Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2F: Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Minutes of April 15, 2009, April 22, 2009 and April 29, 2009 Meeting Date: May 26, 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 April 15, 2009, April 22, 2009 and April 29, 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 15, 2009, April 22, 2009 and April 29, 2009 IGR meetings. Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M090526\S0905262F.doc ATTACHMENTS A. IGR Committee Minutes of April 15, 2009 B. IGR Committee Minutes of April 22, 2009 C. IGR Committee Minutes of April 29, 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\M090526\S0905262F.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 April 15, 2009 1:15 p.m. PRESENT: Betty Taylor, Chair; Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, members; Mayor Kitty Piercy; Brenda Wilson, Jessica Mumme, Richie Weinman, Kevin Finney, Tom Larsen, Steve Nystrom, Lauren Sommers, staff. 1.Call to Order and Review Agenda Ms. Taylor called the meeting of the CCIGR to order at 1:38 p.m. Ms. Taylor recognized that discussions of HB 2865 and SB942 would be placed on the agenda at the request of Ms. Wilson. 2.Approval of Minutes (2/25/09 and 3/4/09) Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to approve the minutes of the February 25 and March 4, 2009 CCIGR meetings. The motion passed unanimously. 3.Review Pending Legislation HB 3054 - Relating to regional land use planning commissions; declaring an emergency. Ms. Wilson provided a brief description of HB 3054 to the committee members and noted that staff was currently recommending a monitor position regarding the bill. Ms. Taylor suggested that the committee should adopt an oppose position to the bill. Mr. Nystrom commented that the intent of HB was to provide a system of state government that was more responsive to local needs and that the bill essentially added another layer of state government with regard to the processes involved in land use planning commissions. Mr. Nystrom further noted that it was unknown how passage of the bill might affect city processes such the Metro Plan or if it was even possible for the state to implement five regional land use planning commissions as specified in the bill. Mr. Nystrom, responding to Ms. Taylor’s suggestion, noted that it seemed premature to formally oppose HB 3054 since it was uncertain how passage of the bill would directly affect Eugene. Ms. Wilson commented that the bill in its current form and in the current legislative schedule was highly MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 15, 2009 Page 1 unlikely to pass without stronger support. She noted that a formal opposition position might not be an effective use of City resources. Ms. Wilson noted that she would have more information on HB 3054 for the committee on April 28. Mr. Poling commented that, based on Mr. Nystrom’s earlier comments, maintaining the staff recommended monitor position was acceptable to him. Ms. Taylor and Ms. Ortiz concurred with Mr. Poling’s statement. HB 3223 - Relating to residential price controls. Ms. Wilson provided a brief description of HB 3223 to the committee members and noted that staff was currently recommending a Priority 2 support position regarding the bill. Ms. Wilson noted that Mayor Piercy had recommended a higher level of priority support regarding HB 3223, but also noted that for her purposes there really wasn’t much difference between Priority 1 and Priority 2. The committee members agreed that the support for HB 3223 should continue at the Priority 2 level. SB 902 - Relating to the application of pesticides near schools. Ms. Wilson provided a brief description of SB 902 to the committee members and noted that staff was currently recommending a neutral position regarding the bill. Ms. Wilson commented that staff’s recommendation of a neutral position regarding the bill was based on the fact that there were no applicable properties or organizations employing aerial pesticide spraying in or near the City of Eugene. Ms. Taylor commented that she would like the committee to adopt a support position regarding the bill and felt that the aerial spraying issue warranted concern regardless of the locations involved. Ms. Piercy agreed with Ms. Taylor’s statement. Mr. Poling maintained that he supported the intent of SB but further commented that he did not want City staff to spend an inordinate amount of time lobbying in support of the matter. Ms. Wilson commented that the City of Eugene was currently actively lobbying over 500 bills in the current legislative session and noted that a formal support position might not be an effective use of staff resources. She further noted that she would be happy to draft a letter of support regarding the bill. Ms. Wilson commented that the bill in its current form and in the current legislative schedule was unlikely to pass. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to adopt a Priority 3 support position regarding SB 0902. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 3248 - Relating to railroad grade crossings. Ms. Wilson provided a brief description of HB 3248 to the committee members and noted that staff was currently recommending a Priority 3 support position regarding the bill. Ms. Wilson noted that while the HB 3248 had originated in response to issues that had arisen regarding railroad crossings both in Portland and Corvallis, it was not expected to pass. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 15, 2009 Page 2 Ms. Piercy noted that she had only flagged HB 3248 for discussion by the CCIGR because of the significant number or railroad crossings in Eugene and wanted to make sure there would be no adverse effects on the City should the bill ultimately pass. Mr. Larsen commented that the prioritization of railroad crossing alterations was a minor change to current laws and did address concerns about railroad crossings strongly enough to engender stronger support for the bill. Ms. Wilson commented that the intent of HB 3248 may run contrary to the federal railroad crossing policies of the Federal Railroad Administration. Ms. Piercy noted that it might be difficult to address any issues regarding the ten railroad crossing sites in Eugene particularly with regard to the City’s established quiet zone policies. Ms. Wilson stated that she would stay in close contact with representatives from both Portland and Corvallis regarding the matter and report back to the committee with any new information. Ms. Wilson, responding to a request for clarification from Ms. Ortiz, noted that ODOT had attempted to close certain railroad crossings in Corvallis but ultimately been unsuccessful. Mr. Larsen commented that all of the railroad crossings in the area were governed by a public utilities commission working under a tri-party agreement between the railroad, the road authority and ODOT. Ms. Piercy maintained that as a community, the citizens of Eugene would need to recognize that if they wanted a quiet zone there would need to be some sort of move in the direction of railroad crossing closings. Ms. Taylor, noting no objections from the other committee members, confirmed that they would continue under the staff recommended Priority 3 support position regarding HB 3248. HB 2865 - Relating to system development charges (SDC). Ms. Wilson provided a brief description of HB 2865 to the committee members and noted that staff was currently recommending a Priority 2 oppose position regarding the bill. Ms. Wilson reported that HB 2865 had been introduced into the current legislative session at the request of the Oregon Homebuilders Association and noted that it would prohibit local governments from collecting SDC’s until the time of issuance of a building permit or certificate of occupancy. She noted that the bill would also limit parks and recreation SDC’s based on increases in their level of service. Ms. Wilson noted that passage of HB 2865 would have a significant financial impact on the City of Eugene because not all new connections to the City’s systems or intensifications to the system occur when a permit was issued. She further noted that the bill would significantly impact the City’s ability to collect parks and recreation SDC collections. Mr. Poling maintained that while staff comments listed in the agenda item summary materials indicated that the bill might have a negative financial impact upon the City of Eugene, the impact did not appear to him to be significant. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 15, 2009 Page 3 Mr. Poling further noted that most of the infrastructure paid for by the SDC’s under HB 2865 would not be used by the people utilizing the properties in question until those properties were occupied and that the bill ultimately allowed more time for builders to receive permits. He noted that Springfield and Florence had passed similar ordinances with some measure of success and that he would like to see the CCIGR support the bill. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to adopt a support position regarding HB 2865. Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, noted that the bill if passed would continue in perpetuity rather than existing for a predetermined amount of time. Ms. Ortiz noted that she might be more willing to support the bill if there were a time limit upon it. Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, stated that HB 2865 had not been scheduled for any legislative hearings or work sessions and that the likelihood of the bill being passed was uncertain. Ms. Taylor maintained that the committee should oppose the bill in accordance with the staff recommendation. Ms. Ortiz suggested that a broader conversation regarding HB 2865 before the Eugene City Council might be helpful to determine an official position regarding it. Ms. Piercy clarified that the bill only allowed for the collection of SDC’s at the issuance of permits or certificates of occupancy and did not specifically mandate for such collections. Ms. Taylor called for a vote on Mr. Poling’s previously stated motion. The motion failed, 1:2 (Ms. Taylor and Ms. Ortiz voting in opposition). Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Mr. Poling, recalled an earlier conversation with the committee members regarding HB 2865 or a bill similar to it, but could not recall the exact date or substance of the conversation. She noted that staff had made an administrative error with regard to the reporting of bills being pulled for discussion and that the conversation may not have been accurately recorded. Ms. Wilson assured Mr. Poling that City staff did not take any action on any bills that had not been reviewed by the CCIGR and that the CCIGR did not review any bills in legislative session until staff had reviewed them to provide a recommendation and explanatory comments. SB 942 - Relating to Oregon Climate Corps; and appropriating money. Ms. Wilson provided a brief description of SB 942 to the committee members and noted that staff was currently recommending a Priority 3 monitor position regarding the bill. Ms. Wilson commented that it was currently not known how the Oregon Climate Corps created by SB 942 would ultimately be paid for. She further noted that she had discussed the bill with representatives from both EWEB and the University of Oregon who were both supporting it. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to adopt a Priority 2 support position regarding SB 942. Ms. Piercy commented that it appeared that from the legislative assembly document regarding SB 942 that the Oregon Climate Corps would be paid for through a combination of fees and grants. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 15, 2009 Page 4 Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Mr. Poling, noted that the Oregon Climate Corps would be open to anyone or any agency and was primarily focused on finding ways to help families and household reduce their carbon footprint. Ms. Piercy commented from the legislative assembly document that the Oregon Climate Corps would be modeled on other successful public service programs such as AmeriCorps and AmeriCorps Vista. Ms. Taylor called for a vote on her previously stated motion. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. 4.Items from Members and Staff 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 April 15, 2009 CCIGR meeting and the committee action for all bills that were discussed and acted upon at that meeting. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Ms. Taylor adjourned the meeting at 2:03 p.m. (Recorded by Wade Hicks) MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 15, 2009 Page 5 ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon April 22, 2009 1:15 p.m. PRESENT: Betty Taylor, Chair; Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, members; Mayor Kitty Piercy; Brenda Wilson, Jessica Mumme, Susan Mullett, staff. 1.Call to Order and Review Agenda Ms. Taylor called the meeting of the CCIGR to order at 1:44 p.m. Ms. Wilson noted the removal of HB 2717 and the addition of SB 607, HB 3107, HB 3240, HB 2762, HB 3017 and HB 3143 to the discussion portion of the meeting agenda. Additionally, Ms. Wilson noted that HB 2717 was effectively dead while the SB 607, HB 3107 and HB 3240 had undergone significant amendments that warranted further discussion. Ms. Piercy commended Ms. Wilson for her recent work regarding HB 2405. Ms. Wilson thanked Ms. Piercy for her comments and noted that the victory regarding HB 2405 had been hard fought. Ms. Taylor agreed with Ms. Piercy’s comment. 2.Review Pending Legislation HB 3107 – Relating to elections; amending ORS 255.305. HB 3240 – Relating to elections; creating new provisions and amending ORS 246.012, 246.179, 253.070 and 254.470. Ms. Wilson provided a brief description of HB 3107 and HB 3240 to the committee members. Ms. Wilson reported that while staff had not yet had the opportunity to formally review each of the bills, it was her understanding that certain counties would be fostering an amendment to HB 3107 requiring cities to pay significant portions of the costs associated with all elections and another amendment to HB 3240 requiring cities to pay significant portions of the postage costs associated with elections. Ms. Wilson commented that the League of Oregon Cities, with the backing of several Oregon counties, would be advocating before the state legislature on April 22 for further discussion regarding the bills and their respective amendments. Ms. Wilson noted that the IGR staff agreed with the League of Oregon Cities’ position that more discussion and input on the bills was needed. Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Mr. Poling, noted that the only time the City of Eugene was required to pay Lane County for elections was when an election pertained directly to Eugene itself. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 22, 2009 Page 1 Ms. Wilson noted that the League of Oregon Cities had requested that the City of Eugene oppose the two aforementioned bills and hold a discussion regarding the bills in the interim. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to adopt a Priority 2 oppose position regarding HB 3107 and HB 3240. Ms. Piercy wanted it to be made clear that while the City would be adopting an opposition position regarding the bills it would also more than willing to engage in broader discussion regarding the matter. Ms. Wilson noted that the letter of testimony currently being drafted by IGR staff would reflect just such a position. Ms. Taylor called for a vote on Mr. Poling’s previously stated motion. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 607 – Relating to outdoor advertising signs. Ms. Wilson provided a brief description of SB 607 to the committee members and noted that staff was currently recommending a Priority 3 support position regarding the bill. Ms. Wilson noted that the amendments expected to placed on SB 607 at the request of Clearwater Communications would preempt local governments such as the City of Eugene from enacting or enforcing any ordinances that would phase out non-conforming billboards or similar outdoor advertising signs. She noted that such amendments would be contrary to current Eugene city ordinances and that staff was currently recommending a Priority 2 oppose position regarding the bill and any subsequent amendments. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to adopt a Priority 2 oppose position regarding HB 3107 and HB 3240. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 519 - Relating to mandatory workplace communications to employee about employer’s opinions. Ms. Wilson provided a brief description of SB 519 to the committee members and noted that while the city’s Human Resources office was recommending that the bill be dropped altogether, the City Manager’s office staff was currently recommending a Priority 3 support position regarding the bill. Management Analyst Susan Mullet reported that the Human Resources office had recommended that the city either drop the bill or adopt a neutral position regarding it. She further noted the HR position was based on the their interpretations of the First Amendment Establishment Clause prohibiting any government actions in support or opposition of any religion, religious practice or lack of same. She further noted that SB 519 would have no measurable impact on the City of Eugene and that the city already had effective policies in place to protect and support the rights of its employees. Ms. Piercy felt strongly about the matter of protecting employees’ rights and expressed that while she did not want to have a great deal of staff time taken up by any work regarding SB 519, she wanted the City to support it. Ms. Wilson stated that the City Attorney had cautioned staff against adopting any official position regarding the bill. The committee members held a brief discussion regarding the nature of a monitor or neutral position with regard to SB 519 and whether or not adopting such positions would be advisable. In response, Ms. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 22, 2009 Page 2 Wilson clarified that while the adoption of a neutral position regarding the bill would indicate neither support of opposition, such a stance would come with an official statement from staff as to why such a position had been adopted. Ms. Ortiz felt that there had been conflicting comments made by staff with regard to the recommendations. She further maintained that she would like to see the City support the bill but understood the reasons the City Attorney and Human Resources staff might wish to stay out of it completely. Ms. Wilson, responding to a request from Ms. Ortiz, quoted a statement from the City Attorney’s office and read, “The bill does not really apply to the City, since the City as a public entity cannot advocate for or against religious beliefs or for or against political beliefs with its employees. I am concerned about the City taking a position on the bill since the Establishment Clause [of] the First Amendment prohibits the government from taking any actions that either support or are opposed to any particular religion or religion versus non-religion. My concern is if the City takes any position on this bill it could be construed as possible opposition to the expression of religious beliefs in the workplace and a violation of the Establishment Clause. It is unlikely that anyone would challenge the City on this, but I think it’s safer to take a neutral position on the bill, especially since as a practical matter it won’t apply to the City anyway.” CMO Division Manager Andy Fernandez noted that from a civil and human rights perspective it had initially made sense for the City to support SB 519 but in light of the City Manager’s comments regarding the bill in relation to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment it seemed more prudent to adopt a neutral position. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the City’s recommendation to a monitor position regarding SB 519. Mr. Poling asked that it be stated in the record that his motion regarding SB 519 had been based on the advice of the City Attorney’s office. Ms. Piercy reiterated her earlier comments about the importance of protecting the rights of the City’s employees and asked if the City’s legal advisors could find any way the City could support the bill while at the same time protecting itself against any perceived misconceptions or liabilities. Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, stated that it was currently unknown how likely SB 519 was to pass and that she would have more information in that regard after April 24. Ms. Ortiz maintained that it would be difficult for her to agree to a monitor position regarding the bill and indicated she would vote against Mr. Poling’s motion. Ms. Taylor called for a vote on Mr. Poling’s previously stated motion. The motion did not pass (Ms. Ortiz voting in opposition). HB 3025 - Relating to climate change. Ms. Wilson provided a brief description of HB 3025 to the committee members and noted that staff had originally recommended a Priority 3 opposition position regarding the bill. Ms. Wilson noted that staff had recently discussed the bill with staff representatives from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Solid Waste division and was now and had subsequently changed their recommendation to a neutral position. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 22, 2009 Page 3 Ms. Taylor maintained that it would reflect poorly on the committee if they chose to oppose HB 3025. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to adopt a neutral position regarding HB 3025. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 3005 - Relating to business plans for energy production projects; appropriating money; declaring an emergency. Ms. Wilson provided a brief description of HB 3005 to the committee members and noted that staff had originally recommended a Priority 3 opposition position regarding the bill. Ms. Wilson commented that staff had initially been confused about the intent of HB 3005 and that after consulting with staff from Lane County had changed their recommendation to Priority 3 support. She further noted that staff had learned that the funding for energy production initiatives listed in the bill would come specifically from the state energy program fund and not the general fund as had been originally believed. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to adopt a Priority 3 support position regarding HB 3005. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2866 – Relating to expedited process for public sector collective bargaining. Ms. Wilson explained that there had been a legislative hearing for HB 2866 but that no one had shown up to testify regarding it. She further noted that staff had recommended a Priority 3 opposition position regarding the bill and felt that passage of the bill would prolong the collective bargaining process thereby increasing the associated costs. Ms. Piercy maintained that staff’s arguments were not strong enough to warrant an opposition position and suggested that a neutral position regarding HB 2866 might be more advisable. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to adopt a neutral position regarding HB 2866. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2762 - Relating to United States Armed Forces; and declaring an emergency. Ms. Wilson reported that HB 2762 would designate May 8 of each year as a Military Family Appreciation Day Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to adopt a Priority 1 support position regarding HB 2761. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 3017 – Relating to apprenticeship; creating new provisions; amending ORS 279C.505; appropriating money; and declaring an emergency. Ms. Wilson provided a brief description of HB 3017 to the committee members and noted that staff had recommended a neutral position regarding the bill. She further noted that at the CCIGR meeting on April 8, 2009, Mr. Poling had opposed the motion to support the bill and requested more information regarding it. Ms. Wilson commented that staff had investigated HB 3017 more closely and learned that, after a review of three low-income housing projects that would be directly affected by the bill, the average per unit increase would be between $2,000.00 and $3,000.00. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 22, 2009 Page 4 Mr. Poling changed his vote from the April 8, 2009, CCIGR meeting regarding HB 3017 from no to yes. Ms. Wilson confirmed that HB 3017 would be supported at a Priority 3 support position. HB 3143 – Relating to determinations of responsibility for contractors; creating new provisions; amending ORS 279C.375; and declaring an emergency. Ms. Wilson provided a brief description of HB 3143 to the committee members and noted that staff had initially recommended a neutral position regarding the bill. She further noted that while there had been disagreement regarding the bill at the CCIGR meeting on April, 8, the bill itself was not moving forward in the current legislative session and it would therefore not be necessary to bring the bill before the City Council for further discussion. Ms. Taylor confirmed that it would not be necessary to bring the bill before the Council. 3.Items from Members and Staff Mr. Poling, speaking with regard to HB 3006, noted that he was seriously concerned that such a bill might open up hunting on lands within the City of Eugene. He further noted that while he would continue to support the staff’s current recommendation to oppose the bill at a Priority 2 level, he might wish to have Ms. Wilson bring the bill up for further discussion and review at a later CCIGR meeting. Ms. Piercy restated her earlier comments commending Ms. Wilson for her excellent work regarding HB 2405. Ms. Wilson thanked the committee members for their support and restated that HB 2405 would have been extremely detrimental to local governments. Ms. Piercy wished to have Ms. Wilson and the other members of the legislative delegation publicly recognized for their strong work regarding HB 2405. Ms. Wilson responded that Representatives Holvey and Nathanson deserved a great deal of the credit as well. Ms. Taylor suggested that Ms. Piercy write a formal letter thanking Representatives Holvey and Nathanson as Ms. Wilson had suggested. Ms. Wilson commented that she would be happy to draft a letter of thanks for Ms. Piercy’s signature. Ms. Piercy suggested that both she and the City Council members might draft a letter to the editors of the Register-Guard and other newspapers thanking Representatives Holvey and Nathanson for their efforts regarding HB 2405. Ms. Ortiz suggested that similar letters of support might be sent regarding the recent bill that had passed regarding metal theft. Ms. Piercy supported Ms. Ortiz’s suggestion. Ms. Taylor suggested that Ms. Wilson be publicly recognized for her efforts on behalf of the City of Eugene. Ms. Piercy agreed with Ms. Taylor. Ms. Wilson again thanked Ms. Piercy and the committee members but said that such official commendations were not necessary. Ms. 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 April 22, 2009 CCIGR meeting and the committee action for all bills that were discussed and acted upon at that meeting. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 22, 2009 Page 5 Ms. Taylor adjourned the meeting at 2:16 p.m. (Recorded by Wade Hicks) MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 22, 2009 Page 6 ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon April 29, 2009 1:15 p.m. PRESENT: Betty Taylor, Chair; Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, members; Mayor Kitty Piercy; Brenda Wilson, Jessica Mumme, Mike Penwell, Paul Klope, Mike McKerrow, Steve Nystrom, Peter Ruffier, Jeff Petry, staff. 1.Call to Order and Review Agenda Ms. Taylor called the meeting of the CCIGR to order at 1:37 p.m. Ms. Taylor confirmed there were no changes to the agenda. 2.Approval of Minutes (4/1/09 and 4/8/09) Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to approve the minutes of the April 1 and 8, 2009 CCIGR meetings. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. 3.Review Pending Legislation HB 2080A – Relating to gray water; declaring an emergency. Ms. Wilson provided a brief description of HB 2080A to the committee members and noted that staff was currently recommending both monitor and Priority 3 support positions regarding the bill. Ms. Piercy and Mr. Poling each stated they wished to have the bill supported. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to adopt a Priority 3 support position regarding HB 2080A. Ms. Wilson, responding to a request for further information from Ms. Ortiz regarding the bill, noted that HB 2080A was moving forward from the House into the Senate. Mr. Poling noted that the bill would provide for added protections to local water supplies. Ms. Taylor called for a vote on Mr. Poling’s previously stated motion. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2838 – Relating to an apprenticeship; appropriating money. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 29, 2009 Page 1 Ms. Wilson provided a brief description of HB 2838 to the committee members and noted that staff was currently recommending a Priority 3 oppose position regarding the bill. Ms. Wilson commented that HB 2838, the apprenticeship bill sponsored by State Representative Holvey, had been scheduled for a legislative work session and that even though the bill itself was considered to be dead the provisions and content of the bill might be transferred into another piece of legislation. Ms. Taylor stated that the committee should support HB 2838. Principal Civil Engineer Paul Klope stated that while the City of Eugene had only a small number of contracts valued at more than $750,000 and would subsequently not be greatly affected by HB 2838, staff’s recommendation to oppose was based primarily on the fact that the bill had the potential to significantly reduce the number of bidders for city contracts. He further noted that the bill called for certain administrative costs to be paid in order to fully enact the provisions of the bill. AIC Facilities Management Division Supervisor Mike Penwell expressed that HB 2838 had the potential to significantly reduce the availability of prevailing wage employment positions related to city contracts and that the bill ultimately shifted much of the responsibility for the training and oversight of apprenticeship programs from trade organizations to the state government. Ms. Taylor believed that the apprenticeship provisions called for in the bill might serve as a way to train more skilled workers in the area. Ms. Piercy recognized that Representative Holvey had in the past been a strong advocate of apprenticeship programs and the availability of workforce training but characterized the bill as a blunt instrument towards those ends. Mr. Penwell agreed with Ms. Piercy’s statement. Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, stated that it was unknown whether or not Representative Holvey had a broad vision for all of his concepts and whether that vision was fully supported by any unions or trade organizations. Ms. Taylor restated that the committee should not oppose HB 2838. Ms. Wilson reiterated that HB 2838 was likely dead in the legislature but that the contents of the bill might be transferred into another piece of legislation. She suggested that she would be happy to monitor the progress of the HB 2838 and any subsequent apprenticeship legislation. Ms. Taylor and Ms. Ortiz supported Ms. Wilson’s suggestion. Mr. Poling agreed with the staff assessment that HB 2838 might result in significant cost increases with respect to city projects. He further maintained that contractors and associated trade organizations had a much better understanding of the nature and overall effectiveness of apprenticeship programs that did the state government. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt a monitor position regarding HB 2838. The motion did not pass (Mr. Poling voting in opposition). SB 0972 – Relating to an apprenticeship; appropriating money. Ms. Wilson provided a brief description of SB 0972 to the committee members and noted that the bill was identical to HB 2838. She further noted that the bill in its current form was dead in the legislative session. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 29, 2009 Page 2 SB 0719 – Relating to Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Area Revolving Loan Fund; appropriating money; declaring an emergency. Ms. Wilson provided a brief description of SB 0719 to the committee members and noted that staff was currently recommending a Priority 2 support position regarding the bill. Ms. Taylor felt the committee should oppose SB 0719 rather than support it and asked staff for further clarification regarding their recommendation. Principal Planner Steve Nystrom responded that staff‘s recommendation was based on their findings that in the long term SB 0719 would provide an additional funding source for badly needed infrastructure maintenance and improvements. He noted that similar legislation enacted in other Oregon communities and the Portland area had been notably successful in that regard. Ms. Piercy expressed that while the City would ideally like to stay within the current confines of the UGB further expansion of the boundary seemed inevitable and that as such the revolving loan fund described in SB 0719 seemed like a reasonable way to effectively fund and manage such expansions. Mr. Poling agreed with Ms. Piercy’s statement and further noted that other Oregon communities did not seem to have the reservations regarding the expansion of UGB’s that Eugene apparently had. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to adopt a Priority 2 support position regarding SB 0719. The motion did not pass (Ms. Taylor voting in opposition). SB 0974 – Relating to smoking. Ms. Wilson provided a brief description of SB 0974 to the committee members and noted that staff was currently recommending a neutral position regarding the bill. Ms. Piercy believed that the safety implications of SB 0974 with its proposed exemption for hookah bars from the legal definition of “smoke shop” were considerable and advocated for the committee to oppose the bill. Land Use Supervisor Mike McKerrow noted that while the City had received several similar requests for hookah bar exemptions in recent years, City Clean Air ordinances would still prohibit such exemptions regardless of SB 0974. Mr. McKerrow, responding to a question from Mr. Poling, noted that if SB 0974 were to pass it would not affect the City of Eugene due to the grandfather clause in the City’s Clean Air ordinance. Ms. Piercy believed that it made no sense not to oppose the bill as such a position would reflect the City’s beliefs about what was in the best health care interests of the community. Ms. Wilson commented that no legislative hearing was currently scheduled on SB 0974 but that it was still in the rules committee and might move forward. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt a Priority 3 oppose position regarding SB 0974. Ms. Ortiz stated that while she wished to support an opposition position regarding the bill, she did not want to see Ms. Wilson or the IGR staff spend an inordinate amount of time on such efforts. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 29, 2009 Page 3 Mr. Poling agreed with Ms. Ortiz that it would be inadvisable to for staff to spend time formally opposing a bill that would ultimately have little effect on the City of Eugene and noted that he would be voting in opposition to the motion. Ms. Taylor called for a vote on Ms. Ortiz’s previously stated motion. The motion passed, 2:1 (Mr. Poling voting in opposition). HB 2182A – Relating to small scale local energy projects. Ms. Wilson provided a brief description of HB 2182A to the committee members and noted that staff was currently recommending a Priority 3 support position regarding the bill. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to adopt a Priority 3 support position regarding HB 2182A. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2578A – Relating to towers. Ms. Wilson provided a brief description of HB 2578A to the committee members and noted that staff was currently recommending that the bill be dropped from consideration by the committee. Ms. Piercy commented that the committee should adopt a support position regarding HB 2578A. Parking Services Manager Jeff Petry noted that the bill would only affect private parking facilities and not city parking facilities and that as such the bill would have little effect on the City of Eugene. Mr. Poling responded to Mr. Petry’s commented and noted that he and other city councilors still received angry calls from their constituents regarding parking matters regardless of whether the matter pertained to a city or private parking facility. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to adopt a Priority 3 support position regarding HB 2578A. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 3336 – Relating to nonpartisan offices. Ms. Wilson provided a brief description of HB 3336 to the committee members and noted that staff was currently recommending a Priority 3 neutral position regarding the bill. Ms. Piercy commented that the committee should adopt an opposition position regarding HB 3336. Ms. Wilson noted that the bill in its current form did not appear to be moving forward in the legislative session. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to adopt a Priority 3 oppose position regarding HB 3336. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. 4.Items from Members and Staff MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 29, 2009 Page 4 Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, confirmed that there would be a Ways and Means public hearing Friday, May 1, 2009 at 1:00 p.m. at the University of Oregon in Lillis Hall. She further noted that the hearing would be to discuss Attorney General John Kroger’s intention to re-establish a state civil rights division through an increase in the Oregon Department of Justice’s budget. She noted that the public hearing on the matter was designed as part of efforts to solicit public input on how to fill state budget gaps. The committee members and Ms. Wilson briefly discussed the nature of the proposed state civil rights division and how such an entity might affect civil rights protections within the City of Eugene. Ms. Wilson further commented that the proposed state civil rights division might in some way be charged with the enforcement of consumer protection laws. Ms. Piercy thanked Ms. Wilson for her recent efforts to procure stimulus funding from the Army Corps of Engineers and also for her recent efforts to meet with high-level Amtrak representatives to advocate for the implementation of high-speed rail systems in the region. Ms. Wilson appreciated Ms. Piercy’s kind words and noted that her efforts to begin high speed rail discussions with Amtrak were a result of the City Manager’s direction for staff to investigate such high speed rail opportunities on behalf of the City. Ms. Piercy maintained that the nature of federal stimulus funding mechanisms related to high speed rail generally indicated that any immediate high speed rail projects would most likely be focused on the east coast rather than the west coast regions of the United States. She further noted that the Oregon and Washington state governments would need to coordinate their efforts if they wished to see high speed rail systems make their way into the Pacific Northwest. 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 April 29, 2009 CCIGR meeting and the committee action for all bills that were discussed and acted upon at that meeting. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Ms. Taylor adjourned the meeting at 2:09 p.m. (Recorded by Wade Hicks) MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 29, 2009 Page 5