Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2C: Ratification of IGR Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Minutes of May 20, 2009 and May 27, 2009 Meeting Date: June 22, 2009 Agenda Item Number: 2C 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 May 20, 2009, and May 27, 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 May 20, 2009 and May 27, 2009, IGR meetings. Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M090622\S0906222C.doc ATTACHMENTS A. IGR Committee Minutes of May 20, 2009 B. IGR Committee Minutes of May 27, 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\M090622\S0906222C.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 May 20, 2009 1:15 p.m. PRESENT: Betty Taylor, Chair; Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, members; Mayor Kitty Piercy; Brenda Wilson, Jessica Mumme , Jeff Petry, Ethan Nelson, staff. 1.Call to Order and Review Agenda Ms. Taylor called the meeting of the CCIGR to order at 1:36 p.m. and noted that there were no changes to the meeting agenda. 2.Approval of Minutes (4/15/09, 4/22/09, and 4/29/09) Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to approve the CCIGR minutes of April 15, April 22, and April 29, 2009. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. 3.Review Pending Legislation HB 3485 - Relating to tax treatment of waste materials. Ms. Wilson provided a brief description of HB 3485 to the committee members and noted that staff was currently recommending a Priority 3 Support position regarding the bill. Ms. Taylor stated that the CCIGR should adopt an oppose position on HB 3485. Solid Waste Management Prevention Program Manager Ethan Nelson believed that the tax credit provided by HB 3485 for the use of waste materials was in line with the City's goals to provide market development opportunities for the use of such materials and outweighed any concerns regarding transportation tax credits for biomass utilization and electrical generation. Ms. Taylor worried that staff support of HB 3485 represented an endorsement of the Seneca project and seemed like another needless tax break. Ms. Piercy maintained that tax credits such as those provided for in HB 3485 often provided the necessary incentives for local businesses to invest in alternative energy sources and materials. She hoped that any such tax credits would be used carefully and thoughtfully at both state and local levels to maximize their benefits and effectiveness. Mr. Nelson, responding to a question from Mr. Poling, noted that the tax credits in HB 3485 would take the form of income tax relief as outlined in Chapter 316 for corporations. He stated that the tax credits of the bill would have no measurable impact on the City of Eugene's budget processes. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations May 20, 2009 Page 1 Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, noted that a revenue impact statement had been requested by State legislators in the most recent hearings regarding HB 3485 and maintained that unless such information was made available the bill was unlikely to pass in its current form. Mr. Nelson further noted that the tax credits provided in HB 3485 would be offered in perpetuity although the tax credits would only be available to businesses for five years after their initial investments in the applicable equipment or materials. Ms. Wilson noted that there was a bill currently in the legislature and was very likely to pass that would require the State to review all available tax credits to ensure that they were functioning as they were originally intended to. Ms. Taylor moved to adopt an oppose position on HB 3485. The motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Ortiz confirmed that HB 3485 would be forwarded to the Eugene City Council for further review and discussion. SB 621 - Relating to Oregon Production Investment Fund; amending ORS 284.368 and 315.514; and prescribing an effective date. Ms. Wilson provided a brief description of SB 621 to the committee members and noted that staff was currently recommending a Priority 3 support position regarding the bill. Ms. Wilson noted that the current $5 million tax credit for film production in the State of Oregon had been exhausted within six months of its inception. She further noted that SB 621 had been initiated at the request of Governor Kulongoski to help support Oregon's growing film production industry and would increase the current total tax credit to $7.5 million. Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, commented that it was unknown whether or not film productions companies might find the State of Oregon, and the City of Eugene in particular, attractive enough on its own to the point where the tax credits would be unnecessary. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to adopt a Priority 3 Support posi- tion regarding SB 621. Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, explained that the tax credits would be applicable to actual Oregon expenses over $750,000.00 that a production company incurred on a film or television series shot within the State Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, noted that Governor Kulongoski apparently believed that the tax credits provided in SB 621 would encourage increased film production in the State. Ms. Piercy, responding to comments from Ms. Taylor, maintained that tax credits such as those provided in SB 621 were designed to encourage businesses and generate revenue for the State and were not necessarily a needless tax giveaway. Ms. Taylor felt that film production companies might be willing to come to Oregon without the tax credits provided under SB 621. Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Mr. Poling, confirmed that SB 621 would increase the total tax credit from $5 million to $7.5 million and would also provide partial reimbursement for salaries and expenses for State residents hired by out of state film production companies to work on local projects. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations May 20, 2009 Page 2 Ms. Taylor called for a vote on Ms. Ortiz's previously stated motion. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Oregon Electric Vehicle and Electric Vehicle Charging Network Grant Application Ms. Wilson provided a brief description of the grant application and noted that it was due on May 20, 2009. Parking Services Manager Jeff Petry noted that he had been in discussions with EWEB representatives and with them had begun to coordinate with State efforts to purchase and utilize electric vehicles as part of the City's fleet vehicle replacement schedule. Mr. Petry commented that the City staff's strategy to employ electric vehicles for fleet purposes and to make use of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) grant funding through the Oregon Way Advisory Group was to provide parking and charging stations in addition to the purchase of the vehicles themselves. Mr. Petry directed the committee members to his memorandum dated May 19, 2009 regarding the grant application and noted that the cost listed to purchase and convert hybrid electric vehicles to plug-in electric vehicles was actually zero since the City planned to convert its current fleet of Prius hybrid vehicles rather than purchase new hybrid vehicles. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to support Staff's request for au- thority to submit a letter of commitment to the State of Oregon's Oregon Way Advisory Group as described in the staff memorandum of May 19, 2009. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Mr. Petry noted that he would keep the committee members advised of any future developments regarding the grant application and corresponding electric vehicle projects. 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 May 20, 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 1:55 p.m. (Recorded by Wade Hicks) MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations May 20, 2009 Page 3 ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon May 27, 2009 1:15 p.m. PRESENT: Betty Taylor, Chair; Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, members; Brenda Wilson, Jessica Mumme, City Manager's Office; Richie Weinman, Community Development Division/ Planning and Development Department (PDD); Steve Nystrom, Mark Whitmill, PDD; Fe- licity Fahy, Sustainability Manager; Sue Cutsogeorge, Finance Division/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 1:19 p.m. She ascertained from her colleagues and staff that there were no changes to the agenda. 2. Approval of Minutes (May 6, 2009) Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to approve the minutes from the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations Committee meeting held on May 6, 2009. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. 3. Review of Pending Legislation HB 2430A Ms. Wilson explained that the bill would modify certain terms for purposes of applying prevailing wage to certain types of projects. She said staff had recommended Priority 1 Support. She noted that the Mayor had wanted to know which unions favored the bill and which ones opposed it. Richie Weinman, Urban Services Manager for the Community Development Division, explained that the bill had been the result of four years of negotiation between housing advocates and union people. He understood that the carpenters union and the building trades unions supported it, but some of the smaller unions did not. He noted that some of the people who had negotiated for the bill now were dissenting. Ms. Wilson noted that the sponsor of the bill had expressed frustration at the people who had negotiated on the bill who then came to the hearing and testified against it. She stated that the purpose of the bill was to fix an issue that arose from a bill that had been passed in the previous session. She said they believed this was the best negotiation they could come up with. She related that St. Vincent DePaul of Lane County had come to Salem to testify in support of the bill, and named some projects they were having difficulty getting funding for because the terms in the previous bill could not be clarified enough for projects to qualify for MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations May 27, 2009 Page 1 certain types of funding. Mr. Weinman attributed this to the uncertainty about what was considered a prevailing wage project and what was not. He said the lack of certainty created problems for people trying to get projects financed. He related that in Eugene and Portland, there were builders who were used to paying prevailing wage and knew how to bid on such projects, but in a lot of communities there were no builders who dealt with this at all. Because of this, he explained, they could not get local people to bid on projects and were forced to pay more to have people from Portland do certain construction projects. He stated that a significant issue was th whether a mixed use housing project, like the Aurora Building and the project on West 8Avenue, had to pay prevailing wage on the whole thing. He said a project with four floors or less would not require prevailing wage, and a project with more than four floors would have to be a prevailing wage project. Ms. Taylor said she was concerned about anything that reduced peoples’ wages so that they would have enough income to live on. Mr. Weinman responded that this was not in regard to a living wage, it was in regard to prevailing wage. He explained that the difference between prevailing wage and a living wage could be $30 an hour or $40 an hour. Ms. Wilson pointed out that prevailing wage was set by the Bureau of Labor and Industry (BOLI). She explained that it was set based on wages in the largest city in any county; these wages were higher than family or living wages. She said the reason the projects affected by the bill would be exempt was that they were low income housing projects that could not be built if they had to pay prevailing wages. Ms. Taylor averred that some people who did not make high enough wages would need low income housing. Ms. Wilson reiterated that they were not talking about family or living wage issues. Mr. Poling ascertained from staff that supporting the bill meant the City was in favor of the negotiated compromise and the exemption to the rules in the case of low income housing. Ms. Wilson clarified that the current wording was unclear in regard to which projects required the prevailing wage and which did not and this was causing low income housing developers to have difficulty in obtaining financing. Ms. Ortiz indicated that she was comfortable with the staff recommendation. Ms. Taylor decided to support the staff recommendation. Mr. Weinman noted that the bill had passed the House. HB 2699A Ms. Wilson stated that HB 2699A was moving but was having some struggle. Staff had recommended opposing the bill because it would have a negative financial impact on the City. She explained that the bill would require cities, counties, or other sponsors of an Enterprise Zone to notify the Commissioner of BOLI of any exemption from ad valorem property taxations connected with public work located in an Enterprise Zone. She noted that the City Attorney had also recommended adoption of a Priority 2 Oppose position on the bill. Ms. Taylor thought they should support the bill. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations May 27, 2009 Page 2 In response to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Wilson related that staff believed that it would discourage development within the Enterprise Zone. Ms. Ortiz ascertained from staff that it would make the City of Eugene accountable for tracking whether prevailing wages were being paid. Ms. Wilson added that it would increase the cost of development. Ms. Ortiz asked if Ms. Wilson would consider this legislation to be “anti-Enterprise Zone.” Ms. Wilson responded that she would characterize some of the legislators supporting the bill to be “anti-Enterprise Zone.” Ms. Ortiz preferred to remain with the staff recommendation. Ms. Taylor called for a vote. The CCIGR voted 2:1 to support the staff recommendation of a Priority 2 Oppose position on HB 2699A; Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. SB 879 Ms. Wilson thought this bill was dead, but the bill was in a revenue committee and revenue committees did not shut down at the end of the week like the other committees would. She said the bill had identical wording to a previous bill that the CCIGR had adopted a Priority 2 Oppose position on. Ms. Taylor wanted to support the bill. Sue Cutsogeorge, Financial Analysis Manager for the Finance Division, stated that the bill did contain the same wording as HB 3056, which the CCIGR had reviewed earlier in the year. She explained that the reason staff had recommended opposition to the bill was that it would reduce the amount of tax increment in the urban renewal district. She stated that the City had a legislative policy that opposed this. Ms. Taylor recalled that the last bill had been referred to the council because of a non-unanimous vote at the CCIGR. Ms. Wilson said the full City Council had upheld the Priority 2 Oppose staff recommendation. She believed that the bill was likely dead. She stated that because HB 3056 had been significantly amended, the proponents of this particular provision may want to revive the bill. She noted that it had not been in a hearing and the dead bill deadline was on the following day, May 28. Ms. Taylor moved to change the position on the bill to a Support position. The motion died for lack of a second. SB 101A Ms. Wilson explained that the bill would address greenhouse gases and climate change. She said Mr. Poling had pulled the bill and wanted to know how the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) felt about it. She related that EWEB supported the bill. Mr. Poling asked if staff had checked with other utilities. Sustainability Manager, Felicity Fahy, responded that she had not done so. She said EWEB supported the bill and recommended that other utilities do so. She explained that the bill sought to create emission performance standards to help wean utilities off coal generation. Mr. Poling indicated that he would not seek to change the staff recommendation to adopt a Priority 3 MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations May 27, 2009 Page 3 Support position on the bill. SB 719A Ms. Wilson explained that this was an amended version of a bill that would create a revolving loan fund to provide no interest financing for infrastructure projects in urban growth boundary expansion areas. She noted that the staff recommendation on the previous bill had been upheld by the full City Council. She said this bill added detail regarding the administration of funds. Ms. Taylor believed that the City should oppose the bill. Principal Planner for PDD, Steve Nystrom, commented that the changes were more procedural in nature and the principles of the bill were the same. Ms. Ortiz said her interest in pulling the bill was to ensure that no substantial structural changes had been made to it. Ms. Wilson reported that the bill was moving and was now in the Joint Ways and Means Committee. She said there was a provision in the amendments that said, if the bonds could not be issued, the funds could be taken out of residual lottery revenues that were available. She thought this was a safety net. Ms. Taylor moved to change the City’s position on SB 719A to Oppose. The motion died for lack of a second. SB 763A Ms. Wilson stated that the bill would authorize the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) to implement a system for buying and selling transferrable development credits to encourage landowners to voluntarily protect resource lands. In response to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Nystrom explained that no one presently had such a system. He said this had arisen from the Big Look Task Force and the intent was to find greater enhancement of or protection of important resource lands outside of UGBs to look for ways to make that more viable. He noted that it would require the City to negotiate with the County. He stated that staff supported it because it would provide another “tool for the tool kit.” Ms. Ortiz had pulled the bill and indicated that she supported the staff recommendation. SB 915A Ms. Wilson stated that the bill would require a municipality that administered a building inspection program under the state building code to assess violation of the program as a civil penalty. She said originally there had been some concern that this bill would impact and impinge on home rule and could prohibit the City from enforcing its own ordinance. She related that those provisions had all been taken out of the bill and it now just required notification and assessment as a civil penalty. Ms. Taylor asked if this was not still some interference with home rule. Mark Whitmill, Assistant Building Official for PDD, stated that it could potentially limit the ability to enforce a building code violation, but it did not effectively change how the PDD did business. He related that in his 15 years working in this capacity there had never been an occasion when this type of action was MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations May 27, 2009 Page 4 necessary. He noted that the bill had been worked “hard” by the League of Oregon Cities. Ms. Wilson reported that she had previously testified on behalf of the City that the bill was in violation of the home rule authority, but those provisions had been taken out of the bill. Ms. Taylor indicated that she would not move to change the City’s position on the bill; the staff recom- mendation would stand. 4. Items from the Committee and Staff Ms. Taylor ascertained that there were no further items for consideration at the meeting and called for the final motion. 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 1:41 p.m. (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations May 27, 2009 Page 5