Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 02/09/09 Meeting M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Regular Meeting Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon February 9, 2009 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Chris Pryor, George Brown, Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Betty Taylor. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. John Brown , Ward 5, thanked the councilors and mayor for their service to the community. He recalled his testimony from two weeks earlier regarding the undue burden placed upon an elderly landowner who had transients camping on her land. He reminded the council that she had tried for years to get the City to respond to complaints and when the City had finally responded the landowner had been given ten days to clean up the area at a cost of $7,000 to $12,000. He commented that the sad thing was that the transients were already back; city employees were not able to return to the property to verify the mess without police escorts. He stated that he had taken pictures of transient camps on public lands and had provided those pictures to the council along with a request that the council clean them up within ten days. He related that nothing had been done and the camps were still there. He emphasized that if the intent of the ordinance was to protect the environment – the camps he had provided pictures of were within feet of class 1 streams with protected or endangered species. He underscored that nothing had been done. He did not understand the double standard in holding the private sector to a different set of rules. He averred that everyone should be a good steward for the environment and no one should have a license to pollute. He noted that he had spoken with Assistant City Manager Sarah Medary several times and city staff had been very cordial with him but for him the bottom line was that nothing had been done. Joe Collins , P.O. Box 24411, commented that the council might have been “bamboozled.” He was referring to the Crest Drive, Storey Boulevard, and Friendly Street project. He recalled that area residents had not wanted their streets to be called collector streets. He did not think the residents really knew why they did not want the streets to be collectors. He had read an article that indicated that people who lived on collector streets had to move their cars off the streets during snow storms. He thought this could be why those residents opposed changing the street classification. He noted that all of the councilors except for Councilor Solomon had voted against changing the street classification to collector. He added that he was appreciative of the hearing device he was provided that allowed him to hear the council meetings and testimony. Zachary Vishanoff , Ward 3, provided the council with packets of information. He reviewed and hig- hlighted the photocopied articles that the packet contained. He noted that a public workshop was planned for the Walnut Node. He underscored his preference for a public hearing. He asked that the City provide notice in advance about the workshop so that business owners and others along Franklin Boulevard who had not supported the node could attend. He felt that the message the City would hear would be that “new MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 9, 2009 Page 1 Regular Meeting urbanism” was not the “vision for the neighborhood.” He also wanted to give feedback about the council’s workshop. He supported reuse of the EWEB headquarters building for a City Hall. He believed public support for doing so would be widespread. He asked Councilor Zelenka to elaborate on his vision for the south University neighborhood. He said Councilor Zelenka had suggested that neighborhood “SWAT Teams” be formed regarding development. He thought things were happening in closed door meetings. Tim Laue , 124 Spencers Crest Drive, wished to address the last item covered in the council’s work session, regarding the use of the Facilities Reserve Fund to provide an updated police patrol facility. He stated that he had been involved in the issue of safe, secure facilities for the essential services of the police for ten years. He noted that he and Mr. Brown had chaired the committee for the first bond measure that had been brought before the public. He said the bond measure had failed by less than 1,500 votes. He encouraged the council to heed the Mayor’s advice on this discussion. He believed that it was essential that the council come to its will with as much consensus as possible on the issue. He wanted the councilors to take the time they would need to feel comfortable and confident in the decision they would make, even though they were considering the use of the Facilities Reserve. He was confident that once the council received the informa- tion it needed, the council would make the right decision. He said that, as mentioned in the work session, there had been a lot of study done on the topic and it was important. He averred that being thoughtful and deliberative in its decision-making would bring the community to support and even embrace the decision the council would make. Carol Berg-Caldwell , 2510 Augusta Street, said she enjoyed attending the council goals setting session on February 6 and 7. She had witnessed all participants – department heads, councilors, city counsel, and city management – being committed to improving communication and building trust with the public. She had heard people indicating a desire to be more receptive regarding public comment. She averred that some people felt that the comment opportunities were just to humor the public. She acknowledged that the occasional “rants and rambles” that were “harshly presented” could be difficult to “enjoy.” She saw at the goals setting session that the council intended to “hear and value” all public input. She related that the Police Auditor Ordinance Review Committee (PAORC) had agreed to hold an hour-long session of “give and take with the people” at its forum in response to public input. Ms. Berg-Caldwell supported retrofitting City Hall immediately so that it would not “pancake” in an earthquake. She felt that the City was “shovel ready” for this “least cost option” and should not spend $16 million on a new police facility. She averred that the current economy did not justify spending more city funds than required to address the problem. She noted that the federal stimulus money was earmarked for projects that were ready to go, another reason to pursue a retrofit of the existing building. She recalled that voters had rejected bonds for a new facility twice, adding that “just because” the City had “found” $22 million in reserve accounts did not mean it should be done. She thought that the community would vote to support a new facility when relations between police and community were improved. She opined that implementing the oversight system the voters had supported would bring the City closer to that goal. Drix thanked the City for his three minutes. He loved Eugene. He noted that he lived in the West University Neighborhood (WUN) which was full of young people “learning how to drink.” He said the house next to him had been built in 1911 and, upon the death of its elderly owner, had been sold to someone who had “been sitting on it” to make money. He related that it had been sold earlier in the week. He thought they needed more people like him in the neighborhood, people who were not students. He said he encouraged the younger people to pick up after themselves. He felt that a lot of people from other places just wanted to make an investment and get a return and there were not enough permanent residents to ground the neighborhood. He wanted more community. He remarked that there were too many sofas in peoples’ front yards. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 9, 2009 Page 2 Regular Meeting Charles Biggs , 540 Antelope Way, declared that the City needed more police officers and not more offices for police officers. He said if the patrol cars were in jeopardy they should be moved out from beneath City Hall. He questioned the likelihood of the entire patrol division being in the facility at the time of an earthquake. He felt the risk was miniscule; officers spent a very short amount of time in the facility. He opined that the possibility would not justify the cost of a new facility at this time. He noted that there was a lot of space in the old fire facility. He urged the City to “use a little initiative” and “break down some walls.” He said concerns about City Hall could be addressed by moving to the Centre Court Building, if the Beam project went through. He thought the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) facility could be utilized for the police department. He suggested that the Army Reserve building could be an option as well. He averred that getting more officers on the road, in lieu of building more offices, could get more drunk drivers off the road and avoid some of the tragedies that had recently happened. Mayor Piercy closed the Public Forum. She asked Assistant City Manager Sarah Medary to follow up on the issue that Mr. Brown had brought forward to the council for the second time. Ms. Medary agreed to discuss it with him. Mayor Piercy was glad that the City provided hearing devices for individuals who were hard of hearing. She had also been appreciative of the comments regarding the potential reuse of the EWEB headquarters building and steam plant. She also expressed appreciation for Mr. Laue’s comments on consensus. She added her thanks to Ms. Berg-Caldwell for her comments regarding the City Council Goals Setting Session. She thought it might be possible to do more work on the City Hall issues with stimulus package money. Councilor Taylor thanked everyone for coming to the council meeting and providing testimony. She thanked Drix, adding that she wished there were more people like him out in the neighborhoods. She thanked Mr. Brown for his advocacy on the part of the land owner with the transient camping issues and for holding the City responsible for homeless camps on public lands. She agreed with Ms. Berg-Caldwell that the current City Hall building should be retrofitted to life/safety standards as she believed this would only cost $2 to $3 million. She also agreed that it was unlikely that all of the police personnel and cars would be at City Hall at the same time. Councilor Zelenka clarified that his idea for a neighborhood “SWAT Team” had nothing to do with development. He explained that he had suggested forming a team that could go into a neighborhood without an active neighborhood association and help start one. He expressed appreciation for Ms. Berg-Caldwell’s interest in the goal setting sessions, noting that she had attended both sessions in their entirety. He added his appreciation for Mr. Laue’s comments encouraging the councilors to reach consensus on a police facility. Councilor Solomon thanked everyone for coming. She also wanted to follow up on Mr. Brown’s request. She said she had asked for a memorandum on the “double standard” of requiring private owners to clean up homeless camps but the City not cleaning them up on public lands, but she had not seen the memorandum on the list of councilor requests. She wanted to know the City’s policy on this issue. Councilor Poling clarified that that the City did not “find” additional money; the money was in the Facilities Reserve Fund and had been set aside deliberately by the Budget Committee and City Council for ongoing projects as well as long-time projects. He said the fund had been in existence for a long time. He underscored that this money was different than bond measure money as the reserve fund was money the City already had and a bond measure asked the community to spend more money on the City. He also clarified that the actual cost to retrofit City Hall would be substantially more than $3 million. He added that the concern the potential of a pancaked facility caused was not about losing officers, it was about the ability to continue to function as a police department in general. He stressed that vehicles and equipment were stored under the facility and until the City provided take-home vehicles for officers, the officers and vehicles would MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 9, 2009 Page 3 Regular Meeting have to go somewhere to start the day. He disputed the notion that it was about politics or trust in the police department by some of the people in our community, it was about safety for the police department in general. He thanked everyone for coming and speaking. Councilor Clark also thanked everyone for coming to the meeting. He related that he accompanied Mr. Brown on the annual River Cleanup, which was sponsored by REI. He said much debris was left behind on the river banks by illegal campers. He remarked that in the previous year they had “only found five latrines” next to the water. He underscored that the community had extensive discussions about water quality issues and some of the things the City wanted to support as regulatory matters that would affect properties all across the community. He had brought this up before and wanted to reiterate that the City had a problem regarding what it was willing to allow next to the river, while the rest of the population was dealing with other problems that were not effectively addressing the homeless camping along the river. He wanted the City to address this in the budgeting process. He thought the St. Vincent DePaul program could be expanded. He wanted more than just a memorandum as he believed this to be a much more dramatic issue and felt the City could do a better job of protecting its river. Mayor Piercy recalled that Acting in Capacity (AIC) Facilities Division Manager Mike Penwell, had indicated that the seismic upgrade would cost $3 million. Ms. Medary clarified that Mr. Penwell had said it would be difficult to just spend $3 million, though this was the actual line item cost of doing a seismic retrofit on City Hall. She said the facility would be facing “some big ticket items” in addition to the retrofit. She noted that the last estimate for the entire costs had been $50 million and the estimate made in 2001 had been $20 million. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - November 17, 2008, Work Session - November 26, 2008, Work Session - November 26, 2008, Executive Session - December 10, 2008, Work Session - January 12, 2009, Work Session - January 12, 2009, City Council Meeting - January 13, 2009, Joint Elected Officials Meeting - January 14, 2009, Executive Session B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions of December 3, 2008, and January 13, 2009 Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to approve the items on the Con- sent Calendar. Roll call vote; the motion to approve the Consent Calendar passed unanim- ously, 8:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 9, 2009 Page 4 Regular Meeting 3. ACTION: Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions and Direction on Legislative Policy on January 28, and February 4, 2009 Intergovernmental Relations Manager Brenda Wilson explained that four bills had been pulled for review at the meeting of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) held on January 28, and two bills had been pulled at the meeting held on February 4. She reiterated that current CCIGR operating agreements required that direction on legislation be unanimous before the City could take a position on a piece of legislation. She indicated that she would review them one at a time. Senate Bill 192 Ms. Wilson explained that this was a Governor’s bill introduced to create a historic property partial tax exemption. She said the exemption would be in place for 15 years with a possibility for renewal. She noted that City staff members, Senior Management Analyst Larry Hill and Urban Services Manager Richie Weinman, had recommended a Priority 2 Oppose position because any tax exemption that was enacted took money out of the General Fund that could be utilized for other projects. She related that Councilor Taylor wished to change the standing on the bill to Priority 2 Support because she was concerned about the diminishing numbers of historic properties in the City and in the state. This had resulted in a 2:1 vote. She noted that the bill had not had a hearing to date. House Bill 2052 Ms. Wilson explained that this was an interim committee bill from the Human Services and Women’s Wellness Committee that would require governmental entities that wanted to establish specific facilities to obtain advice from a subcommittee within the jurisdiction. She said this had arisen from two instances within the state in which a lockdown residential treatment facility had been sited in cities without notifica- tion. She related that City Attorney Jerry Lidz had been neutral on the bill; he had thought it could legally make the siting of these facilities easier. Councilor Taylor had wanted to monitor the bill and this had resulted in a 2:1 vote. She stated that the bill had a hearing, had been in the House Judiciary Committee, and was sent without recommendation to the House Committee on Human Services where it would receive another public hearing. House Bill 2184 Ms. Wilson said the bill would establish a goal for the beverage container return rate for the State of Oregon. She related that this had come out of a recommendation from the Bottle Bill Task Force, created by the Legislature in 2007. She explained that the goal would be for an 80 percent return by 2015 and would expand the type of beverage containers that would be considered returnable to include distilled liquor, wine, sports drinks, juice, tea, coffee and any other similar non-carbonated drink. She stated that it would increase the refund value for containers from 5 cents to 10 cents. She added that it had recommended that an advisory committee be set up to look at statewide-run redemption centers, to be paid for by the industry. She said the staff members that had provided input were Solid Waste Management Program Manager Ethan Nelson and Sustainability Manager Felicity Fahy and they had suggested adopting a Priority 3 Support on the bill. She reported that Councilor Ortiz had moved to change this to Priority 1 Support and Councilor Taylor had voted in opposition. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 9, 2009 Page 5 Regular Meeting House Bill 2385 Ms. Wilson reported that this bill would prohibit smoking in a vehicle while a person aged 16 and under was also in the vehicle, with a maximum fine of $90 for the first offense, $180 for the second offense, and $360 for any subsequent offense. She said the staff person commenting on the bill was Police Lieutenant Derel Shulz and he recommended a Priority 3 Neutral. She related that he felt that though this was good policy it would be difficult to enforce. She stated that Councilor Taylor had moved to adopt a Priority 3 Support for the bill and her motion died for lack of a second. She noted that the bill had received a hearing but had not yet received a work session. She also noted that the Oregon Police Association had agreed that the law would be difficult to enforce, but their position was that as with the seatbelt law there would be a high rate of people who would follow the law simply because it was the law. House Bill 2239 Ms. Wilson stated that the bill would fill any loophole that now did not allow for a fine if a person refused a blood or urine test under the Motorists Implied Consent Law. She said there currently was a fine for refusing to take a breathalyzer test. She related that Policy Analyst for the Eugene Police Department, Ellwood Cushman, had reviewed the bill and recommended adopting a Priority 3 Support. Councilor Taylor had moved to change this to a Priority 3 Oppose and this had resulted in a 2:1 vote. She noted that the bill had come from the Governor’s Task Force on DUII and the Mothers Against Drunk Driving had testified in support of it. She said the only opposition to the bill had come from the Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, which had indicated that they took no issue with the refusal of the urine test but they did have an issue with requiring blood testing. She related that their feeling was that people in the hospital might not be in the best condition to give that type of consent. She said the Oregon State Police (OSP) had reported that in the past year there had been 215 blood test refusals and 415 urine test refusals. She added that the OSP noted that criminal defense lawyers often recommended to clients that they refuse those tests and most of the people being asked to provide these tests were repeat offenders. House Bill 2384 Ms. Wilson said this bill would require the Oregon Justice Commission to administer collaboration grants for local Public Safety Coordinating Councils (PSCCs). She explained that it would require them to administer the grants to encourage collaboration between local agencies and organizations involved in the criminal justice system, noting that the grants would not exceed $100,000. She related that to qualify there would have to be an inter-agency project that would utilize a collaborative approach to solve a problem of local public safety concerns. She said the bill had been sponsored by Representative Nancy Nathanson. The staff person providing the recommendation had been Police Chief Pete Kerns and he recommended a Priority 3 Support. She reported that Councilor Taylor had moved to change this to Priority 3 Oppose and her motion had died for lack of a second. She noted that there had not been a hearing for the bill yet. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to ratify the Intergovernmental Relations Committee’s unanimous actions on bills and approval of staff recommendations in the January 28, and February 4, 2009, Intergovernmental Relations Bill Reports for bills not pulled for discussion at those meetings. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Poling expressed a preference for addressing the bills one at a time in future council meetings, rather than having Ms. Wilson highlight them all. He also asked that she explain what the levels of priority meant. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 9, 2009 Page 6 Regular Meeting Ms. Wilson briefly outlined the function of the CCIGR. She explained that every bill in the legislature was assigned to legislative coordinators throughout the City organization who were specialists in their areas. She said the coordinators read the bills and, based on their professional expertise, made a recommendation to the CCIGR on what the City’s position could be. She listed the positions the City could take on a bill: ? Drop – in the case where a bill had no impact whatsoever on the City; ? Neutral – in the case where no matter whether it was enacted or not it did not impact the City; ? Monitor – City staff reviewed almost all of the bills that came before the Legislature, nearly 3,000 of them, and the City tracked and had positions on over 700 bills in 2007, monitoring meant keeping track of a bill while looking for a broad relating clause or amendments that could impact the City; ? Support or Oppose – this meant the City either supported or opposed the bill, and the City could indicate that it would support a bill with amendments, and the rating of 1 to 3 gave Ms. Wilson the instructions for how much work she and her staff would spend on a particular lobbying effort with 1 being the highest level of effort. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a Priority 2 Oppose posi- tion on Senate Bill 192. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Brown and Tay- lor voting in opposition. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a Neutral position on House Bill 2052. Councilor Taylor explained that she had sought to monitor the bill because she believed it would help protect neighborhoods by providing more time before the facilities could be located in them. She averred that people should be aware of such a facility before it was placed in their neighborhood. Councilor Ortiz asked Ms. Wilson to speak to who sponsored the bill and what counties it would affect. Ms. Wilson stated that the bill had arisen from a situation wherein a lockdown facility had been sited in two communities in the state and the cities had not been notified prior to the placement of the facilities. Councilor Ortiz asked if the bill would cover all halfway houses. Ms. Wilson replied that the law already required notification of the siting of halfway houses, work release centers, and facilities for persons released from correctional facilities and youth care facilities. She said this would add to the list of notification facilities that held people under lockdown conditions, i.e. they were not allowed to freely come and go from the facilities. Councilor Poling understood that this would not diminish a citizen’s ability to respond to the siting of such a facility, rather it enhanced this ability. He thought it would serve as a more focal point for concerns to be addressed to any opposition a neighborhood might have about such a siting. Councilor Clark surmised that the bill would make the siting of a lockdown facility more transparent, as it would require more interaction and cooperation with neighbors to get this done. Ms. Wilson affirmed this. She said it would require the State Department of Corrections to fully inform a local PSCC that they wanted to site such a facility in a particular location. Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to amend the motion to substitute adoption of a Priority 3 Support for House Bill 2052. Roll call vote: the motion to amend passed unanimously, 8:0. Roll call vote: the main motion, as amended, passed unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 9, 2009 Page 7 Regular Meeting Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a Priority 1 Support posi- tion on House Bill 2184. Councilor Taylor explained that while she supported raising the amount of the deposit, the idea of state-run redemption centers had given her pause. She was worried that this would defeat the purpose by adding an extra step in the redemption process and therefore increasing the amount of containers that were tossed aside. She thought it would also increase the vehicle miles traveled. She could not imagine that there would be more than three redemption centers in the City. Councilor Zelenka asked who the sponsor was and how this affected the process of redeeming bottles and cans at grocery stores. Ms. Wilson reiterated that the bill had come out of a recommendation from the Bottle Bill Task Force, which had been meeting since 2007. She said the bill established a goal for an 80 percent return rate with an advisory committee to report back to the Legislature no later than February 1, 2017, to let them know how well it was working. She explained that part of the discussion from the task force was that the industry would set up the redemption centers. She acknowledged that at present it was not known how many centers there would be or how they would be set up. She underscored that if the redemption centers did not work the Legislature would take another look at the bill. In response to a follow-up question from Councilor Zelenka, Ms. Wilson stated that this bill would not shift the responsibility for redemption to the centers immediately. Roll call vote; the vote was a tie, 4:4; councilors Clark, Pryor, Ortiz, and Poling voting in favor and councilors Taylor, Zelenka, Solomon, and Brown voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted for adoption of a Priority 1 Support position on House Bill 2184 and the mo- tion passed. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a Neutral position on House Bill 2385. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 6:2; councilors Zelenka and Taylor vot- ing in opposition. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a Priority 3 Support posi- tion on House Bill 2239. Councilor Taylor averred that the City should adopt a Priority 3 Oppose stance because she believed it was an “invasion of civil liberties” to require someone to give blood or urine against their wishes. Councilor Zelenka related that he once had a good friend killed by a drunk driver and he took the matter “very seriously.” He felt, however, that blood tests were beyond a normal expectation and were an invasion of privacy. He indicated he would vote against the motion. Councilor Ortiz stated that this was not a bill that would require people at random to be subjected to blood tests. She said this would apply only to a group of people for whom the breathalyzer could not identify intoxication. She underscored that expert people who were trained to determine whether a person was under the influence of something would be brought in. She did not disagree that this was an invasion of privacy, but if a person had been pulled over and the officer could tell that the person was impaired, but could not tell what kind of inebriant had caused it, a blood or urine test would be the next step. Councilor Clark understood the value of ensuring that officers had all the tools they needed to make sure that the roadways were safe from people who were driving under the influence. He felt that the challenge MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 9, 2009 Page 8 Regular Meeting was that they could not write a law that said a person had to give these things. He averred that instead the bill had to “back door” the requirement, by saying a person could not get a drivers’ license unless they waived the right going in. He agreed with Councilor Taylor that this was a violation of civil liberties. He indicated that if a motion was made to change the stance to Priority 3 Oppose he would likely provide the second. Councilor Poling stated that when a person applied for a drivers’ license, a person gave implied consent that if they were arrested for driving under the influence they would submit to a test. He said what the bill addressed was that once an officer had probable cause to arrest someone for driving under the influence and that person took a breath test, but the reading indicated they were below the legal limit, the officer could then call in a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) to conduct an intensive interview of the individual. He stressed that the DRE had hours of training and then had to do a number of drug recognition analyses with someone who was already a trained DRE prior to doing drug recognition on their own. He said based on their training experience, if a person who had been stopped by an officer was exhibiting conditions that made him or her appear under the influence, and it was obviously not attributable to alcohol, the person was then given the option to undergo urine analysis. He said the bill also covered the case of incapacity, such as when a person was in an auto accident and had a facial injury that would prevent administration of the breathalyzer test. He underscored that the blood or urine test would never be given under random circumstances and that the officer had to have probable cause. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to amend the motion to substitute a Priority 3 Oppose stance. Councilor Taylor related an instance in which a person who “was fragile” or not feeling well was stopped and could not pass a sobriety test. She said putting a person in that condition through a blood or urine test seemed like an invasion. Roll call vote; the vote on the amendment was a tie, 4:4; councilors Taylor, Clark, Brown, and Zelenka voting in favor and councilors Pryor, Ortiz, Poling, and Solomon voting in op- position. Mayor Piercy voted for the amendment and the substitution passed. Roll call vote; the vote on the main motion, as amended, was a tie, 4:4; councilors Taylor, Clark, Brown, and Zelenka voting in favor and councilors Pryor, Ortiz, Poling, and Solo- mon voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted for the motion and the stance for House Bill 2239 was changed to Priority 3 Oppose. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a Priority 3 Support posi- tion for House Bill 2384. Councilor Taylor said she had voted against the bill because she believed the PSCC had not fulfilled its purpose. She opined that it was a “waste of time and a waste of money” for a lot of people. Mayor Piercy remarked that it was her feeling that it was almost premature to adopt a position on the bill. She averred that they needed to have a cross-jurisdictional discussion on it. Councilor Zelenka asked if the bill appropriated the money to require the matching funds for the PSCCs. Ms. Wilson replied that the bill would provide a fund to give grants to PSCCs not to exceed $100,000 if the PSCC could demonstrate that it had matching funds. She said the bill did not establish where the matching funds would come from. She reiterated that the bill would require the state to administer a grant program. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 9, 2009 Page 9 Regular Meeting She anticipated that the bill would have a subsequent referral to the Ways and Means Committee to determine whether or not the program would be funded. Councilor Clark ascertained from Ms. Wilson that the PSCCs had been created through Senate Bill 1145. He wished they could get rid of the bill because it also made anyone sentenced to less than a year; serve in the county jail rather than in state prisons, which placed a burden on the County. He said Ms. Wilson had done the “yeoman’s work” for him to determine that the City could not revocate the bill without paying back the money the area had received for the PSCC over the years. He understood that the bill would provide grant monies if the PSCC found ways to collaborate inter-jurisdictionally and to that end he would support the bill. Councilor Poling echoed Councilor Clark’s comments. He said in the lean times ahead and in the face of the crumbling public safety community that existed in Lane County, any money they could get that would help them work together to “put band-aids on the bleeding system” should be supported. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 7:1; Councilor Taylor voting in opposition. Councilor Zelenka related that at a breakfast meeting with the legislative delegation they had talked about the firefighter “cancer” bill on which the City had adopted a Neutral position. He wanted Ms. Wilson to bring this back before the CCIGR. Ms. Wilson responded that the bill had come back before the CCIGR during the February 4 meeting and had changed the position to Support by a unanimous vote. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 9, 2009 Page 10 Regular Meeting