Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2G: Ratification of Unanimous IGR Actions ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of February 18, 2009 Meeting Date: April 13, 2009 Agenda Item Number: 2G 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 February 18, 2009. BACKGROUND As a matter of procedure, the City Council is routinely asked to ratify the actions taken by the 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 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’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 February 18, 2009 IGR meetings. Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M090413\S0904132G.doc ATTACHMENTS A. IGR Committee Minutes of February 18, 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\M090413\S0904132G.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 February 18, 2009 1:30 p.m. PRESENT: Kitty Piercy, Mayor; Betty Taylor, Chair; Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, members; Brenda Wilson, Jessica Mumme, City Manager's Office; Char Mauch, Municipal Court; Craig Smith, Sandy Schaffer, Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services; Richie Weinman, Denny Braud, Planning and Development Department; Larry Hill, Financial Services; Glen Potter, Fire and Emergency Medical Services; Ellwood Cushman, Eugene Police Department; Alana Holmes, Susan Mullett, Human Resource and Risk Sevices; 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 noted the additions of an agenda item to reconsider the committee’s position on House Bill (HB) 2474 as Ms. Ortiz decided to change her vote. Ms. Wilson added Senate Bill (SB) 29, HB 2463, and a grant application to theUnited States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 West for the Coast Estuaries Initiative Grant. 2. Reconsideration of Pending Legislation House Bill 2474 Ms. Wilson recalled that the bill reduced the discounted payment of property taxes and would apply to property tax years beginning on or after July 1, 2008. Staff recommended a position of Priority 2, Oppose, and Mr. Poling moved to approve the bill to make the position a Priority 3, Oppose. The motion did not pass as Ms. Ortiz voted no. In the meantime, Ms. Ortiz had reconsidered her vote. Mr. Poling, seconded by, Ms. Taylor, moved to oppose the bill at a level of Priority 3. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. 3. 2009 Carol White Physical Education Participation Grant The committee was joined by Mr. Smith and Ms. Schaffer, who were present to answer questions about the grant application. Committee members had no questions. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to authorize the grant application. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 18, 2009 Page 1 4. 2009 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 West Coast Estuaries Initiative Grant Ms. Wilson requested authority to apply for the grant, which would assist the City in current and planned efforts to increase the use of low-impact development practices for stormwater management. Ms. Keppler and Mr. McVey were present to answer questions. Ms. Ortiz noted the multi-year nature of the grant and asked if the in-kind donations were counted against the match. Ms. Keppler said yes. She noted that the grant was for four years. Mayor Piercy asked if the River Road and Santa Clara community organizations were aware the City was seeking the grant. Mr. McVey said no. Mayor Piercy encouraged staff to publicize to the neighborhood organizations the fact it was seeking the grant as a means to help them achieve what they wanted in terms of stormwater management. Mr. McVey concurred. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to approve the grant. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. 5. Review of Pending Legislation HB 2426/SB 422 Ms. Wilson said the bill would impose a minimum fine and mandatory imprisonment for those convicted of driving under the influence. Staff recommended a position of Priority 3, Oppose. Mr. Poling said he also pulled SB 422, which appeared to be the same bill as HB 2426. He clarified with Ms. Mauch that staff opposed the bill due to a lack of jail space. Mr. Poling suggested that the City consider a time when jail space became available, and advocated for changing the City’s position on the bill to Priority 3, Support. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to change the position of HB 2426 and SB 442 to Priority 3, Support. Responding to a request for comment from Mayor Piercy, Ms. Mauch said that the criminal justice system was adversely affected when a judge imposed a sentence and another partner in the criminal justice system could not support the sentence. She questioned what message was sent to the community when the courts imposed sentences that could not be imposed. Mayor Piercy suggested the issue was not the merits of the legislation in question but the courts’ ability to impose such sentences effectively. Ms. Mauch agreed, and pointed out that if someone served three days of a mandatory six month sentence and released, they were considered to have served their entire sentence and the courts could not re-jail them. Ms. Taylor believed that such laws led to contempt for the law. The motion failed, 2:1; Mr. Poling voting yes. HB 2546 Ms. Wilson indicated the bill would prohibit a public employer from hiring permanent replacements for public employees engaged in a strike. She noted that staff had recommended a neutral position. Ms. Holmes MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 18, 2009 Page 2 Ms. Taylor wanted to support the bill at a level of Priority 3. Ms. Holmes said staff chose a neutral position because the City had not seen such a scenario at the local government level and there had been no problem. If there was no problem, she suggested it made more sense to monitor the legislation. In addition, Ms. Holmes pointed out, when such strikes occurred they were generally of short duration. Unlike the private sector, the public sector does not have issues surrounding replacement workers. She added that there were considerable parameters governing and protecting union workers striking lawfully. The City’s position was to value its relationships with labor and work to avoid strikes. Ms. Holmes noted the bill had been referred to a committee and it would be prudent to monitor it. Ms. Taylor thought the principal behind the bill was worthy and asked what harm it would do the City to support the bill at a level of Priority 3. Ms. Wilson pointed out that assigning that priority to the bill would require we expend energy to lobby the bill. She added that the League of Oregon Cities had taken a neutral position on the bill because it involved the Oregon School Boards Association, and the league was deferring to the association. The committee made no change to the staff recommendation of Priority 3, Neutral. HB 2076 Ms. Wilson said the bill would create an assessment on patient care, items, and services provided by specific categories of health care providers. Staff recommended a position of Priority 2, Oppose. Mr. Potter and Mr. Hill were present to discuss the bill. Ms. Wilson noted that Myrnie Daut of Human Resources and Risk Services also recommended opposition to the bill. Mayor Piercy asked what position Representative Phil Barnhart had on the bill. Ms. Wilson did not know if he had a position, but noted that the bill was not scheduled for a hearing. Ms. Taylor said if the bill imposed an assessment on hospitals only she wanted to support it. She noted that California had passed such a bill. Ms. Wilson indicated another bill had been introduced that accomplished that goal. The committee made no change to the staff recommendation of Priority 2, Oppose. HB 2429 Ms. Wilson said the bill modified the property tax exemption for business firms eligible to participate in such programs. Staff recommended a position of Priority 2, Oppose. She noted the bill had already had a hearing. Ms. Taylor wanted to support the bill at level of Priority 3. Mr. Hill said that staff recommended opposition to the City due to the expense it imposed on the City. It would serve to increase costs to companies that invested in an enterprise zone, essentially negating the benefit of the zone. It extended the prevailing wage law to private investment whereas currently that was limited to public investment. Mr. Braud added that the average tax exemption in the enterprise zone was about three percent of the project cost, which had the potential to erode all benefits of the zone. Another related issue was that of the unknown liability to the City in regard to claims against private companies that failed to pay the prevailing wage. Ms. Wilson added that those against the bill included the presidents of business and business recruiters. Those testifying stated that they did not believe that Sony would have located in Oregon had such a law been in place. The Association of Builders and Contractors supported the concept behind the MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 18, 2009 Page 3 bill but the association indicated it could not apply prevailing wages if businesses did not locate in Oregon, and expressed concern the bill would make businesses chose other states because the bill was a disincen- tive to business. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to change the City’s position on HB 2429 to Monitor. The motion failed, 2:1; Mr. Poling voting no. HB 2430 Ms. Wilson said the bill defined building construction and modified the definition of residential construc- tion for the purpose of applying the prevailing wage to projects that predominantly provide affordable housing. Mr. Weinman had recommended the City take a position on the bill of Priority 2, Oppose. Ms. Taylor supported the bill for the same reasons she cited for supporting the previous bill. Mr. Weinman said he believed that all housing providers wanted people to earn more money, but the bill would nearly cripple the ability of low-income housing providers to provide affordable housing due to the increase cost of construction. Ms. Taylor argued that an inadequate wages caused people to need subsidized housing. Mr. Weinman pointed out that the wages involved were not minimum wages; they were substantially above that level. He said that the prevailing wage was a lot more than the wages paid for many typical construction jobs. . Mayor Piercy thought that taking a position on bills related to the prevailing wage was a significant discussion that required considerable education. She strongly supported unions and good wages and benefits, but thought it dangerous to take a position if the committee was not fully informed or without a more complete council discussion. Ms. Taylor suggested that to oppose the bill was to take a position. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to change the City’s position on the bill to Monitor. Mr. Poling opposed the motion because the bill would increase the cost of low-income housing. Ms. Ortiz welcomed the broader council discussion that would result from the committee’s action. Mayor Piercy reiterated the need for council understanding of the issue given that it was a significant labor issue. The motion failed, 2:1; Mr. Poling voting no. Ms. Wilson observed that there were many bills related to the prevailing wage had been introduced into the current legislature but there was disagreement about their impact. She agreed a broader council discussion was in order and would be useful in guiding staff in the future. Ms. Ortiz asked that the council be provided with a definition of ‘prevailing wage’ and ‘living wage.’ Mr. Poling asked Mr. Weinman to secure a “ballpark” figure on how the bill would affect a typical affordable housing project in terms of percentage of increase. HB 2476 Ms. Wilson said the bill created enhanced sentencing for sexual abuse in the second degree when the offender was 21 years of age older and was a minor’s coach. Staff had recommended a position of Priority 2, Support. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 18, 2009 Page 4 Mr. Poling supported the bill but questioned why it was limited to coaches and did not include teachers or clergy or other similar authority figures. Mr. Cushman did not know. He thought that logically the bill should have included teachers. He suggested that coaches were singled out because such abuse was easier to accomplish outside the classroom. He did not oppose including more categories of individuals with potential influence over youth. Ms. Wilson clarified that individual categories were not left out; rather, the bill was requested by a specific constituent focused on a particular issue. She said she could ask the bill’s requester if they would be opposed to adding more categories. She cautioned that if the list of categories was too broad, it could serve to kill the bill. Mayor Piercy clarified the details of the bill with Mr. Cushman. The committee had no changes to make to the staff position of Priority 2, Support. HB 2463/HB 2099 Ms. Wilson said the two bills were virtually identical; HB 2099 was included in the packet, and HB 2463 was not. Both would provide people with a license to carry a handgun in another state with protections provided to persons in Oregon with concealed handgun licenses. Mr. Cushman recommended the City oppose the bills at a level of Priority 3. The committee supported the staff position on the bills; both being Priority 3, Oppose. SB 29 Ms. Wilson said the bill, copies of which were provided to the committee just prior to the meeting, would allow a jurisdiction to adopt an instant runoff voting (IRV) system. Former City Recorder Mary Feldman believed the bill was more of a county issue given that Lane County would bear the costs of such an election. There had been discussion of an amendment to push those costs on the first jurisdiction to employ the methodology. Former City Councilor Ken Tollenaar had asked that the committee take a position on the bill. Ms. Taylor recalled that the Charter Review Committee had made a similar recommendation to the City Council in 2001. She supported the bill. Mr. Tollenaar, a member of that committee, recalled that subsequently, the voters declined to approve such a change. He acknowledged there would be additional costs involved but those were unknown. He believed the Association of Oregon Clerks had legitimate concerns about IRV but thought the bill removed an obstacle to the issue. Mr. Tollenaar averred that things had changed since 2001 and further averred that many jurisdictions in the United States were now employing IRV. Mr. Tollenaar discussed his own electoral experience and why he thought that IRV was preferable to the current “one person, one vote” system that prevailed in the United States. Responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Tollenaar said former Senator Kate Brown introduced the bill. Mr. Poling expressed appreciation to Mr. Tollenaar for his contributions to the community but respectfully disagreed with him on the topic of IRV. He suggested that if the committee was to allow Mr. Tollenaar to speak, it should let an IRV opponent present their position.He preferred to monitor the bill at this time. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 18, 2009 Page 5 Ms. Wilson said that the bill was currently a committee bill, but that did not mean the committee supported it. She said that King County, Washington, was circulating information about the high cost of IRV, which it placed in excess of $2 million, and an amendment was being considered that would ensure the first city in a county would have to cover the costs of the equipment and software needed to implement IRV. She suggested Eugene might want to be cautious because as the largest city in Lane County it was logical it would pay those costs. She said she would be happy to monitor the bill and watch out for the amendment. Mr. Poling pointed out the voters of the community had spoken out on the issue, which he believed justified a City position of opposition to the bill, but he was willing to monitor the bill. Ms. Taylor pointed out the election was held in the month of September and she did not think most people were aware of it. Ms. Ortiz supported a position of Monitor. Mr. Poling agreed. Ms. Taylor indicated her support for the bill and asked that it be referred to the council for a final decision. 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 on this meeting and all bills that were discussed and acted upon at this meeting. The motion passed unani- mously, 3:0. 6. Items from the Committee and Staff Committee members had no items. Ms. Taylor adjourned the meeting at 1:55 p.m. (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 18, 2009 Page 6