during the interim, at which time it had already taken a position of Priority 2, Support. She anticipated the bill would make progress during the current session. SB 0051 Ms. Wilson said the bill addressed the subject of prevailing wage and was part of a package of such bills that were introduced each session. She was investigating the ramifications of the bill. Ms. Taylor said that Mayor Piercy also expressed hope that the City would express support for a field burning ban. Ms. Wilson anticipated three bills would be introduced. One bill was proposed by the governor and it provided for several exemptions. Another bill had been introduced by Representative Paul Holvey and it called for an immediate ban. Staff was reviewing the legislation to determine if it impacted City operations related to wetlands. Senator Prozanski agreed to introduce the same bill on the Senate side. Mr. Poling stated that he could not support the bill without the exemptions for ecological burning and fire fighter training. 3. Items from the Committee and Staff Ms. Wilson reviewed the committee’s travel arrangements for the United Front visit and noted the tentative schedule. She encouraged members to contact her with questions about the trip. Ms. Taylor requested contact numbers for Ms. Wilson and other Intergovernmental Relations staff. Ms. Wilson noted that the city had been able to get three of its bills introduced and she would be working with the City of Portland to give cities the ability to implement a vehicle registration fee. She did not think that the bill related to polygraph testing had any chance but she was hopeful about the other bills. The committee’s next meeting was scheduled for February 5, 2009, at 1:15 p.m. Ms. Taylor adjourned the meeting at 2:15 a.m. (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations January 28, 2009 Page 5 ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon February 4, 2009 1:15 p.m. PRESENT: Betty Taylor, Chair; Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, members; Brenda Wilson, Jessica Mumme, City Manager’s Office; Ellwood Cushman, Eugene Police Department, Eric Wold, Parks and Open Space; Eric Jones, Public Works Department; Paul Klope, Public Works Engineering; Jerry Lidz, City Attorney; Mike Penwell, Facilities Division; Peter Ruffier, Public Works Wasterwater. 1. Call to Order and Review Agenda Ms. Taylor called the meeting of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) to order at 1:17 p.m. Ms. Wilson asked the committee to include a discussion of LC 1701, Representative Paul Holvey’s bill regarding field burning. She noted that she did not have copies of the bill to distribute to committee members as it had not yet been officially released to the public. Ms. Wilson asked the committee to include a discussion of HB 2420, the cancer presumption bill, at the request of City Councilor Alan Zelenka. Mr. Polling suggested the committee approve the minutes of the previous CCIGR meetings before the agenda item to review pending legislation. No objections were offered by committee members or staff. 2. Approval of Minutes (12/3/08 and 1/13/09) Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to approve the minutes of the December 3, 2008 and January 13, 2009 CCIGR meetings. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. 3. Review Pending Legislation HB 2420-Cancer Presumption Bill Ms. Wilson noted that City staff had recommended the CCIGR assume a monitor position on HB 2420, a bill dictating that any diagnosis after July 1, 2009 for firefighters or certain volunteer firefighters of one or more of the forms of cancer listed in the bill would be automatically presumed to be duty-related. Ms. Wilson noted that a recent legislative hearing regarding HB 2420 had been one of the ugliest hearings she had MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 4, 2009 Page 1 ever attended, and that the bill had been strongly opposed at that hearing by the League of Oregon Cities (LOC). She added that during the hearing the LOC had proposed significant amendments but that the chair of the legislative committee had refused to hear those amendments. Ms. Wilson noted that despite the opposition from the LOC, it appeared that there would be no way to stop the passage of HB 2420. Ms. Wilson reported that while Mr. Zelenka had asked to have HB 2420 brought before the City Council to recommend a support position for the bill, she had alternatively suggested to Mr. Zelenka that the bill could be brought to the City Council to see if they voted unanimously to support HB 2420. Ms. Wilson noted that the City of Portland had also assumed a supporting position on HB 2420. Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Mr. Polling as to why staff had recommended the assumption of a monitor position regarding HB 2420, noted that staff had made such a recommendation so that they could first see the amendments that the LOC was attempting to incorporate before supporting the bill any further. Ms. Wilson reiterated that no amendments drafted by the LOC had been included in the bill. Ms. Wilson briefly discussed the intention of HB 2420 and how as drafted the bill would presume that any of the identified cancers diagnosed for firefighters would be presumed to be duty-related. Ms. Wilson noted that all of the duty-disability concerns related to such a diagnosis as well as any legal attempts to refute such diagnoses might be extremely expensive, which is why staff had recommended the monitor position with respect to the LOC amendments. Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, noted that the LOC amendments to HB 2420 would have made it easier to rebut the presumption of duty-related cancers. Ms. Wilson reiterated that politically there was no chance of having any such amendments incorporated into the bill. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Polling, moved to direct City staff to reconsider its monitor position regarding HB 2420 and assume a position of Priority 2 support of the bill. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2246 - Relating to the consumption of alcoholic liquor by underage persons. Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, clarified the nature of HB 2246 for the benefit of the committee. Ms. Wilson reported that staff had recommended a Priority 3 support position regarding the bill. Ellwood Cushman briefly described the specific intentions of HB 2246 in that it would provide for a practical measure of parental supervision/oversight for the consumption of alcohol by minor persons. The Committee let the staff recommendation stand. HB 2263 - Relating to kidnapping. Ms. Ortiz expressed that she supported HB 2263 but asked Ms. Wilson to explain the levels of priority support and opposition recommended by staff for HB 2263 and the other bills under discussion during the meeting. Ms. Wilson explained that Priority 1 support/opposition indicated the City’s highest possible level of involvement and would involve testimony from elected officials and executive staff; Priority 2 support/opposition would involve testimony from City staff directly knowledgeable of the legislation in question; and Priority 3 support/opposition would involve written testimony entered into the record or testimony from available City staff. Ms. Ortiz maintained that the City should adopt a Priority 1 or 2 support position regarding HB 2263. Ms. Wilson noted that the bill was sponsored by Oregon’s Attorney General and as such the bill would have a great MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 4, 2009 Page 2 deal of attention already. The Committee let the staff recommendation stand of Priority 2, Support. HB 2266 - Relating to warrants for mobile tracking devices. Mr. Cushman briefly described the nature of HB 2266 and what its effect would be with regard to the definition of certain mobile tracking devices as used by law enforcement agencies in the execution of warrants. The Committee let the staff recommendation stand of Priority 3, Support. HB 2384 - Relating to local public safety coordinating councils; appropriating money; declaring an emergency. Ms. Wilson explained that HB 2384 as sponsored by Representative Nancy Nathanson would require the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission to administer grants for local public safety coordinating councils. Ms. Taylor expressed her opposition to HB 2384 and further stated her desire to eliminate public safety coordinating councils based on her perceptions that they were a waste of time and taxpayer resources. Ms. Taylor moved to direct City staff to assume a position of Priority 3 opposition with regard to HB 2384. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Poling maintained that it was very important, particularly in light of current economic conditions, to have agencies such as the public safety coordinating council that could assist with the implementation and coordination of effective and cost-effective public safety initiatives. Ms. Taylor perceived from her time as a member of the public safety coordinating council that it was a waste of time. Ms. Ortiz commented that while she had heard several varying opinions regarding public safety coordinating councils, she did not herself have sufficient information to form a stronger opinion and as such would err on the side of supporting such initiatives. Ms. Taylor confirmed that, in the absence of a consensus from the CCIGR members, staff would present HB 2384 to the City Council for further review and discussion. HB 2239 - Relating to consequences of test refusal. Ms. Wilson briefly described the nature of HB 2239 and how it would create the offense of refusal to take test for intoxicants under the Motorist Implied Consent Law. Mr. Cushman further explained the nature of the bill and noted that while the state legislature had created the offense of failure to take a breath test in 2003, such sanctions only provided a fairly narrow set of circumstances under which police officers could require blood or urine tests. Mr. Cushman added that the proposed bill would provide sanctions commensurate with those currently established for those persons refusing breath tests. Mr. Cushman, responding to a request for further clarification from Ms. Ortiz, noted that the sanctions implied by HB 2239 applied only to post-arrest testing and procedures. Mr. Cushman, responding to a comment from Ms. Taylor, that the sanctions implied by HB 2239 applied only to MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 4, 2009 Page 3 those persons arrested for driving under the influence of intoxicants and not persons arrested for speeding or other similar traffic offenses. Ms. Taylor asked why blood and urine testing would be needed in addition to breath tests. Mr. Cushman noted that blood tests were usually only applied if a person under arrest was being treated in a medical facility generally as a result of an accident, and that urine tests were usually only applied where a person under arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol was reasonably believed by specially trained officers to be under intoxicants other than alcohol. Ms. Taylor averred that the bill represented a violation of personal liberties and did not support it. Ms. Ortiz thought that the provisions described by the bill seemed reasonable since they applied only to post- arrest situations. Mr. Poling maintained that the bill would bring blood and urine testing up to the same standard as the breath test particularly if the breath test for some reason had not been given or if it was given in a situation where a person was clearly intoxicated beyond what was indicated by a breath test. He added that the officers responsible for making the determinations of whether a person was intoxicated beyond what was indicated by a breath test were specially trained to do so and that such determinations would not be made haphazardly. Ms. Taylor maintained her position that the bill represented an invasion, Mr. Poling and Ms. Ortiz agree with the staff recommendation of Priority 3, Support. This bill will go before full City Council. HB 2054 – Relating to the creation and maintenance of a mental health database within the Law Enforcement Data System. Ms. Wilson noted that she had presented information regarding HB 2054 at the last CCIGR meeting where the committee had accepted staff’s recommendation to adopt Priority 3 support of the bill as well as staff’s suggestion for an amendment to the bill that would make the age provisions of the bill commensurate with existing state laws. Ms. Wilson offered additional clarification on the bill and noted that the bill would be consistent with existing state mental health laws without the aforementioned amendment. She subsequently requested that the committee remove the amendment direction given during the previous CCIGR meeting. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to remove the amendment direction to staff regarding HB 2054 and continue to a position of Priority 3 support. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2141 - Relating to hazardous substances. Ms. Wilson reported that HB 2141 would expand the definition of hazardous substance to include those substances which posed a risk to public health and safety because irreversible harm or chronic adverse health affects could be shown. She added that staff was currently recommending a monitor position regarding the bill because it would have no direct impact on the City of Eugene although it did appear to be good public policy. Ms. Wilson noted that the monitor position recommendation provided by staff was also due to the bill’s fairly broad relating cause. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to adopt a position of Priority 3 support MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 4, 2009 Page 4 regarding HB 2141. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2183 - Relating to field burning; declaring an emergency . Ms. Wilson stated that HB 2183 sponsored by Governor Ted Kulongoski would adopt a policy to phase down field burning in the state of Oregon. Ms. Taylor opined that Representative Holvey’s bill LC 1701 regarding field burning was better, but did not know if the committee should support HB 2183 in case LC 1701 did not pass. Ms. Wilson perceived that Governor Kulongoski’s field burning bill did not stand a chance of passing. Senior Management Analyst Eric Wold commented that Governor Kulongoski’s version of the bill would phase down field burning by 2011, and that as written it provided somewhat more specificity than LC 1701. Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, expressed that it might be strategically sensible to support both bills in some manner, although it would not be advisable for the City of Eugene to go on record opposing Governor Kulongoski’s bill only to turn around and support it later on. Ms. Wilson noted that she had asked Representative Holvey if he would support HB 2183 if it appeared there was significant support behind it. She added that Representative Holvey had replied that he would do so. Mr. Poling commented that he could not support LC 1701 as currently written without more specific language regarding exceptions for environmentally strategic burns as well as field burning for firefighter training purposes. He noted that the bill appeared to contradict existing City policy and further noted that controlled field burning was an important tool for firefighter training. Ms. Wilson stated that specific language such as Mr. Poling was concerned about regarding field burning would kill the bill. Mr. Wold noted that some of the language from LC 1701 was confusing, but that it could be modified to make its provisions clearer in order to protect the City’s interests. Ms. Wilson noted that the Seed Growers Association had planned to use the City of Eugene’s position regarding field burning legislation against LC 1701. She further stated that she would hate to have the City’s support for the bill ultimately end up killing it. Ms. Wilson suggested some amendment language which Eric Wold and Mr. Poling agreed to. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to adopt a position of Priority 1 support of LC 1701 if amended to include similar language as found in HB 2183 into LC 1701. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 5049/5050 - Relating to financial administration of the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB); declaring an emergency. Ms. Wilson noted that while budget-related bills such as HB 5049/5050 were not usually assigned to staff for review she thought it might be beneficial for staff to review those budget bills where they had applied for money MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 4, 2009 Page 5 or where they significantly impacted any of the City’s operations. Ms. Taylor asked why City staff was recommending a monitor position and not an opposition position. Mr. Wold replied that he has spoken with the Deputy Director of OWEB who had indicated that OWEB’s budget was not only secure but actually better than it had been in previous years. As such, Mr. Wold noted that there was no reason for the committee to oppose the bill. The Committee let the staff recommendation of Monitor stand. HB 2048 - Relating to commuter rail. Ms. Wilson noted that HB 2048 would create a task force to examine the feasibility of extending the Washington County Commuter Rail System to Salem. Ms. Taylor felt that the City should adopt a support position regarding the bill even and asked if a task force created by HB 2048 wasn’t better than nothing with respect to commuter rail projects. Public Affairs Manager Eric Jones noted that staff had determined that there was no direct benefit to the City of Eugene from HB 2048 and that as such they were recommending a neutral position. Mr. Poling and Ms. Ortiz concurred with Mr. Jones assessment. Ms. Taylor felt that the bill should be supported as a matter of principle. Mr. Poling and Mr. Jones both noted that while it was currently indeterminate how HB 2048 might actually be funded, such funds could presumably be taken from funding sources that might otherwise fund highway transportation projects closer to the City of Eugene. Mr. Poling felt that a neutral position regarding HB 2048 was the most prudent course of action to take. Ms. Taylor, responding to a question from Ms. Wilson, noted that the committee’s direction was for staff to maintain its neutral position regarding HB 2048. SB 0292 - Relating to use of State Highway Fund moneys. Ms. Wilson stated that SB 0292 would increase the allocation of state highway money for footpaths and bicycle trails and that staff had recommended a neutral position on the matter. Ms. Taylor noted that she wished to support SB 0292. Mr. Jones commented that SB 0292 represented good public policy even though the City of Eugene’s funding percentages regarding alternative transportation modes far exceeded those that were proposed in the bill. Mr. Poling offered that it was not unreasonable to support the bill particularly since in essence it was requiring governments to do something that the City of Eugene had already chosen to do. He noted that supporting the bill would lend credence to the City’s approach to alternative transportation issues. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to adopt a position of Priority 3 support regarding SB 0292. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2397 - Relating to fabrication of nonstandard items specifically for public works. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 4, 2009 Page 6 Ms. Wilson briefly described the nature of HB 2397 and noted that after being reviewed by several City staff members a Priority 2 opposition position was being recommended. Ms. Taylor stated that she would rather adopt a monitor position regarding the bill. Mr. Klope noted that HB 2397, which would require payment of prevailing wages to workers employed under contracts to fabricate or manufacture nonstandard items, would be prohibitively difficult to monitor and enforce and further noted that the bill did not adequately define “nonstandard items.” Mr. Klope explained that prevailing wages for contract workers involved in the manufacture of nonstandard items for public works usage as those items were often fabricated off-site and oftentimes in remote international locations. He further explained that the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, the agency normally charged with monitoring prevailing wage issues, had over the past decade displayed a tendency to shift the monitoring of such issues onto local agencies who were ill-equipped to do so. He added that any enforcement of prevailing wages as suggested in HB 2397 would result in significant increases in materials used for public works purposes. City Attorney Jerome Lidz commented that it would not be possible to enforce HB 2397 outside of the state of Oregon and that the bill might force local public works divisions to purchase much more expensive materials within the state’s boundaries. Mr. Lidz, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor as to why it would not be advisable to simply adopt a neutral position regarding the bill, reiterated that HB 2397 would not only cost the City a great deal to enforce but also cost a great deal to accommodate the increased public works contract costs necessitated by the bill. Mr. Penwell, responding to a question from Mr. Poling, noted there was currently no public works industry standard definition for “nonstandard items” that could be applied to HB 2397. Mr. Poling maintained that the vague nature of the term “nonstandard items” was a great concern to him in that almost any item used in a public works project could be deemed nonstandard. Mr. Klope added that the bill was also vague in that it could allow for any item fabricated under any contract to be classified as nonstandard, not just a public works contract. Ms. Ortiz noted that she supported a living wage for workers in the City of Eugene but noted that the bill seemed to be very far-reaching and somewhat impractical. She noted that she concurred with staff’s recommendation to oppose but further noted that she would be contacting Representative Holvey for further clarification on the matter. Ms. Wilson noted that several prevailing wage bills would be introduced in the current legislative session and that Representative Holvey had sponsored an unsuccessful bill similar to HB 2397 in 2007. Ms. Taylor averred that she agreed with the principle of HB 2397 was troubled by staff’s recommendation to oppose it. She reiterated her desire to adopt a neutral position. Ms. Wilson, responding to Ms. Taylor‘s statement, commented that it might be more advisable to adopt a monitor position and then return to it with more information for further discussion at a later CCIGR meeting . Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to adopt a position of Priority 3 monitor regarding HB 2397. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 4, 2009 Page 7 Mr. Poling reiterated his concern over the lack of definition and enforcement difficulties inherent in HB 2397. Ms. Taylor called for a vote on Ms. Ortiz’s previously stated motion. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 0103 - Relating to fees for air contamination sources; declaring an emergency . Ms. Wilson noted there had already been a legislative hearing conducted on SB 0102 and further reported that the bill would allow the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) to establish a schedule of fees for registration of classes of air contamination sources in order to streamline the permitting processes. Ms. Wilson added that staff had recommended a monitor position regarding the bill. Mr. Ruffier commented that it was unclear if SB 0103 would expand or override the authority of the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (LRAPA) with regard to the City’s air contaminant discharge permits issued by LRAPA. He noted that passage of SB 0103 might dramatically increase the fees that the City paid with respect to air contaminant discharge permits. Ms. Wilson noted that she had spoken to Andrew Ginsberg, a representative from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality regarding SB 0103 who had informed her that passage of SB 0103 would establish a registration fee schedule that might prove redundant to the permit process currently employed by both LRAPA and the DEQ. Mr. Ruffier noted that if that was the case, that would be helpful. Ms. Taylor, noting no objections from committee members, confirmed that staff would continue with the monitor position currently being recommended. 4. Items from Members and Staff Mr. Poling, referring to the previous CCIGR meeting, expressed that he had misspoken with regard to his comments concerning the legislation about the use of tobacco and alcohol by minors operating motor vehicles. He further noted that despite his misrepresentation, he would not be changing his vote on the matter and that he would continue to support staff’s recommendation to monitor as previously indicated. Ms. Wilson replied that a senate version of that bill had recently been released and would be on the agenda for further discussion at the next CCIGR meeting. Ms. Wilson informed the committee that any bills not being pulled for discussion would be considered to be accepting of staff’s recommendations regarding those bills and that a motion regarding that acceptance would need to be stated for the record. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to adopt the staff recommendation for priorities and recommendations for all bills that were not pulled for discussion for the February 4, 2009 CCIGR meeting and all bills that were discussed and acted upon at that meeting. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Ms. Taylor adjourned the meeting at 2:23 p.m. (Recorded by Wade Hicks) MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 4, 2009 Page 8 ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon February 11, 2009 1:30 p.m. PRESENT: Betty Taylor, Chair; Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, members; Brenda Wilson, Jessica Mumme, City Manager's Office; Myrnie Daut, Human Resource and Risk Services; Larry Hill, Financial Services; Ellwood Cushman, Eugene Police Department; Tim Doll, Planning and Development Department; Eric Jones, Public Works Department. 1. Call to Order and Review Agenda Ms. Taylor called the meeting of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) to order. Ms. Wilson added Senate Joint Resolution 1 for consideration under Item 2. 2. Review of Pending Legislation House Bill 2383 Mr. Doll joined the committee to answer questions about House Bill (HB) 2483, which would require an individual to secure a permit from the Oregon Department of Aviation before constructing an object or structure that constituted a physical air hazard to air navigation. Mr. Doll had recommended the City take a position of Priority 2, Oppose. Ms. Taylor clarified the staff recommendation as it related to the bill. There were no changes to the recommendation. Senate Bill 9 Ms. Wilson reported that Senate Bill (SB) 9 would remove the sunset requirement for insurance treatment of in-borne errors metabolism under specific conditions. Mr. Poling noted that there was no recommendation in the staff report regarding the bill, and confirmed with Ms. Wilson the bill was being recommended as monitor by staff. There was no change to the staff recommendation. HB 2436 Ms. Wilson reminded the committee it reviewed the concept behind this bill during the interim. The bill would raise the fee for document recording and would provide additional funding to be allocated to low- income housing. She recalled that the committee had indicated support for the concepts. Ms. Wilson reported that the bill was moving rapidly and she anticipated it would pass. Ms. Taylor expressed concern about who would pay the fee. Ms. Wilson said the fee was a document recording fee that would be paid for by individual citizens who were recording documents. That was of concern to Ms. Taylor, who asked why the bill was ranked a Priority 1. Ms. Wilson said that the bill would fund low-income housing but there was considerable competition for the revenue that such a mechanism would provide. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 11, 2009 Page 1 There was no change to the staff recommendation. HB 2494 Ms. Wilson said that HB 2494 would extend the active duty military property homestead exemption to include mobilization. Staff recommended a position of Priority 2, Oppose. The bill expanded an existing exemption that was now based on deployment. Mr. Hill said his recommendation was not based on the merits of those receiving the exemption, but rather on the City’s legislative policies, which discouraged property tax exemptions not reimbursed by the State of Oregon. Such exemptions were imposed by the State and might further a State goal but they occurred at local expense. Responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Hill said the State did not reimburse the City for property tax exemptions related to deployment. Mr. Hill noted that such exemptions currently totaled $15 million to $28 million annually for local government. The committee agreed to retain the staff recommendation, with Mr. Poling indicating support for the existing exemption. He said that without more definition of what was entailed in regard to mobilization, he was also supportive of the staff recommendation. HB 2474 Ms. Wilson noted the staff recommendation to support the bill at a level of Priority 2, Support. Ms. Taylor indicated that she preferred not to support the bill, which would reduce the discount on annual property taxes, because she believed it would result in delays in property tax collections. Ms. Ortiz noted that she paid her taxes on the day they were due, and she thought the bill would be a disincentive. She wanted to support the bill at a level of Priority 3. Mr. Poling wanted to oppose the bill because it would increase how much money tax payers paid out-of-pocket noting that the bill reduced the discount, which was cash in hand for homeowners that they needed for other purposes. The bill might benefit the City, but he preferred to see the taxpayer benefit. Ms. Taylor concurred. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the recommendation for HB 2474 to Priority 3, Oppose. The motion did not pass, 2:1; Ms. Ortiz voting no. HB 2496 Ms. Wilson said the bill would authorize a property tax exemption for charitable organizations, and staff recommended opposition based on the City’s legislative policies. Mr. Hill reviewed the bill, which extended an existing property tax to non-charitable organizations in a retroactive manner. He was unable to speak to the number of organizations that would qualify for the exemption. Ms. Taylor expressed concern about the retroactive nature of the bill, which would require the City to reimburse such organizations for past property taxes. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Hill said that Greenhill was a nonprofit organization that already qualified for the exemption. Ms. Ortiz suggested that organizations such as the Shelter Animal Resource Alliance, which operated SARA’s Treasures on River Road, would benefit. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 11, 2009 Page 2 Ms. Taylor said it sounded like a property tax exemption was in order but she was troubled about the retroactive nature of the bill. She asked if the bill was likely to pass. Ms. Wilson said the bill was introduced to benefit a particular nonprofit in Florence but was not scheduled for a hearing. The committee made no changes to the staff recommendation. SB 192 Ms. Wilson noted that the committee had previously addressed the bill and a glitch in the system caused it to show up on the bill report again. HB 2377 SB 319 Ms. Wilson said these bills would prohibit any person of any age from operating a mobile communication device except under certain circumstances. Staff recommended a position of Priority 3, Oppose. Mr. Cushman noted that SB 319 was essentially the same bill as HB 2377. Staff opposed the bill because it did not exempt two-way radios. Ms. Taylor said she wondered why staff had not recommended a position of Priority 3, Oppose unless amended. Mr. Poling wanted to support the bill with amendments. Ms. Wilson recalled similar bills were introduced in the last session, and the City took a position of Oppose unless amended. She said if the City chose to support the bill if amended, she would take a neutral position until the bill was amended; if the City chose to oppose the bill unless amended, she would actively oppose it until it was changed. Mr. Cushman suggested the bill be amended to exclude two-way radios. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to change the recommendation on HB 2377 and SB 319 to Priority 2 Oppose unless amended to exclude two-way radios. Mr. Jones shared the concerns of Public Works as they regarded the bill. Ms. Wilson recalled that similar bills were amended to exclude two-way radios in the last session, but the bills had not passed. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 329 Ms. Wilson said the bill would prohibit anyone from operating of a mobile communication device except under certain circumstances, and allowed the suspension of a driver’s license for repeat offenses. Mr. Cushman said staff believed that given that drivers were not suspended for worse violations argued against the bill. Staff recommended a position of Priority 3, Oppose. The committee retained the staff recommendation. SB 376 MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 11, 2009 Page 3 Ms. Wilson said the bill authorized the issuance of lottery bonds for financing specific transportation improvements. She said that the bill appeared to be an attempt to end-run Connect Oregon III. Mr. Poling suggested the City oppose the bill at a level of Priority 1. Mr. Jones noted another bill, SB 445, which he believed would have an even worse impact than the bill in question. Responding for a request for direction from Mr. Jones regarding the position he should take in regard to SB 445, Ms. Wilson did not think that SB 376 or SB 445 had any chance passing. She suggested the committee take a position of Oppose, Priority 3, on SB 376. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to change the position on the bill to Oppose, Priority 3. The motion passed unanimously. SB 2470 Ms. Wilson said the bill would prohibit an individual from having more than 25 sexually intact dogs aged four months or older. Eugene Police staff recommended that the City take a Neutral position. Mr. Poling determined from Ms. Wilson that a neutral position generally meant that the City would still relay its concerns to the committee responsible for the bill. Mr. Poling wanted to support the bill as a way to reduce the number of puppy mills. Ms. Taylor also wanted to support the bill. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to change the bill’s position to Support, Priority 2. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2403 Ms. Wilson noted that the bill would authorize the forfeiture of a vehicle with a hidden compartment if the vehicle was used or intended to be used in the commission of a criminal offense. Staff recommended a position of Priority 2, Support. Ms. Taylor said she had pulled the bill because she believed there were many non-criminal reasons one might have a hidden compartment in one’s vehicle. She thought forcing someone to forfeit their vehicle was too harsh a penalty, pointing out that often a car was the only way a person had to get to work. She suggested that one did not want to force a person to continue to be a criminal. Ms. Ortiz supported the staff recommendation to support the bill. She preferred to have such vehicles in the custody of the police as opposed to having them sold to unsuspecting individuals, especially if traces of drugs, such as Meth, may be in the compartments. Ms. Wilson noted that the bill was introduced on behalf of the Oregon Narcotics Association. Mr. Poling also supported the bill. Ms. Taylor moved to change the position of the bill to Priority 3, Oppose. The motion died for lack of a second. HB 2427 MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 11, 2009 Page 4 Ms. Wilson said the bill was almost identical to HB 2239, which the council had considered earlier in the week because the committee had a split position on the bill. The committee decision to support the bill was reviewed by the City Council, which directed staff to take a position of Priority 3, Oppose. Ms. Taylor wanted to oppose the bill. The staff position on the bill was Priority 3, Support. Responding to a question from Mr. Poling, Ms. Wilson said the bill was slightly different than HB 2239, and had been introduced on behalf of the Judiciary Committee. Ms. Taylor moved to change the position on the bill to Priority 3, Oppose. The motion died for lack of a second. HB 2428 Ms. Wilson reported that HB 2428 would increase the penalty for assault in the third degree if one committed assault with a motor vehicle and was driving under the influence of intoxicants. Responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Cushman confirmed that the bill would apply to individuals such as the person being held for the fatal accident that recently occurred in west Eugene assuming that individual was convicted of Assault 3 and it was demonstrated he was driving under the influence. He pointed out that situation involved fatalities, and the bill did not concern fatalities. Ms. Taylor believed the penalty for such a crime should be the same whether someone was drinking or not. She stated she believed that people involved in such accidents were remorseful and that was punishment enough. Mr. Cushman said the bill would ramp up the penalties associated with Assault 3 violations. Ms. Taylor moved to change the position on the bill to Oppose, Priority 2. The motion died for lack of a second. SB 227 Staff recommended a position of Priority 3, Support. Ms. Taylor indicated she could support the bill if the age was lowered to 18; she noted widespread drinking among people younger than 21. Ms. Wilson clarified the intent of the bill was to increase the penalty for furnishing alcohol to those not legally eligible to drink. Ms. Ortiz indicated support for the staff recommen- dation in the absence of a bill lowering the legal drinking age. Mr. Poling concurred. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Wilson said the bill had not been scheduled for a hearing. It had been introduced on behalf of the Attorney General. Ms. Taylor moved to change the staff recommendation to Priority 3, Oppose. The motion died for lack of a second. HB 310 Ms. Wilson said the bill required the use of a custodian to preserve biological evidence related to criminal activity until certain conditions were met, and also created a task force on DNA retention. The bill was MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 11, 2009 Page 5 introduced on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, and staff recommended a position of Priority 2, Oppose. Ms. Taylor moved to change the City’s position on the bill to Monitor. The motion died for lack of second. Ms. Wilson asked what Ms. Taylor wanted staff to monitor the bill for. Ms. Taylor said she thought the City should actually support the bill. Mr. Cushman said the bill had fiscal impacts on the City. While he supported the retention of DNA evidence because of its role in exonerating or convicting individuals of a crime, Mr. Cushman said the retention periods called for by the bill were very long and almost everything was required to be stored. He noted that Section 2 of the bill called for a task force, which Mr. Cushman did support. He suggested there was a point of diminishing returns to consider but the bill did not address that. Ms. Ortiz believed that the current evidence process was already well-monitored and she supported the staff recommendation. She also supported the task force. Mr. Poling agreed. He thought the nature of the unfunded mandates imposed by the bill also needed to be considered. Ms. Taylor was willing to drop the issue but was concerned about victims, particularly rape victims. Ms. Wilson confirmed that the committee would keep the oppose position staff recommended, but that they supported the creation of the task force called for by the bill. HB 387 Ms. Wilson said the bill would create the offense of smoking in a motor vehicle while a person under the age of 16 was in the vehicle. The fine would be capped at $50. The bill was introduced by Senator Bill Morrissette. She said that staff recommended a position of Priority 3, Oppose. She reminded the committee that the council recommended a neutral position on a similar bill, HB 2385 which created an offense for smoking in a vehicle when someone under the age of 17 was in the vehicle, and created escalating penalties. Mr. Cushman said staff opposed the bill because it contained language related to secondary violations. He said if something was against the law, the police should be able to enforce it; otherwise, such things should be in the health code. He said that effect of the bill was to guarantee that someone would get a ticket to ensure there was justification for a stop. He said in addition, the law could be enforced against a passenger, but the driver would receive the ticket to establish the basis for the stop. Mr. Poling concurred with Mr. Cushman. While he acknowledged that smoking was bad, he believed such laws infringed on people’s personal choices. There was no change to the staff recommendation. Senate Joint Resolution 1 Ms. Wilson said the resolution urged the governor to withhold deployment of the National Guard to Iraq or Afghanistan. In order for the resolution to reach the governor’s desk, it must be passed by both the House and the Senate. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 11, 2009 Page 6 Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to support the resolution. Mr. Poling was unable to support the resolution, noting the language on page 1, lines 18-22, pointing out the president had been in office only one month. The motion did not pass, 2:1; Mr. Poling voting no. 3. Items from the Committee and Staff Ms. Wilson reported that Congress had appointed a committee that agreed on a compromise stimulus package. Staff was mobilizing to begin thinking about how to secure the money that would be able to State and local governments, which would b allocated through grants and formulas. She anticipated the committee would review a significant number of grant proposals in the next two months. Ms. Taylor asked if the City could get a grant to build a new police station. Ms. Wilson said that was on her list. Ms. Taylor adjourned the meeting at 2:30 a.m. (Recorded by Kimberly Young MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 11, 2009 Page 7