Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2F: Ratification of IGR Committee Actions ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Minutes of February 25, 2009, March 4, 2009, and March 11, 2009 Meeting Date: April 27, 2009 Agenda Item Number: 2F 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 25, 2009, March 4, 2009 and March 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 February 25, 2009, March 4, 2009, and March 11, 2009 IGR meetings. Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M090427\S0904272F.doc ATTACHMENTS A. IGR Committee Minutes of February 25, 2009 B. IGR Committee Minutes of March 4, 2009 C. IGR Committee Minutes of March 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\M090427\S0904272F.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 25, 2009 1:15 p.m. PRESENT: Betty Taylor, Chair; Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, members; Mayor Kitty Piercy; Brenda Wilson, Jessica Mumme, Richie Weinman, Larry Hill, Doug Lauderbach, staff. 1.Call to Order and Review Agenda Ms. Taylor called the meeting of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) to order at 1:41 p.m. Ms. Taylor asked that a discussion of a resolution urging enactment of comprehensive national healthcare reform and insuring honest, fair healthcare reform debate be included in the agenda and distributed copies of the resolution to committee members and staff. Ms. Mumme requested that discussions of HB 2577 and LC 2186 be added to the agenda. Ms. Piercy asked Ms. Taylor if she had any information regarding any other cities that had been supporting the healthcare resolution. Ms. Taylor responded that she did not have any such information, but that it was her understanding that Lane County would be adopting the resolution in due course. Ms. Wilson reminded the committee that resolutions such as the one under discussion did not start in the CCIGR but rather were required to be initiated at the full City Council. Ms. Taylor responded that resolutions had in the past begun in the CCIGR, to which Ms. Wilson commented that they no longer did and that according to the City’s current IGR operating agreements, resolutions were to be initiated at the City Council. Ms. Wilson stated that the resolution under discussion needed to be started in the full City Council rather than the CCIGR. Ms. Taylor noted that she would discuss with Ms. Piercy the introduction of the resolution at the next regular City Council meeting. Ms. Piercy reminded Ms. Taylor that a resolution would require the support of at least four councilors to introduce it into the City Council’s agenda. Mr. Poling requested that Ms. Taylor distribute copies of the resolutions and any supporting documentation to the City Council members well in advance of their next regular meeting so that the councilors could have adequate time to review it. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 25, 2009 Page 1 2.Approval of Minutes (1/28/09, 2/4/09 and 2/11/09) Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to approve the minutes of the January 28, February 4, and February 11, 2009 CCIGR meetings. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. 3.Review Pending Legislation HB 2473-Relating to real estate transfer taxation. Ms. Wilson noted that City staff had recommended the CCIGR assume a Priority 2 support position on HB 2473, a bill permitting counties to impose a real estate transfer tax if those tax revenues were dedicated to affordable housing programs. Ms. Taylor noted that she would be willing to support the bill if the affordable housing program restrictions were removed. Urban Services Manager Richie Weinman, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, noted that attempts to impose a real estate transfer tax at the city level had at one time been pre-empted by the state legislature. Ms. Taylor asked if it would be possible to support the removal of the pre-emption to have a real estate transfer tax and that maintained that any such real estate transfer tax not be earmarked to any one particular concern such as affordable housing programs. Ms. Ortiz noted that she would not support the removal of the affordable housing program restriction regarding HB 2473. She maintained that the bill as drafted was a good way to infuse badly needed funds into low income housing programs. Mr. Weinman believed that the bill as currently drafted did not stand a good chance of passing. Ms. Piercy noted that she supported the bill as currently drafted. Mr. Poling agreed with Ms. Ortiz’s earlier comment and did not support the removal of the affordable housing program restriction from the bill. Ms. Taylor stated that funds from a real estate transfer tax should be used for a variety of things, but noting a lack of support for her position confirmed that the CCIGR would continue to adopt the Priority 2 support position recommended by staff. HB 2461 - Relating to prevention, treatment and recovery tax; appropriating money; prescribing an effective date; providing for revenue raising that requires approval by a three-fifths majority. Ms. Taylor maintained that the CCIGR should adopt an opposition position with regard to HB 2461 and believed it constituted a tax upon an industry that was vital and unique to the state of Oregon. She stated that she did not believe in sin taxes and that the tax might be detrimental to Oregon home brewers. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 25, 2009 Page 2 Ms. Wilson, responding to question from Ms. Ortiz, noted that restaurant owner associations and related industry organizations had been lobbying very strongly against the bill, which called for an increase in taxes on malt beverages with the revenues from that tax being dedicated to drug treatment and rehabilitation programs. She added that the amount of the tax increase was considered to be very high. Mr. Poling agreed with the principle of the bill and its intention to generate tax revenues for drug abuse prevention and treatment and noted that the CCIGR should continue its monitor position as recommended by staff. Ms. Piercy, recognizing that the bill had in part been sponsored by local Senator Bill Morrisette, agreed that raising the tax on malt beverages for the purposes drafted in the bill was a good idea but was concerned that the level of the increase was too high to allow the bill to pass. Senior Accountant Doug Lauderbach noted that the bill represented the first increase in the tax rate of malt beverages in 32 years and noted that as drafted the bill would provide for a tax increase on a per-ounce level from one cent per 12 ounce can to an additional 15 cents per 12 ounce can. Senior Management Analyst Larry Hill noted that the manner in which the City might receive funds from the State tax under HB 2461 might mean that the City’s net share of the total beer and wine tax revenues would be severely diminished. He further noted that a smaller tax increase on malt beverages with greater flexibility in how such revenues might be spent at state, county and city levels would be a better choice. Mr. Hill, responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz noted that the bill referred only to malt beverages such as beer and would not apply to liquor. Mr. Hill stated that the bill would not likely survive at its current level of tax increase. Ms. Wilson commented that the League of Oregon Cities was against the bill’s dedication of funds to drug prevention and treatment programs that were not at the City level. Ms. Taylor believed that beer was “the poor person’s drink” and as such any tax upon it would be detrimental to Oregon’s home grown brewing industries. She reiterated her desire to have the CCIGR adopt an opposition position to the bill. Ms. Ortiz and Mr. Poling both believed that the CCIGR should continue the monitor position on HB 2461 as recommended by staff. HB 2643 – Relating to Urban Renewal. Ms. Taylor felt that, contrary to staff’s recommendation of a Priority 2 opposition position, the CCIGR should adopt a support position of HB 2643 as it would allow taxing districts with schools to be exempt from urban renewal taxations if they chose to. Mr. Weinman, responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, noted that urban renewal plans in districts did not also have to be approved by county governments. Mr. Weinman and Ms. Wilson stated that, contrary to established City legislative policies opposing reductions of urban renewal revenue, HB 2643 would absolutely lead to reductions of such revenues. Ms. Wilson reminded the CCIGR that Ms. Taylor had, during a previous City Council discussion regarding the City’s legislative policies document, unsuccessfully advocated for the removal of the MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 25, 2009 Page 3 legislative policy opposing reductions of urban renewal revenue. Mr. Hill noted that all of the City’s taxing districts received tax revenue from the urban renewal areas and that they received those revenues on a frozen base from when the urban renewal district was created. Mr. Hill added that this aspect of urban renewal tax policy was created with the idea that the urban renewal investment was self funding, and allowing a district to opt out of the urban renewal plan would allow the district to reap the rewards of that investment without ever actually contributing to it. Mr. Hill noted that the City’s urban renewal districts ultimately paid off in higher tax revenues once the duration of a particular district had expired. Ms. Taylor maintained that the City’s urban renewals were habitually renewed and as such their benefits were never fully realized. Mr. Weinman noted that one urban renewal district had been extinguished a number of years ago. Ms. Piercy commented that that Eugene school districts had been very outspoken about not being in opposition to the City’s urban renewal district policies. Mr. Hill commented that if HB 2643 had been in effect several years ago the City would not have been able to build its downtown library facility because it would not have had the necessary revenue to do so. Ms. Taylor responded that the library being built was the one good thing that had come from the City’s urban renewal district policies. Ms. Wilson, responding to Ms. Taylor’s comment that the CCIGR should support HB 2643, recommended that the committee take the matter before the City Council before doing so. Ms. Ortiz, recognizing that State Representative Holvey had sponsored HB 2643, stated that she had not known that Mr. Holvey was opposed to urban renewal districts to the point that he would create legislation regarding it. Ms. Wilson averred that while Mr. Holvey understood that some of his proposed legislation would not be in line with the City of Eugene’s priorities he would also be willing to work with the City to find common ground on the matter. Ms. Piercy maintained that Mr. Holvey was attempting to balance the benefits of effective urban renewal district policies with the costs of such policies and that the debate on the matter was likely to continue. Mr. Poling, noting that the City had made no substantive change in its legislative policies on the matter, maintained that there was no need to change or reverse the committee’s position on urban renewal districts with respect to those established policies. Ms. Taylor stated that she would like to bring the matter before the City Council for further discussion. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to adopt a support position regarding HB 2643. The motion failed, 1:2 (Mr. Poling and Ms. Ortiz voting in opposition). HB 2577 - Relating to workers’ compensation claims for bloodborne diseases by public safety officers. Ms. Wilson stated that HB 2577 was designed to establish a presumption of certain bloodborne diseases as compensable occupational diseases for public safety officers. She noted that because of the significant cost the bill’s passage would represent to the City, staff was currently recommending a Priority 2 opposition position regarding the bill. Ms. Wilson noted that the bill had arisen in response to a local case involving a parole officer who had MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 25, 2009 Page 4 contracted methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) where physicians could not definitively pinpoint the source of infection in order to determine if it was ultimately duty-related or not. Ms. Wilson noted that under HB 2577 the presumption would have allowed the officer in question to be compensated without definitive proof of the duty-related nature of the infection. Mr. Poling, recognizing the legitimate duty of a City to protect its public safety officer, recognized that it was often extremely difficult to pinpoint when and how such officers were exposed to certain diseases and bloodborne pathogens. Ms. Wilson further noted that it was the opinion of staff that the risk of contracting the bloodborne diseases specified by HB 2577 did not necessarily increase for City employees because they were also public safety officers and the bill did not provide the same protections for regular City employees as it did specifically for public safety officers. Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, noted that the bill had been sponsored by the Committee On Judiciary at the request of the Oregon Council of Police Associations. Ms. Ortiz concurred with Mr. Poling’s previous comments regarding the matter. Ms. Taylor recognized that public safety officers were sometimes at greater risk of exposure to bloodborne diseases than regular City employees. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to adopt a Priority 2 opposition position regarding HB 2577 as recommended by City staff. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. LC 2186 - Relating to use of land. Ms. Wilson noted that LC 2186 had been generated in response to a court case that removed immunity for public and private landowners when they allowed the use of their land for recreational purposes or the use of their land to access recreational properties. She further noted that the legislative concept would continue to provide immunity for landowners under either of those circumstances and that staff was currently recommending a Priority 3 support position as the current land use laws discouraged property owners from using their property for recreational purposes. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to adopt a Priority 3 support position regarding LC 2186 as recommended by City staff. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. 4.Items from Members and Staff Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Mr. Poling regarding legislative issues discussed at the February 23, 2009 City Council meeting, noted that staff would in the future be happy to separate out those bill items from the IGR Bill Report that were not unanimously agreed upon so that they might be referenced more easily by the City Council members. Ms. Wilson, referring to the February 23 meeting, noted that she had not received the direction she needed regarding the legislative matters under discussion and that City Council Chair Alan Zelenka had not allowed her an opportunity to elaborate upon any of the bills being presented at that meeting . She maintained that with more opportunities to explain the votes behind the legislative matters she would be MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 25, 2009 Page 5 better able to assist the Council in making the most informed decisions possible. Ms. Ortiz noted that there would be a meeting of the United Front partner agency groups on March 6, 2009 at the Lane Transit District board meeting room. Ms. Wilson noted that there had been a great deal of discussions at the federal level regarding government spending and that she had received recommendations from the City’s federal lobbying agencies that it might be advisable in the current economic climate to not accompany Mayor Piercy on any lobbying trips to Washington D.C. Ms. Taylor asked how much longer the CCIGR would need to meet weekly to discuss the bills in the current legislative session. Ms. Wilson noted that while the current year had been unusually busy with regard to the number of bills involved in legislative discussions she expected the coming legislative deadlines on June 30 to significantly decrease the number of bills that would need to be brought to the CCIGR for review and discussion. Ms. Piercy asked Ms. Wilson about the City’s preparations to request and disburse federal stimulus funding. Ms. Wilson noted that City staff was currently summarizing the entire federal stimulus bill materials for the City Council and City divisions. She further noted that the federal stimulus funds would be distributed in three different ways (formula based, discretionary based, and competitive based) and that the City manager was in the process of forming internal and external advisory groups to determine the federal stimulus criteria and recommend a course of action. Ms. Wilson informed the committee members that a large portion of the federal stimulus package would be devoted toward the development of high speed rail transportation systems. Ms. Wilson maintained that aside from the City of Portland there was no other local government agency better prepared to take advantage of the federal stimulus than the City of Eugene. Ms. Wilson, responding to a comment from Ms. Piercy, noted that City staff was currently investigating the best ways in which to locally address federal stimulus priorities such as energy efficiency and transportation initiatives. Ms. Wilson noted that Governor Kulongoski had created a new committee called The Oregon Way which was designed to help the state and local governments utilize the federal stimulus funds in an environmentally conscious manner. Ms. Piercy thanked Ms. Wilson for her efforts in ensuring that the City would be prepared to take advantage of the federal stimulus funds. Mr. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Poling , moved to adopt the staff recommendation for priorities and recommendations for all bills that were not pulled for discussion for the February 25, 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 2:27 p.m. (Recorded by Wade Hicks) MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 25, 2009 Page 6 ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon March 4, 2009 1:15 p.m. PRESENT: Betty Taylor, Chair; Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, members; Brenda Wilson, Jessica Mumme, City Manager's Office; Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development Department; Finn Cronin, Financial Services; Ellwood Cushman, Eugene Police Department; Glenda Surdam, Human Resource and Risk Services; Kitty Piercy, Mayor. 1. Call to Order and Review Agenda Ms. Taylor called the meeting of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) to order and asked if there were any changes to the agenda. Intergovernmental Relations Manager, Brenda Wilson, indicated that she wanted to add Senate Bill (SB) 622, which would form a task force to look at the issue of geese. Also, she asked that House Bill (HB) 2699 be removed from consideration at the current meeting until the City Council could have a larger discussion regarding prevailing wage. Until then, she suggested that it remain a bill to be monitored like the other prevailing wage bills. 2. Reconsideration of Pending Legislation House Bill 2699 Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to monitor HB 2699. The motion passed un- animously, 2:0. Ms. Ortiz had not yet arrived. Senate Bill 622 Ms. Wilson explained that the bill sought to establish a task force to look at the interests of state, federal, agricultural, conservationists, and economic interests in geese. She related that Airport Director, Tim Doll, was present because he wished to ask that the City recommend that the interests of aviation be included. Mr. Doll explained that geese and airplanes did not mix, as evidenced by the recent forced landing of a large airplane in the Hudson River after hitting a flock of geese. He wished to make sure that aviation representatives were included in the tax force and asked that the committee support the bill with that amendment. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to support the bill with the suggested amendment. The motion passed unanimously, 2:0. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 4, 2009 Page 1 House Bill 2730 Ms. Wilson explained that the bill would prevent an employer from including residency pay differentials in wages or salaries that were based on cities or counties where the employee resided. She related that staff had recommended a Priority 3 Support. Mr. Poling questioned why, if the bill did not affect the City of Eugene, the recommendation was for adopting a support stance and not to remain neutral on it. Ms. Piercy arrived at 1:24 p.m. Financial Reporting Manager, Finn Cronin, explained that he had recommended support because the bill was probably only applicable to the state. Mr. Poling asked if this would affect federal positions. Glenda Surdam, Classification Compensation Manager, replied that it could. She explained that the way it was worded referred to geographic pay differentials based on costs of living in urban and rural areas. Ms. Ortiz arrived at 1:26 p.m. Mr. Poling thought he might have to declare a conflict of interest in this case. He asked how the state could enforce this on the federal government. He noted that he received a pay differential in his work for the Transportation Securities Administration (TSA) based on this locale. Ms. Surdam was unclear as to whether the Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) could adopt rules to implement what impact the differentials could have and what rules could actually be put into place. Mr. Poling declared a conflict of interest and recused himself from further discussion of the bill. Ms. Wilson noted that staff currently recommended a Priority 3 Support. Ms. Taylor observed that if the CCIGR did not take any action this recommendation would stand. She preferred to leave it at that. Mr. Poling indicated that he would check with the City Attorney regarding whether he should declare a conflict. The CCIGR made no changes to the staff recommendation of Priority 3 Support. Senate Bill 560 Principal Planner, Steve Nystrom, stated that the bill had a connection with Eugene as a result of the fallout of changes that resulted from the abolition of the Boundary Commission. He said counties were responsible for annexations to special districts. He explained that one district was problematic as it had been formed for the purpose of financing wastewater treatment many years earlier. He said it had served its purpose and that purpose was now being served by the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission, but the district could not be eliminated without bringing it to a full election. He related that the bill sought to remedy this. Ms. Ortiz thanked him for clarifying the bill. The CCIGR made no changes to the staff recommendation of Priority 3 Support. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 4, 2009 Page 2 House Bill 2547 Ellwood Cushman, Policy Analyst for the Eugene Police Department, explained that the bill related to denial of public assistance to individuals fleeing from law enforcement authorities. Ms. Ortiz related that her concern lay in the undo burden this could cause hospital emergency rooms. She explained that if a person was denied Oregon Health Plan (OHP) benefits the bill for care would fall on the hospital to pay. Mr. Cushman replied that he was uncertain as to whether OHP was classified as public assistance. He said the goal was to prevent individuals who were actively fleeing law enforcement from receiving public assistance. He did not believe the goal was to prevent health care providers from receiving payment. He felt that if this was the case it would make sense to ask for an amendment that would hold them harmless. He indicated he would look into it. Ms. Piercy commented that she was comfortable with the bill because she felt it contained adequate safeguards. The CCIGR made no changes to the staff recommendation of Priority 3 Support. House Bill 2713 Mr. Poling believed that they should change from a Priority 2 Oppose to support because the bill provided due process to employees that were under investigation for policy violations. He said this was covered under the Police Officer’s Bill of Rights and in a lot of areas under contracts. He understood that the bill would ensure that the employer would engage in a full, fair, and impartial investigation of an employee. He thought the bill would benefit officers who were not covered by contracts by giving them the same protections as officers who were protected by bargained contracts. Mr. Cushman remarked that a bill of this type came up every session. He said it contained provisions that were basic and almost human rights issues and other things that they believed should be locally determined and others that were “just flat unworkable.” He underscored that there were already avenues of appeal. He acknowledged that the contract did not cover the rank of sergeant and above, but there were still issues around employment law that required just cause. He noted that the bill contained more specifics, four of which gave cause for concern such that the department would remain strongly opposed to the bill if no amendments were made. He added that it also brought up the home rule principle: should the state be dictating to city and county police agencies how they should discipline one particular group of employees in a way that did not apply to any other class of employees? Ms. Taylor wondered why the CCIGR would oppose the bill. Ms. Ortiz thought Mr. Cushman had articulated the reasons to oppose it well. She did not oppose the concept of the bill but she thought the concerns the department had about it were valid. Ms. Wilson noted that the League of Oregon Cities had opposed the bill based on home rule and that it was an unfunded mandate. Mr. Poling, seconded by, Ms. Taylor, moved to monitor the bill. Mr. Poling thought that with a little tweaking to the language, the concerns of the department could be addressed. He preferred to monitor the bill to see if some of the changes would be made to the bill. Ms. Piercy said she was sympathetic to the issues raised by Mr. Cushman and the issue of home rule. She MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 4, 2009 Page 3 was amenable to monitoring the bill and if the bill “got legs” she would want to know about it and could have a different position. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. 3. Transportation Growth Management (TGM) Grant Application Ms. Wilson pointed out that both of the grants were being applied for from the same granting authority, which meant that the City was competing against itself. She reminded the committee that they had decided to allow the granting authority to make that determination. Ms. Piercy ascertained from staff that the City would not lose ground by having two applications in with the same granting authority. Rob Inerfeld, Transportation Planning Manager for the Public Works Department, stated that he had consulted with Terri Harding, who was now a Senior Planner with the Planning Division but had formerly worked with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) on the TGM program, and she felt comfortable that the City had made more than one grant. He related that she was of the opinion that the city could potentially get both grants. Robin Hostick, Senior Planner with the Planning Division, said staff had talked with the local TGM representative who worked for ODOT. He noted that they originally had submitted four pre-applications. The representative of the TGM program had recommended that the City submit two applications. He explained that there were two categories within the TGM, the land use category and the transportation category, and so the City was submitting one in each category. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to approve the grant application for the Me- tro/Community Planning section of the Transportation Growth Management grants. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to approve the grant application for the Pubilc Works Engineering Transportation Planning section of the Transportation Growth man- agement grants. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. 4. ACT – Area Commission on Transportation Ms. Wilson reported that the bill did not have a number yet and had not been introduced. She said the bill had been introduced in 2007, and this time would be introduced by Representative Paul Holvey and Senator Floyd Prozanski. She stated that the City had taken a support position previously. Ms. Piercy related that there had been “some email activity” on this and there was the point of view expressed that discussion should occur at the local level before legislation was passed and that there was possibly another solution for how such issues should be addressed. She said Lane County Commissioner Rob Handy wanted to initiate a local discussion on this. She had informed him that Eugene had supported this in the past. Mr. Poling asked if there would be significant changes between what had been voted on in 2007 and the present bill. Ms. Wilson replied that she did not think so. She said she would bring the bill to the committee as soon as it was introduced. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 4, 2009 Page 4 Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to support the Area Commission on Transpor- tation bill, to be introduced by Senator Prozanski and Representative Holvey. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Ms. Piercy remarked that she was uncertain where she stood in regard to the bill. 5. Items from Members and Staff Ms. Piercy had heard that Representative Bruce Hanna had a bill to reconfigure the membership of the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA). She related that she had called Senator Vicki Walker and Senator Walker indicated that she did not have such a bill and that it was late in the process so that such a bill would have to become a clause hooked onto another bill. She said Sen. Walker related that Lane County Commissioner Faye Stewart and Lane County Intergovernmental Relations Manager, Alex Cuyler, had come to her with the proposed bill language. She had asked whether the Board of County Commis- sioners had taken a position on it and Sen. Walker had not known the answer. Ms. Wilson said she would look into it. Ms. Ortiz remarked that she had not heard anything from anyone in LRAPA. Members discussed the upcoming council break and determined that the CCIGR would not meet on March 18 but would continue to meet at its regular Wednesday time after that. Ms. Piercy said the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) had proposed spraying south Eugene to prevent a gypsy moth infestation. She stated that the neighborhood association and the Oregon Toxics Alliance were concerned that this was too drastic of a step. She related that Ms. Taylor and Commissioner Handy planned to join her for a private meeting to find a way “through this.” She noted that the ODA had visited Sen. Walker and had “convinced her” that the State of California had experienced difficulty in addressing the gypsy moth issue because of the reduction in the use of spray. She averred that the ODA had said to Sen. Walker that “just because people were concerned” did not mean that changing the approach to the problem was the right policy direction. Ms. Wilson inferred that the only reason the ODA would try to convince Sen. Walker was that the agency felt that it needed legislative help. Ms. Taylor asked if the deadline for bill introduction had passed. Ms. Wilson replied that it had but that bills could still be amended to include legislator’s items and each legislator still had the ability to introduce two bills from “their back pocket.” 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 present meet- ing and all bills that had been discussed and acted upon at the present meeting. The mo- tion passed unanimously, 3:0. Ms. Taylor adjourned the meeting at 1:55 p.m. (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 4, 2009 Page 5 ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon March 11, 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; Richie Weinman, Planning and Devel- opment Department; Susan Mullett, Human Resources Division; Larry Hill, Financial Services Division; Ellwood Cushman, Chuck Tilby, Eugene Police Department. 1. Call to Order and Review Agenda Ms. Taylor called the meeting of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) to order. She reviewed the agenda and added consideration of Senate Bill (SB) 583, 579, House Bill (HB) 2753, and House Concurrent Resolution 6. Ms. Wilson also asked for reconsideration of the CCIGR’s direction regarding formation of an Area Commission on Transportation (ACT) in Lane County. 2. Approval of February 18, 2009, Minutes Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to approve the minutes of February 18, 2009, as submitted. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. 3. Review of Pending Legislation HB 2642 Ms. Wilson said the bill was related to urban renewal. Staff recommended a position of Priority 3, Oppose, in keeping with the City Council’s legislative policies. Ms. Taylor said she did not approve of the legislative policy or the recommendation. Mr. Weinman said he did not think bill was likely to get a hearing or come to a floor vote, so staff’s position was academic. Ms. Wilson concurred. Given the bill was unlikely to receive a hearing, Ms. Taylor indicated acceptance of the staff recommenda- tion. SB 632 Ms. Wilson noted the Priority 1, Oppose recommendation based on the council’s legislative policies. She said the bill had not been scheduled for a hearing and she did not think it was going anywhere. Ms. Taylor asked that the bill be brought back to the committee if it made any progress. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 11, 2009 Page 1 HB 2748 Ms. Wilson said HB 2748 prohibited a public employer from terminating or laying off an employee who did not speak Spanish. The committee asked questions clarifying the details of the bill. Ms. Mullett noted the bill had not been scheduled for a hearing. She did not anticipate the bill having much impact on the City. The City did not have a large number of positions that required a second language. Mayor Piercy recommended that the committee monitor the bill. Ms. Taylor did not want to oppose the bill. Mr. Poling was inclined to oppose the bill because he envisioned a situation where junior individuals with needed qualifications were laid off before senior employees with fewer qualifications. He did not object to monitoring the bill, however. Ms. Ortiz thought the issues involved were complicated and pointed out there were few positions where people were compensated for speaking another language. She indicated support for monitoring the bill. Ms. Wilson said the bill said merely stated that it was an unlawful employment practice for an employer to terminate or layoff an employee because they did not speak Spanish. Mr. Poling moved to change the City’s position on the bill from Oppose to Monitor. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2831 Ms. Taylor thought the City should support the bill, which included temporary employees in the definition of “appropriate bargaining unit” for the purposes of collective bargaining, or at least not oppose it. Ms. Mullett said the bill included elements similar to elements in bills the City had opposed in the past. For example, the definition of “temporary employee” was similar to HB 2545, which the City opposed, the element prohibiting a public employer from hiring permanent replacements was similar to HB 2546, and the element related to the bargaining process was similar to HB 2709, which the City opposed. She said the bill would place more restrictions on how the City could conduct business. The City currently did not have temporary employees in its bargaining units and adding them would increase the organization’s labor costs. Ms. Taylor said that employers such as universities “got by” by hiring temporary employees. She thought that temporary employees should have some rights and further maintained that their temporary employ- ment was sometimes an abuse of their rights. She noted her own experience as a temporary employee at a community college. Ms. Mullett said the City’s contract with the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) addressed how long individuals could be used as temporary employees. She noted that most of the City’s temporary employees employed at the Hult Center and at recreation programs. Ms. Mullett said that the City did careful compensation comparisons for temporary employees. Ms. Ortiz supported the staff recommendation. Ms. Taylor preferred to support the bill rather than oppose it. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 11, 2009 Page 2 Mr. Poling also supported the staff recommendation. Ms. Taylor moved to change the City’s position on the bill to Support. The motion died for lack of a second. Mayor Piercy suggested that the bill could be amended to address any concerns the City might have. She did not think, for example, it was intended to address summer employees. Ms. Wilson observed that the bill applied to temporary employees, seasonal employees, and even limited duration employees hired under grants for special projects. Mayor Piercy said that those categories could be eliminated while the “permanent temporary employees” of concern to Ms. Taylor could be addressed. Ms. Taylor believed student workers were a totally different matter from temporary workers and asked that Ms. Wilson convey that message to Representative Paul Holvey, a sponsor of the bill. SB 626 Ms. Wilson said the bill would increase the fee for screening interviews of a person convicted of driving under the influence of intoxicants. Staff recommended a Position of Priority 2, Support. She reported that currently, an individual found guilty of driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII) was required to go through a screening process to determine what type of treatment was in order. The City used to use the Lane County Mental Health Department to do the screening, but it no longer performed that function. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Wilson said the person found guilty of DUII paid the fee. Ms. Taylor thought that added fee a harsh punishment on top of the other penalties one found guilty of DUII received. Ms. Ortiz expressed concern that the cost of the screening interview was going up as she thought it might make someone less inclined to go through the process. She noted that Lane County Mental Health used its own staff to do the screening, which included a psychological assessment, and she hoped that the City could find someone equally qualified. She acknowledged the expense of the process. Responding to a question from Mr. Poling, Ms. Wilson clarified that the screening interview fee would be increased statewide from $150 to $250 in response to provider concerns that the fee was inadequate. The committee made no change to the staff position. . SB 532 Ms. Wilson said the bill would direct the Department of Justice (DOJ) to distribute funding to local governments for methamphetamine and property crime prevention. Captain Tilby recommended a position of Priority 2, Support, and the Mr. Hill recommended a position of Monitor due to the financial impact of the proposed legislation. Captain Tilby explained his recommendation to support the bill, saying that property crime was Eugene’s major crime problem. He anticipated that any allocations would be broadly disseminated for necessary prevention, enforcement, and treatment options. He commended the concept behind the bill and added that it provided money the City would not find locally, and a lack of such funding hampered the City’s ability to fight property crimes. Mr. Hill explained his position, saying he considered that the bill was extremely ambitious because it requested $36 million in new spending from a State budget under considerable pressure and was sponsored MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 11, 2009 Page 3 by only one senator, which implied to him it was unlikely to make progress. Ms. Wilson indicated the bill was not going to make any progress. Mr. Hill suggested a bill with a smaller spending amount might succeed if the money could be found. He pointed out the City would not be able to use any money from the bill to backfill existing activities; it would have to be spent on new activities that were limited by the bill. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to change the City’s position on the bill to Monitor. Mr. Poling supported the motion based on the financial issues involved. However, he had mixed emotions about taking that position because he believed the City needed to do something to address the communi- ty’s drug problem. Mayor Piercy concurred. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2753 Ms. Wilson said the bill would authorize changes in the fees that pawnbrokers may collect for certain items and was aimed at an ordinance passed by the City of Eugene. The City would no longer be able to operate its program if the bill passed. She had been approached by the City of Portland and the League of Oregon Cities (LOC), who were willing to back the City’s position. Ms. Wilson emphasized that the bill was a preemption of the City’s home rule authority. Mr. Cushman invited questions. Mayor Piercy thought the bill was terrible and suggested the City work with Springfield and Lane County to communicate to the Lane County delegation its opposition to the bill. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to support the staff recommendation to oppose the bill at a level of Priority 1. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 579 Ms. Wilson said the bill would require operators of motor vehicles and certain passengers in motor vehicles to use child safety systems, safety belts, or safety harnesses when motor vehicles are operated on premises open to the public. Staff recommended a position of Priority 3, Support. A hearing was scheduled the following day. The committee asked questions clarifying what situations the bill would apply to. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to approve the staff recommendation. The mo- tion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 583 Ms. Wilson said the bill would require operators and passengers of Class II all-terrain vehicles to wear motorcycle helmets if under 18 years of age. Staff recommended a position of Priority 3, Support. She said the exceptions that already existed in law would continue to exist, with the addition of a vehicle with a roof or roll bar. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to approve the staff recommendation. The mo- MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 11, 2009 Page 4 tion passed unanimously, 3:0. House Current Resolution 6 Ms. Wilson said the resolution would honor University of Oregon Dave Frohnmayer for his many years of service to the State in a variety of capacities. The resolution was sponsored by all members of the Lane County delegation. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to support the resolution. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0 Formation of a Lane County Area Commission on Transportation The committee reconsidered its position on the formation of a local ACT. Mayor Piercy said that she did not think the City should take a position on the formation of such a body without further consultation with its intergovernmental partners. Ms. Wilson said there was a letter being circulated by Mayor Piercy and Springfield Mayor Sid Leiken asking the Lane Board of County Commissioners to engage the appropriate partners in a discussion of the issue. Mr. Poling asked about Springfield’s position about the proposal. Ms. Wilson indicated Springfield had not taken a formal position. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Wilson said the City’s position on the bill was Priority 1, Support, which had the appearance of making the bill look like Eugene’s bill. Ms. Wilson suggested that the City could monitor the bill. She also said the City could ask that a hearing not be held. Mr. Poling supported changing the City’s position to monitor pending more local discussion. Ms. Taylor was willing to support that but was not willing to ask the legislature to not hold a hearing. Ms. Wilson believed the Board of County Commissioners might make that request. Mayor Piercy reported that members of the County commissioners had indicated an interest in holding a local conversation about forming an ACT. She said that Mayor Leiken also indicated interest in a local discussion. She preferred that local problems be processed at the local level when possible to encourage collegial relationships between the local governments. Ms. Taylor supported a local ACT but did not object to monitoring the bill. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to monitor legislation related to the formation of a Lane County ACT. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. 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 unanim- ously, 3:0. 5. OTREC Abstract Ms. Wilson noted that the deadline for applying for the OTREC grant was March 20 but the responsible staff person was out of town and had not yet prepared a memorandum on the grant. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 11, 2009 Page 5 Mr. Poling asked whether the grant required a match. Ms. Wilson did not know. The committee agreed to vote on the grant by e-mail early the following week after it reviewed an informational memorandum provided by staff. 5. Items from the Committee and Staff Due to expected absences, the committee canceled the March 18 meeting. Ms. Taylor determined there were no additional items. Ms. Taylor adjourned the meeting at 2:30 p.m. (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 11, 2009 Page 6