Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2H: Ratifiaction of Unanimous IGR Actions ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Minutes of April 1, 2009 and April 8, 2009 Meeting Date: May 11, 2009 Agenda Item Number: 2H 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 April 1, 2009, and April 8, 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 April 1, 2009, and April 8, 2009 IGR meetings. Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M090511\S0905112H.doc ATTACHMENTS A. IGR Committee Minutes of April 1, 2009 B. IGR Committee Minutes of April 8, 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\M090511\S0905112H.doc ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations McNutt RoomEugene City Hall 777 Pearl StreetEugene, Oregon April 1, 2009 1:15 p.m. PRESENT: Betty Taylor, Chair; Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, members; Mayor Kitty Piercy; Brenda Wilson, Jessica Mumme, City Manager's Office; Richie Weinman, Steve Nystrom, Mark Whitmill, Planning and Development Department; Susan Mullett, Human Resources Di- vision; Myrnie Daut, Risk Services Division; Larry Hill, Sue Cutsogeorge, Doug Lauder- bach, Financial Services Division; Ellwood Cushman, Pete Kerns, Steve Swenson, Lynn Reeves, Eugene Police Department; Char Mauch, Municipal Court; Lee Shoemaker, Eric Jones, Public Works Department, Lauren Sommers, City Attorney. 1. Call to Order and Review Agenda Ms. Taylor called the meeting of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) to order. Intergovernmental Relations Manager Brenda Wilson indicated that there were two bills to add to the agenda for consideration: Senate Bill (SB) 854 and House Bill (HB) 3466. She also requested that the order be shifted so that discussion of HB 3023 would occur prior to discussion of SB 708. Ms. Ortiz noted that she had pulled HB 2875 for discussion but no longer had any questions. Ms. Wilson replied that Ms. Taylor had also pulled the bill. 2. COPS Grant 2009 Ms. Wilson briefly introduced the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grant. She stated that staff had requested the authority to submit a grant application for COPS funding to be used to staff the University of Oregon campus team. Kerns stated that the department was renegotiating its contract with the University and presently was department would provide them with two officers and they would be embedded in the work units instead of being a separate unit. He stressed that the difference would be that he would not have the number of officers working there that he would prefer to have. He noted that two officers were being brought back to the department to fill vacancies for the City of Eugene. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to grant staff authority to submit an application for a COPS grant to be used to staff the University of Oregon Campus Team. The motion MINUTESCouncil Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 1, 2009 Page 1 passed unanimously, 3:0. 3. Review of Pending Legislation HB 2961 Ms. Wilson stated that the bill would allow municipalities to impose local requirements for construction of new structures that could be more stringent than state building code. Staff had recommended remaining neutral on the bill. Mr. Poling preferred to oppose the bill because he believed it would significantly undermine the statewide code, which would cause confusion for builders who worked in multiple jurisdictions. He wished there was another way to indicate opposition while not expending any actual energy to block the bill. Ms. Wilson said staff could submit a letter that conveyed that message. Mr. Poling averred that in something like building codes, they needed consistency statewide. and to direct staff to send a letter indicating that building code should remain consistent statewide. Ms. Taylor wanted to support the bill. Ms. Ortiz asked staff to comment about the proposed change from the position that staff recommended the City adopt. Mark Whitmill, Assistant Building Official for the Planning Division, responded that his personal opinion was that the bill should be opposed. The reason he had recommended adoption of a neutral position was that the bill would make it easier for the City of Eugene to adopt local land use amendments. In response to a question from Ms. Wilson, Mr. Whitmill explained that he also believed that the code should be statewide in order to foster consistency. The vote was 2:1; Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. HB 3056 Ms. Wilson explained that the bill would require 50 percent of the increment to be added to the total assessed value of a property within an urban renewal area whenever the increment equaled the total assessed value. Staff had recommended adopting a Priority 2 Oppose position on the bill. Ms. Taylor wanted to support the bill because she felt it would provide more money to the General Fund. Mr. Poling believed that Ms. Piercy arrived. Financial Analysis Manager, Sue Cutsogeorge, pointed out that the tradeoff for having more money in the General Fund would be that there would be less money in the Urban Renewal Agency. MINUTESCouncil Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 1, 2009 Page 2 Ms. Ortiz observed that the basic question was whether the City should have an urban renewal district or not and this was another conversation. She supported the staff recommendation. Ms. Taylor moved to change the position on the bill to indicate support for it. The motion died for lack of a second. HB 2491 Ms. Wilson suggested monitoring the bill, a bill related to substances that constitute an intoxicant when operating a vehicle, because it had already gone to a hearing and the committee had raised issues with the broadness of it. She said it was being reworked. Mr. Poling indicated that he had pulled the bill because there had been conflicting recommendations from staff for it. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to monitor the bill. The motion passed un- animously, 3:0. SB 825 Ms. Wilson stated that the bill would direct a police officer to confiscate a registration card and to mark had been driving with a suspended or revoked license. Mr. Poling had pulled the bill because he wanted to support it. He wanted to prepare for a future in which the area would hopefully have a public safety system that was fully in place and could deal with people arrested for such violations. He recalled that the second point that Lieutenant Derel Schulz had brought up was that it would make it mandatory. He said there were times when an officer out on the street could not deal with things of this nature because of time. He indicated he would advocate for supporting it if it , Ellwood Cushman, Policy Analyst for the Eugene Police Department (EPD), affirmed that staff had two concerns the mandatory jail sentence and the mandatory requirement for the police officer to do it. Ms. Piercy asked if the bill was moving. Ms. Wilson replied that a public hearing had been held and the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) had testified that it did not have the technical capability to program the system to have it ready by the time the bill would require implementation. She noted that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had opposed the bill. Ms. Piercy recommended monitoring the bill. Mr. Poling commented that he wished they could say something other than support or oppose for this bill. He would prefer to send a letter asking the bill to be amended. Ms. Wilson predicted that the bill would be worked before it would have another hearing. She reiterated that the state agency that would be responsible for programming this in had indicated that it could not do so in the timeframe the bill would require. MINUTESCouncil Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 1, 2009 Page 3 Mr. Cushman thought it would be helpful to have a position that would say the bill would be acceptable if some changes were made. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to support the bill if it would be amended to change the mandatory jail sentence and the mandatory action required of the arresting or citing officer. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2842 Ms. Wilson said the bill would repeal Ballot Measure 57 and related provisions. Staff recommended adoption of a Priority 2 Oppose position. Ms. Wilson stated that the bill would have to pass through the committee on rules; it had been referred to the Ways and Means Committee. She said it would require a two-thirds majority in order to pass. Ms. Piercy remarked that she cared about property crimes being prosecuted but she was not a fan of Ballot Measure 57. She was inclined to support it. Ms. Taylor moved to change the position to support the bill. The motion died for lack of a second. HB 2872 Ms. Wilson related that the bill would increase the punishment for second and subsequent convictions for unlawful possession of a firearm. Staff had recommended adoption of a Priority 3 Support position. Ms. Ortiz indicated that her chief concern was that the priority for support should be stronger. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to change the priority to a Priority 2 Support. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 708 Ms. Wilson explained that the bill would provide that if a person applied for employment with a law enforcement agency, all former and current employers of the person must provide to the law enforcement agency all the information available related to that person. Staff recommended a Priority 3 Oppose position. Captain Steve Swenson agreed that the concept was good; people should be held accountable and it would be good to ensure the department had good people coming to work for them. He said the bill had some from the employer should be provided and this was too broad; it did not say all records or all disciplinary records and this another area of concern had to do with background information. He explained that a lot of people provided background information about themselves or potential employees because they were guaranteed that the information would be confidential and would not go any further from that point on. He said there were times that a family member or close friend would indicate that while they cared about that person they did not feel the person would make a good police officer. If that information was then available when the person applied for the willingness to be absolutely frank. He was also concerned that it would affect how they were able to MINUTESCouncil Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 1, 2009 Page 4 speak about someone who had left the department in lieu of facing potential termination. Ms. Piercy said she would be opposed to the bill unless the CCIGR heard from the department and from labor in general about it. Capt. Swenson had been struck, when looking at the bill, by how much the department was already doing a lot of the things the bill would require. police officer. He example, if the spouse thought his or her concerns would become information the applicant would someday have access to. He stressed the importance of having as much information as possible about a potential officer so that someone with anger issues or other issues would not be hired for the position. Ms. Ortiz commented that she had some experience with job clearances for the military. She related that She assumed that this was the same sort of thing and that they wanted people to be anecdotal in truth. Ms. Taylor was concerned that this would preclude an employee from finding out why they were not hired. She suggested they change the position to monitor. Ms. Wilson stated that the bill had not been scheduled for a hearing at this point. Ms. Taylor decided to leave the staff recommendation to adopt a Priority 3 Oppose position in place. HB 3023 Ms. Wilson stated that the bill would require health benefit plans and health insurance to allow depen- dents to continue coverage past the current age limit for coverage under specified conditions. Ms. Ortiz noted that her place of employment would provide insurance for another adult who shared the micile, even if that person was not family. She observed that many older children were being forced to return to live at home and she was not certain the City should not take care of those dependents, too. Myrnie Daut, Risk Services Manager, responded that the bill defined a dependent as a child and would require that insurance be provided to dependents up to the age of 30. She explained that the current plan allowed dependents to remain on the policy to the age of 19 and, if the dependent was going to college, he or she would receive coverage until the age of 23. She supported monitoring the bill. She added that in a right to require a dependent up to the age of 30 to be covered. struggling right now. She observed that the age bracket between 25 and 35 was the most likely to not get medical care and was also the most likely to have long-term benefits from regular health care. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to monitor the bill. Ms. Piercy remarked that universal health care was the answer. She averred that there needed to be other ways of handling this situation. Ms. Taylor preferred to oppose the bill. MINUTESCouncil Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 1, 2009 Page 5 The vote on the motion was 2:1; Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. SB 833 Ms. Wilson said the bill would eliminate the requirement for a special relationship to establish liability of a local government for economic injuries incurred by a person acting in good faith reliance on negligent misrepresentation by a local government of a comprehensive plan and land use regulations. Mr. Poling indicated that he had pulled the bill for discussion because he had noted that there were conflicting recommendations from staff. City Attorney Lauren Sommers stated that the recommendation from counsel was to oppose the bill. Ms. Wilson surmised from the comments from the Risk Division that staff actually also opposed the bill. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to adopt a Priority 2 Oppose position. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2979 Ms. Wilson stated that the bill would require places of public accommodation to allow customer access to an employen- dation was to adopt a Priority 3 Oppose position because of numerous concerns related to enforcement and security and sanitation issues. Ms. Ortiz asked if the bill was moving. Ms. Wilson replied that it had not been scheduled at this point. She noted that the dead bill deadline was April 17 and if a bill had not been scheduled for a work session by this point it would be dead. Ms. Piercy observed that State Senator Bill Morrisette was supporting the bill. She felt it would take a lot of work to make the bill function and, , the City of Eugene was better off not opposing it. She suggested monitoring the bill. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to monitor the bill. Ms. Taylor preferred to oppose the bill. She thought letting other people come into the restroom for Mr. Poling asked if all places that were subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) require- ments were not required to provide facilities. He ascertained that this would require additional facilities to endation. if it was not likely to go anywhere. Ms. Wilson clarified that the bill would not allow the additional public accommodation to any person unless a person could show that they had a specific medical condition. She said the administrative issues around it would have to be addressed if the bill started to move. She related that it had been brought forth by a constituent that had experienced an issue, adding that it would have to be modified in order to pass. MINUTESCouncil Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 1, 2009 Page 6 against what he perceived to be not a good bill. He disagreed that this could be characterized as a personality attack. He averred that to support or oppose a bill just because one of the local elected at something that they might not to be bothered with. Ms. Taylor ascertained that since the motion had been made but the second had withdrawn, the bill would come before the council for discussion. HB 3131 Ms. Wilson explained that the bill would prohibit a public employer from using a replacement worker to perform the duties of a public employee engaged in a lawful strike. Susan Mullett, Management Analyst for the Human Resources Division, considered the bill to be written so broadly that it would dictate that no replacement workers could be hired and that non-represented employees could not be placed in roles served by represented employees during a strike. She said two of the four unions the City contracted with were in public safety and a third, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), comprised the largest number of city employees. She stated that many of the AFSCME positions were on the front of customer service for the public and the way the law was written would disallow non-represented employees from providing those services in the event of a strike. Ms. Taylor wanted to support the bill. She did not want to oppose it because she considered that position to be anti-labor. Ms. Mullett underscored that the City had good relationships with the unions and had worked hard to resolve contracts. Ms. Taylor noted that the law applied to the whole state. Ms. Piercy concurred. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to monitor the bill. The motion passed un- animously, 3:0. SB 743 Ms. Wilson explained that SB 743 related to electricity from low-impact hydroelectric facilities that could be used to comply with renewable portfolio standards. She said staff had recommended opposing the bill pending contact with the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB). She related that EWEB had indicated that it supported the bill and staff wanted to change its position to Priority 3 Support. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to adopt a Priority 3 Support position on the bill. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 3008 Ms. Wilson stated that the bill would require a bicycle licensing and registration system. MINUTESCouncil Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 1, 2009 Page 7 Ms. Taylor thought they should oppose the bill. Eric Jones, Public Affairs Manager for the Public Works Department, said staff had decided to change its recommendation from monitoring the bill to a Priority 3 Oppose. Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator for the Public Works Department Lee Shoemaker explained that the $54 fee was more than the fee for a motorcycle and would present a big burden to someone purchasing a $100 bicycle. He said a person could have multiple bicycles if they had children and this would exacerbate the expense. He pointed out that bicyclists had a minimal impact on the roadways and that a person who purchased a home also paid for Systems Development Charges (SDCs) that paid for roads. Additionally, there was some concern about the burden this would place on police officers, who would be charged with monitoring whether bicyclists had the appropriate license plates. He asked the committee to consider whether it would be prudent to give bicycles away at Project Homeless Connect and then require homeless people to pay $54 in fees. ted a licensing fee for bicycles. He thought it was a good idea to have some kind of registration on certain kinds of bicycles. Ms. Piercy noted that they wanted to encourage bicycle usage and a licensing requirement could run counter to this. Mr. Jones stated that the bill was not scheduled for a hearing at this time. He noted that it had received a great deal of media attention and some of the response from car owners was that bicyclists should pay. He reiterated his feeling that $54 was too much, however. He added that the cost of the administration of the system was high. The committee agreed to go with the staff recommendation for adoption of a Priority 3 Oppose position. Ms. Ortiz noted that it was not on the agenda. Ms. Wilson stated that the bill had come to the CCIGR on February 11, at which point staff had recommended that the bill be opposed. The committee had unanimously supported the position. She said the bill report had not yet gone before the City Council and any councilor could pull the bill for discus- sion. She related that the City of Portland had taken a neutral position on the bill. She said the Portland bicycle community was very polarized about it. She thought it was dead in the legislature. She noted that State Senator Floyd Prozanski had introduced the bill, as well as a bill that had been roundly opposed by the biking community to require bicycle helmets for all ages. Mr. Poling felt they had only heard from half of the bicycle community. He thought an actual survey of bicycle riders would show similar split results in Eugene. . the position to neutral. Ms. Piercy recalled that at the Bike Summit they had discussed working to move bicyclists to corridors that were less used by motor vehicle traffic. She did not know if the bill provided the opportunity to look at some of those corridors. Mr. Shoemaker stated that staff planned to look at the bicycle corridors, with the update of the TransPlan. MINUTESCouncil Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 1, 2009 Page 8 He did not think they had done everything they would like to do. He said there were a large percentage of people who did not like to ride on busy streets. Ms. Piercy asked if staff thought there was anything to the idea of better usage of bike ways by reducing the number of stop signs on them. Mr. Shoemaker replied that most cyclists that commented indicated that they rolled through stop signs anyway if there was no traffic. He said the bill would not necessarily change anything except the bicyclist would not be subject to a ticket. neutral stance. The vote was 2:1; Mr. Poling voting in opposition. HB 2806 Ms. Wilson stated that the bill was related to public borrowing for acquisition of railways by the Oregon International Port of Coos Bay and would appropriate money and would declare an emergency. Staff had recommended that the bill be monitored. Mr. Poling noted that SB 608 was the same. He had pulled the bill because even though it affected Coos Bay more than Eugene, Eugene would be affected in the long run because more rail traffic would reduce truck traffic on the highways and make them safer. He agreed that monitoring the bill was probably the best the City could do but he wished they could indicate some support but that they would not put effort into getting the bill passed. He Mr. Jones said another reason to monitor the bill was that it was the state equivalent of earmarking. He stated that in the past the lottery funds were bonded and had gone through a competitive merit-case award process called ConnectOregon and ConnectOregon II, etc. He related that in this session it appeared that area that would pay for improvements to the Sunset Highway. Ms. Piercy liked the idea of monitoring the bill and sending a letter saying that Eugene was supportive of the concept. Ms. Wilson said the discussion also included an opportunity to look for additional funding resources for a railroad quiet zone. Mr. Jones added that SB 941 would be coming up for review by the CCIGR and would go to the State General Fund for this purpose. He explained that the advocates for this project were not just looking at lottery funds. SB 608 Mr. Poling indicated that he was amenable to the staff recommendation to monitor both HB 2806 and SB 608. HB 2864 Ms. Wilson indicated that the bill related to land use planning for land included within an urban growth boundary (UGB) and would permit a city, notwithstanding its charter, to annex land within the UGB without election in the city. Staff had recommended adopting a neutral position. MINUTESCouncil Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 1, 2009 Page 9 Mr. Poling preferred to adopt a Priority 3 Support. He felt the bill would give greater local control over city-initiated annexations. Ms. Ortiz asked why staff had recommended a neutral stance. Principal Planner Steve Nystrom explained that the current city policy was that the City did not initiate annexations. He said it was questionable how much the bill would actually affect Eugene. He felt that on the positive side the bill would provide a little more latitude. He thought the bill presumed that if a community had gone through a process to bring a property into its limits, why should it have another vote to annex the property and make it a part of that city? He stated that if the council changed direction and the City became more active in annexations, it would become a more significant question. Ms. Piercy averred that given the drama around the issue, support of this bill could throw up a red flag for some constituents. She supported remaining neutral. In response to a question from Mr. Poling, Mr. Nystrom explained that the City had purposefully limited itself in the range of ways available by state law that it could employ in the annexation processes. He said the City did not invoke its right to annex property belonging to people unwilling to be annexed. Ms. Ortiz supported retaining the neutral stance, as staff had recommended. The staff recommendation was retained. HB 2994 Ms. Wilson stated that HB 2994 would require cities to provide urban services to territories approved for annexation within three years of the date of proclamation. Staff had recommended adoption of a Priority 3 Oppose position. Ms. Ortiz averred that a lot of annexation- concerned about this. Mr. Nystrom related that staff opposed the bill from a home rule perspective. He said three years was the benchmark Eugene already used. He stated that because the City was not annexing properties and annexations were owner-initiated, most properties already had services extended to them and those that did not were often owned by people who were willing to pay for the services. Ms. Ortiz wondered why State Representative Chris Edwards was putting forward legislation that was annexation had been Rep. Edwards when he ran for office. She opined that She averred that the legislators did not support all of the issues the City of Eugene supported. he asserted that annexation was a winning issue for people. She thought they could point out that they were already utilizing the three-year criterion. She reiterated her support and preference for home rule. Ms. Wilson stated that the bill had not been scheduled at this point, but it could go forward in a block of bills. Mr. Nystrom noted that most of the annexation issues in Eugene arose from the River Road and Santa MINUTESCouncil Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 1, 2009 Page 10 Clara residents. It was puzzling to him that the legislation was coming forward, given that these residents already had the necessary services provided to them. MINUTESCouncil Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 1, 2009 Page 11 The staff recommendation was retained. HB 3031 Ms. Wilson said the bill related to residential land development and would declare an emergency, allowing local governments to extend approval of residential development permits for two years. Mr. Poling asked what the current timeframe was. Mr. Nystrom replied that it varied; all of the different land uses had different timeframes. He stated that the Home Builders Association had sent letters to all of the jurisdictions in the hope that they would adopt this clause locally. He said, for Eugene, there would be no direct impact, but it would need a policy discussion and this was why staff had adopted a neutral position. Mr. Poling surmised that under the current economic conditions the bill would provide assistance by providing some extra time to developers who were impacted by current economic conditions and were not able to begin construction in a timely manner. He thought the committee should adopt a Priority 3 Support position. Ms. Piercy asked what the down side to the bill would be. Mr. Nystrom replied that the bill would affect the projects that were already approved. He said no code changes could affect them, given that the permit was already issued. He thought the applicant should provide notice so that there would be public knowledge of the status of projects. Ms. Ortiz asked if the bill had been through a hearing. She thought they could consider this locally for this economic time. She preferred doing this instead of changing it from a neutral stance to a Priority 3 Support. Mr. Poling moved to change the position to Priority 3 Support. The motion died for lack of a second. SB 761 Ms. Wilson said SB 761 related to the annexation to contiguous territory and would require local government annexation elections to include electors on property that was not proposed for annexation but was abutting the public right of way proposed for annexation. Staff had recommended adopting a Priority 2 Oppose position on it. Ms. Ortiz stated that she had pulled the bill to make comments on it. She averred that neighbors should not be able to decide whether or not a property should be annexed. The staff recommendation stood. SB 781 Ms. Wilson explained that the bill would require a city with a population greater than 100,000 to include certain types of land within its UGB. Staff had recommended taking a Priority 1 Oppose position. Mr. Nystrom related that staff had discussed the bill with the City Attorney and the phrasing of the bill had led staff to take a different tack. He explained that the provision indicated that a city with a population greater than 100,000 would be required to include within its UGB a tract of land that was MINUTESCouncil Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 1, 2009 Page 12 within the corporate limits of the city on the effective date. He said staff had read this initially to be more of a directive, but had concluded that the bill actually meant that if a city had a tract of city land that was outside the UGB but was part of city limits and it was 70 acres and it was adjacent to the UGB, it must be brought into the UGB within six months. He observed that having land outside the UGB but inside the corporate city limits was a unique situation. He said no such circumstance existed in Eugene and he surmised that the bill must be specific to Portland or Salem. He related that staff had changed its position to either neutral or drop because it did not affect Eugene. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to adopt a neutral stance on the bill. The mo- tion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2875 Ms. Wilson stated that HB 2875 also related to annexation and would allow a taxpayer to elect to defer payment of increased property taxes that were attributable to the annexation of a property by a city. Staff had recommended taking a Priority 2 Oppose position. Ms. Taylor said she would prefer to change the position to Priority 2 Support. She felt that people should be allowed to defer taxes. Larry Hill, Senior Management Analyst for the Finance Division, explained that the bill would allow any person or persons who owned residential property to obtain a deferral for ten years. He said the City would still need to provide services to the property. He added that the State Department of Revenue would reimburse jurisdictions that would otherwise receive the tax revenue, so theoretically the State would pay the lost revenue. He stated that the principal would be held in a lien against the property by the State and interest would accrue at 6 percent per year and would be payable in full at the end of ten years or upon the sale of the property. This could become a large amount of money. He pointed out that there was no qualification process for the program and people already had access to the senior property tax deferral program or the low-income disabled property tax deferral programs if they were suffering hardships. He had recommended the City oppose the bill because it would provide the relief to people who did not need it, it would require the State to reimburse the local jurisdictions with no assurance that the money would be adequate, and the money would come out of the senior tax deferral fund. He also had some concern that the lump sum at the end of ten years would create a hardship for people. Ms. Taylor remarked that whether or not it would be a hardship was for the property owner to decide. Ms. Ortiz had decided not to pull the bill because the City did not arbitrarily annex property. She noted that the bill was being brought forward by Rep. Edwards and State Senator Vicki Walker. Ms. Taylor moved to change the position on the bill to Priority 3 Support. The motion died for lack of a second. HB 2983 Ms. Wilson said the bill was related to property tax liens and would permit counties to sell tax lien certificates. Mr. Hill related that staff had changed its recommendation from a Priority 3 Support position to a neutral position based upon recent conversations with the County Assessor, Annette Spickard. He said the tax assessors and collectors were not taking a stand on the bill because they did not believe it would move. MINUTESCouncil Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 1, 2009 Page 13 e to taking a neutral stance. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to adopt a neutral stance on the bill. The mo- tion passed unanimously, 3:0. SJR 35 and SJR 36 Ms. Wilson stated that a Joint Resolution did not change the law and in this particular case it was a constitutional amendment and would have to go out to the voters. She stressed that any committee could adopt a bill to be introduced on behalf of the committee but it did not mean that the committee members supported the bill. Mr. Hill stated that the resolutions , to levy local option levies, and the permanent property tax rates allowing them to decrease, among others. of Oregon Cities had not taken a position because of concern of the magnitude of some of them. He be good, and he was not certain without further study what impact some of the others would create. He had recommended opposition on the first two because they were substantially bad for cities. Mr. Hill had recommended taking a neutral position on SJR 37 because he thought the modification of the change of property ratio would be beneficial. He explained that this meant that in properties that had been added to or remodeled and in properties that had newly constructed buildings on them, the property tax assessment would also be changed. He said currently the level of assessed value was set in relation to real market value at a percentage rate that equaled the average relationship between the assessed value and the real market value in that class. He stated that at present the current assessed value of a new home was 58 percent of the real market value; in 1997 it had been 79 percent. He stated that industrial property came on the roles at 100 percent of its value but commercial property came on at 48 percent of the value. Continuing, Mr. Hill said the one thing worth investigating would be the change in the way assessed value was assigned to exceptions value property, or changed property, as it would make it a flat 75 percent of the real market value. He noted that one resolution was bad because it dictated that the value could never go higher than 75 percent. He had some concern that if industrial property currently came on at 100 percent, a change to 75 percent would mean a substantial reduction in tax revenue. He believed that the at they needed to vigorously point out what they knew was bad for the City. He was amenable to adopting a neutral stance for the present and indicated that he planned to conduct a more extensive analysis, which he would provide to the City Council. Ms. Ortiz thanked him for the information. SB 806 he or she would complete the project. MINUTESCouncil Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 1, 2009 Page 14 HB 2955 Ms. Wilson said HB 2955 would permit a contracting agency to accept certain instruments from a contractor in lieu of money. She ascertained that the committee was amenable to adopting a Priority 3 Oppose unless it was amended. HB 2906 ommendation to take a Priority 2 Support position on the bill, which would appropriate money from the General Fund for the purpose of a study the State would require ODOT to conduct on Highway 126 between Veneta and Eugene, with an amendment to extend the terminus to Terry Street. HB 3083 Ms. Wilson clarified that the City had taken a Priority 1 Support position on the bill and not a Priority 3 Support position as listed in the agenda item summary. She said the bill was moving and looked like it would pass. SB 427 Ms. Wilson stated that SB 427 related to drug-free workplace policies and would allow an employer to adopt a comprehensive drug-free workplace program, including drug and alcohol testing policies. Staff had recommended that the bill be monitored. She thought the bill was already dead. Mr. Poling had pulled the bill. He indicated that he would support monitoring the bill in this case. HB 3466 Ms. Wilson said she had brought the bill to the CCIGR because the committee had already taken a position of Priority 2 Support on HB 2690, which sought to establish a database for law enforcement which would contain information that would be provided by consent only, in order to contact the right person to get help for a person with mental health issues. She explained that HB 3466 would expand the database to include people with physical or behavioral disorders that could impede their ability to interact with law enforcement and people who had cognitive disorders, such as dementia or developmental disabilities. She underscored that this information would also be in the database by consent only. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to adopt a Priority 2 Support stance on the bill. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 854 Ms. Wilson explained that SB 854 would require the Lane Transit District (LTD) to have an elected body rather than an appointed body. She stated that the bill was actually aimed at the Tri-Met Transit District and LTD had chosen to monitor it. She did not believe the bill was going anywhere. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to monitor the bill. The motion passed un- animously, 3:0. MINUTESCouncil Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 1, 2009 Page 15 Grant Application to NOAA for Delta Ponds . She explained that the grant was for Phase 4 of the Delta Ponds project and would utilize stimulus money. She said the funding would be in addition to any money the City would receive from the Army Corps of Engineers and would not require a match. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to support the grant application. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Mr. Poling recalled that he had wanted to pull HB 2908 for discussion. Ms. Wilson stated that the bill had to do with prevailing wage. She had spoken with planning staff and they were putting together a memorandum that would go over what prevailing wage was, how it was different from family wages, and what this meant to construction of low-income projects. She noted that staff had recommended a neutral position. Mr. Poling was concerned that the bill had the potential to double Bureau of Labor and Industry (BOLI) fees for Public Works projects, which could hamper work the City wanted to do. Ms. Wilson recommended having a bigger conversation at the City Council, given the complexity of the issue. 4. Items from the Committee and Staff Mayor Piercy asked if anything was happening with legislation in regard to manufactured housing. Ms. Wilson responded that a bill was in the house that would allow grandfathered cities to open up their ordinances again to amend them. She said the City had done all of the preemptive work it needed to do and staff believed that, although the bill was a good idea, the City should remain neutral on it. Ms. Piercy wondered if there was any movement on high-speed rail issues. Ms. Wilson replied that she had a meeting scheduled to begin the discussion to determine who should be involved in that conversation. She said there was a bill that would ask for a study to be done down the corridor to Salem and they She assured Ms. Piercy that the process had begun. people were as committed as they had been in the past, as Washington, D.C. was looking to the area to determine whether there was an interest. She remarked that it could be a boon for the area. Ms. Wilson said there was money and advocacy for it at present and staff was trying to determine where the conversations were occurring and with who. Mr. Jones noted that HB 3344 proposed the formation of a task force to study the options. Ms. Taylor determined there were no additional items. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to adopt the staff recommendation for priori- ties and recommendations for all bills that were not pulled for discussion for this meeting and the committee action for all bills that were discussed and acted upon at this meeting. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. MINUTESCouncil Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 1, 2009 Page 16 Ms. Taylor adjourned the meeting at 3:10 p.m. (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTESCouncil Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 1, 2009 Page 17 ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon April 8, 2009 1:15 p.m. PRESENT: Betty Taylor, Chair; Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, members; Mayor Kitty Piercy; Brenda Wilson, Jessica Mumme, City Manager's Office; Mia Cariaga, Financial Services Divi- sion; Paul Klope, Public Works Department, Mike Penwell, Central Services Department. 1. Call to Order and Review Agenda Ms. Taylor called the meeting of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) to order at 1:35 p.m. She asked if anyone had any changes to the agenda. Ms. Ortiz indicated that she wanted to bring back House Bill (HB) 3023 for discussion. Ms. Wilson stated that it had been added to the agenda. Ms. Wilson said she had added Senate Bill (SB) 556 to the agenda. She noted that copies of the bill had been provided to the committee members. She also wanted to discuss an administrative issue on how positions of the CCIGR were handled by the intergovernmental relations staff. Ms. Taylor indicated that they would discuss the latter under Agenda Item 4. 2. Approval of Minutes (March 11, 2009) Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to approve the minutes from the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations Committee meeting held on March 11, 2009. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. 3. Review of Pending Legislation HB 3017 Ms. Taylor said she wanted to change the position on the bill to a support position. Ms. Wilson explained that the bill would require contractors working on public improvement contracts to pay each month into a State Apprenticeship and Training Education Fund an amount equivalent to five cents for every hour the contractor, the contractor’s employees, and the contractor’s subcontractors and subcontractors’ employees worked on public improvement contracts. Paul Klope, Principal City Engineer for the Public Works Department, was amenable to changing the MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 8, 2009 Page 1 position from a neutral one to one of support. He explained that the reason he had suggested a neutral stance was because the bill would not affect public improvement contracts; it was targeted toward privately funded projects that received state public funding and were built on public land. He had asked Urban Services Manager, Richie Weinman, to comment on it but he had not made any comments of any substance in regard to the bill. He thought it would have very little impact on the City because five cents an hour was not a large amount of money. Mr. Poling observed that Mr. Klope’s comments made reference to the bill not affecting normal public infrastructure contracts, but it would affect low-income housing projects. Mr. Klope acknowledged that this was his perception. He said if one looked at the average wages of such projects, they likely fell in the over $20 per hour range and five cents an hour did not seem like much in that context. Mr. Poling thought the money could add up. He was concerned about adding costs to low-income housing projects and this would be his reason to oppose supporting the bill. Ms. Taylor averred that low-income people could also be enabled to get the jobs such projects would provide. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to support the bill. The vote was 2:1; Mr. Poling dissenting. Mr. Poling asked Ms. Wilson to contact Mr. Weinman to find out the cost that HB 3017 would have added to the City’s most recent low-income projects, in ballpark figures. He also requested an estimate on the cost of wages on the most current low-income projects. HB 3142 and HB 3143 Ms. Wilson stated that HB 3142 would direct the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to establish a Contractor and Workforce Diversity Pilot Program. Staff had recommended adopting a neutral position on the bill. Ms. Ortiz asked if HB 3142 and HB 3143 were the same. Mr. Klope replied that one sought to create the pilot program which was intended to be a study to determine what the difference was between diversity on projects that utilized alternative contracting methods such as design/build or other methods and on the “standard low-bid type projects.” He stated that the other bill would change the standards by which a contractor would be determined to be responsible and would actually create some lasting legal impact. Ms. Ortiz withdrew her concern about HB 3142. She asked Mr. Klope to elaborate on HB 3143. Mr. Klope responded that HB 3143 would add to the definition of what a responsible bidder would be. He said the contract language in the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) set a limited number of criteria by which a contractor was determined to be responsible and someone who should be awarded a contract. He explained that someone with a criminal record would not qualify, as an example, or a contractor would be required to have a certain capability to be bonded, as another. He said the bill would add a requirement that a contractor’s past work be reviewed to determine whether or not certain diversity goals had been met on previous projects. He predicted that the bill, if it passed, would go to court and, depending on how the court interpreted the bill, it could have the effect of limiting the number of bidders that could bid on projects across the state as very few public agencies actually had diversity goals. He noted that such goals were typically associated with federal contracts and that the City of Portland contracts included these types of goals. Ms. Ortiz asked if the bill was moving. Ms. Wilson replied that it had not been scheduled for a hearing. She reiterated that the dead bill deadline was two weeks away. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 8, 2009 Page 2 Ms. Ortiz asked if the bill had accountability for past practices and whether it had accountability for practices from its enactment forward. Mr. Klope replied that if it went into effect, the record would begin to be established. He said one way the bill could be interpreted would indicate that if a contractor had not met the diversity goal, the contractor would not even be allowed to make a bid. In response to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Wilson said the Legislature would set the goals. Ms. Ortiz felt that the bill, in concept, was aligned with the City Council Goals and the City should be supportive of it. She did not want to be neutral on the bill. Ms. Ortiz moved to adopt a Priority 3 Support position on HB 3143. Ms. Piercy agreed with Ms. Ortiz in concept but she was not certain she agreed with the legislation. She felt hesitant to support legislation if she was not certain what exactly it was that they were supporting. She thought the first bill, which would initiate a study, was worthy of support. Ms. Wilson explained that HB 3142 would instigate a study by ODOT on past infrastructure projects and whether or not any changes would alter the “level playing field.” She said ODOT would be required to report back to the Legislature in 2016 on its findings and what best practices they could adopt to improve the diversity in the contracts. Mr. Klope noted that ODOT typically shared information that it found through such projects. He thought it could possibly benefit other public agencies. Ms. Taylor ascertained that there was no second and the motion died. Mr. Poling moved to monitor the bill, pending the specification of the diversity goals. Mike Penwell, Facilities Division Manager, had interpreted the contract as putting the onus on the City to evaluate a contractor based on the workforce diversity goals of other locations. He thought they would have to make the administrative effort to research other agencies’ workforce diversity goals and to find out if the contractors were conforming to them. Ms. Ortiz provided a second. The vote was 2:1; Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. Ms. Wilson ascertained from the committee that the staff recommendation on HB 3142 would stand. HB 3023 Ms. Ortiz said she wanted to change her vote to concur with the staff recommendation, which was supported by the majority of the CCIGR. She did not believe it needed to go before the council and did not think the bill was going anywhere. Ms. Wilson noted that HB 3023 would require insurance coverage past the current age and staff had recommended adopting an oppose position on it. She suggested that Ms. Ortiz make a second motion. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to uphold the staff recommended position to oppose HB 3023. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 556 MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 8, 2009 Page 3 Ms. Wilson explained that the bill would require certain places of public assembly to keep automated external defibrillators (AEDs) on site and that the owner of the sites should ensure that staff members trained in the use of the AEDs were present when the place was open to the public. She understood that the City had already placed AEDs in its public facilities. Staff had recommended adoption of a Priority 2 Support position with an amendment to clarify what was meant by ‘facility’ so that it would not apply to the Eugene Celebration or the Saturday Market. She noted that staff thought the bill was good policy because defibrillators saved lives. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to adopt a Priority 2 Support position on the bill with the aforementioned amendment as recommended by staff. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. 4. Items from the Committee and Staff Ms. Wilson observed that the CCIGR had not achieved unanimity on two bills during the present meeting. She stated that staff had recommended a neutral position on both of them, which was an actual position the City could lobby on. Without a unanimous vote, however, staff would take no position on the bills in the Legislature. She cited the CCIGR Operating Agreements, which required the unanimity. She had to wait until the full City Council provided direction before she could take a position on bills that resulted in a less than unanimous vote in the CCIGR. She further explained that this rule did not apply to grants; a grant could move forward with a vote of 2:1 but would have to go before the council with a vote of 1:2. Ms. Wilson cited HB 2690, the “Idaho stop” bill, as an example. She related that staff had recommended adopting an oppose position and the CCIGR had not pulled it for discussion. Because of this, she said, the staff recommendation stood and she had lobbied on that bill. She stressed that when the intergovernmental relations staff was directed to support a bill, staff did whatever necessary to get the bill passed, and when the staff was directed to oppose a bill, staff did whatever necessary to keep the bill from passing. She said staff had done exactly that for HB 2690. She recalled that the bill had been brought back for reconsidera- tion on April 1 and a motion was made to change the stance on the bill from one of opposition to a neutral position, but the vote had not been unanimous, meaning that the City now had no position on the bill at present. She would have to wait until she could receive direction from the City Council before she could proceed. She added that she believed the bill was probably dead. Ms. Piercy remarked that it was difficult to distinguish between the CCIGR position and the City Council’s position on a bill. She averred that a 2:1 vote was a CCIGR position. Ms. Wilson said she would hesitate to call it a position of the CCIGR, because the purpose of taking a position was to provide staff direction on what to do. 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 this meeting and the committee action for all bills that were discussed and acted upon at this meeting. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Ms. Taylor adjourned the meeting at 2:02 p.m. (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 8, 2009 Page 4