Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3: Ratification of Unanimous IGR Actions ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Action: Ratification of Unanimous Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) Committee Actions and Discussion and Action on Non-Unanimous IGR Actions on Legislative Policy from February 3, 2010 Meeting Date: February 22, 2010 Agenda Item Number: 3 Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Brenda Wilson www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-8441 ISSUE STATEMENT This is an action item to ratify the unanimous actions of the Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) Committee from the February 3, 2010, IGR Committee meetings. BACKGROUND As a matter of procedure, during the legislative session, the City Council is routinely asked to ratify the actions taken by the Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) Committee on legislation. The IGR Committee reviews all bills and their associated staff recommendations and provides direction for each piece of legislation introduced during the legislative session. Any member of the IGR Committee may pull a bill off the IGR Bill Report for discussion. If a bill is not pulled for discussion, the staff recommendation stands. If a bill is pulled for discussion, the IGR Committee may keep or change the staff recommendation. Actions on which the IGR committee is not unanimous must be 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. The IGR Committee met on February 3, 2010, to review staff recommendations on some of the bills that have been introduced in the state legislature for the 2010 Special Session taking place this month. Those bills are set out in Attachment A. The IGR Committee pulled five bills/legislative-concepts for discussion. Of the five bills or concepts pulled for discussion, the IGR Committee’s vote was unanimous on four. The votes on those bills are set out in Attachment B. The IGR Committee vote on House Bill 3609 (HB 3609) was not unanimous. Accordingly, the full council must provide direction before this bill can be lobbied in Salem. HB 3609 is set out below.Staff comments for the bill are provided in Attachment C. I have also included a copy of the bill as an attachment. HB 3609: This bill would permit an enterprise zone sponsor to waive employment requirements and extend property tax exemption periods for authorized business firms under certain economic conditions. Staff Recommendation: Priority 3 Support IGR Committee Vote: Monitor (2 to 1, Councilor Poling voting No) Z:\CMO\2010 Council Agendas\M100222\S1002223.doc At first Councilor Taylor stated she thought we should oppose the bill. Senior Management Analyst for the Finance Division, Larry Hill, explained that he had recommended that they adopt a Support position because the bill was consistent with the City’s legislative policies document. He related that the document specifically called for enterprise zones to be made more flexible and the bill would do that. He explained that the bill would also limit the flexibility so that, for instance, should the City suffer a loss of jobs for two consecutive quarters and be two points below the state unemployment rate, then the bill would kick in and the council would have the option to review individual enterprise zone agreements and decide whether to extend an agreement or to change the number of jobs required under an agreement. Ms. Ortiz asked if it would stop the tax exemption. Mr. Hill replied that it would not negate it. Ms. Ortiz recalled a committee effort regarding enterprise zone expansion. She understood that the process at that point had been that the City had been required to go to the state for approval of the language changes that had been proposed. She thought that if the City wanted to do something similar, the bill would allow the City to do so potentially without state approval. Mr. Hill responded that this would only be so if the exact conditions specified in the bill were present and only to the extent that it would allow the change in the existing agreement. He said this particular change in the statute was highly qualified; the City would have to be in a recession and it would only be allowed to make two changes to the enterprise zone agreement. Mr. Poling ascertained that the bill would not change any of the other requirements specified in the City’s enterprise zone; the bill specifically addressed what would happen during an economic downturn. Councilor Taylor then moved to take a Neutral position on the bill; Councilor Ortiz seconded the bill for discussion. Mayor Piercy did not share Ms. Taylor’s view of enterprise zones. She felt the zone had worked the way the council intended it to. She preferred to start out monitoring the bill in order to hear some of the arguments. Councilor Taylor then amended her motion to Monitor; Councilor Ortiz indicated she was amenable to the position. Councilor Poling voted against the motion. 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 unanimous actions and approval of staff recommendations. Actions on which the IGR committee is not unanimous must be addressed by the full council in order to provide direction to staff in Salem. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends ratification of the IGR Committee's actions and that there be a discussion on the actions that were not unanimous. Z:\CMO\2010 Council Agendas\M100222\S1002223.doc SUGGESTED MOTION Move to ratify the IGR Committee's unanimous actions on bills and approval of staff recommendations in the February 3, 2010, IGR Bill Reports for bills not pulled for discussion at those IGR meetings. There also needs to be motions to state positions for each bill listed above where the IGR Committee action was not unanimous. ATTACHMENTS A.February 3, 2010 IGR Bill Report B.Actions on Bills Pulled for Discussion C.Bill and Staff Comments on Non-Unanimous Action FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Brenda Wilson Telephone: 541-682-8441 Staff E-Mail: brenda.s.wilson@ci.eugene.or.us Z:\CMO\2010 Council Agendas\M100222\S1002223.doc ATTACHMENT A IGR BILL REPORT FEBRUARY 3, 2010 REPORT DATE RANGE: JANUARY 20, 2010 thru JANUARY 28, 2010 CITY OF EUGENE LC 57 Relating Clause: Relating to crime; creating new provisions; amending ORS 131.588, 131A.300, 166.250, 166.260, 166.270, 166.274, 166.291 and 166.470; and declaring an emergency. Title: Modifies circumstances under which person convicted of felony may obtain relief from prohibition against possession and transfer of firearms. Modifies firearms provisions related to commitment of person with mental illness. Eliminates requirement that forfeiture counsel send copy of judgment to Asset Forfeiture Oversight Advisory Committee. Declares emergency, effective on passage. Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Policy Policy No Recommendation Ellwood Cushman 01/27/2010 Pri 3 Support EPD-ADM Comments: (Appears to be identical with SB 1008) We support this bill, which was introduced at the request of the Senate Interim Committee on Judiciary. The primary impact of the bill will be to limit the ability for certain persons convicted of more than one felony to petition for relief from the provision that they not possess firearms. We do not believe that persons who have been convicted of multiple felonies should be able to possess firearms because of the potential threat those persons present to members of the community and to officers. The bill also adds wording to clarify that certain firearms restrictions apply to mentally ill persons who have been committed to the Department of Human Services as well as to the Oregon Health Authority (although persons in this category are allowed to petition for relief from those restrictions). LC 109 Relating Clause: Relating to electricity from low-impact hydroelectric facilities that may be used to comply with renewable portfolio standards; creating new provisions; and amending ORS 469A.020 and 469A.025. Title: Modifies provisions related to qualifying electricity for purposes of compliance with renewable portfolio standard. Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Policy Policy No Recommendation Kevin Finney 01/27/2010 Monitor CS-CMO 1 | Page Comments: Monitor - if it changes much it could be of more concern to the City. I concur with Ethan that this concept is of more interest to EWEB that it is to the City. The proposed clarification of standards for electricity portfolios aligns with the City's general sustainability and energy awareness goals. It will likely impact electricity rates, which would have social and economic impacts. Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Policy Policy No Recommendation Ethan Nelson 01/13/2010 Pri 3 Support PDD-BPS Comments: Spoke with Jason Heuser and this is part of EWEB's acquisition strategy, but the Oregon only component aligns with the mechanics of the RPS. If the legislation allowed power outside of Oregon to comply with the standard, then the RPS levels need to be adjusted for this, which won't likely happen. Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Policy Policy No Recommendation Mike Penwell 01/19/2010 -- -- CS-FAC Comments: I will defer to Ethan on this LC as it is outside my area of expertise. LC 137 Relating Clause: Relating to the neglect of foreclosed real property; and declaring an emergency. Title: Prohibits owner of foreclosed residential real property from neglecting real property during periods of vacancy. Permits local government to assess civil penalty for each day during which owner fails to remedy conditions of neglect. Sunsets January 2, 2014. Declares emergency, effective on passage. Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Policy Policy No Recommendation Richie Weinman 01/27/2010 -- -- PDD-DEV Comments: Defer to Mike McKerrow. Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Policy Policy No Recommendation Glenn Klein 01/06/2010 Monitor CS-CMO- ATTY Comments: Subsection (8) of section 1 of the bill does make clear that the bill would not preempt local ordinances. In light of that, I recommend a “monitor” status, just to make sure that the bill is not amended to preempt our authority and require us to use this new statutory process. Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Policy Policy No Recommendation Mike McKerrow 01/27/2010 Monitor PDD-BPS Comments: I support Glenn's comment with the "monitor" status just in case the language changes. Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Policy Policy No Recommendation Mark Whitmill 01/27/2010 -- -- PDD-BPS 2 | Page Comments: This bill does not involve building codes, but is closely related to our land use code requirements and would involve our land use enforcement staff. I've talked to Mike and will defer to him on this LC. HB 3609 Relating Clause: Relating to enterprise zones; creating new provisions; amending ORS 285C.105, 285C.200, 285C.210, 285C.225, 285C.230, 285C.235 and 285C.240; and prescribing an effective date. Title: Permits enterprise zone sponsor to waive employment requirements and extend property tax exemption period for authorized firms under certain economic conditions. Takes effect on 91st day following adjournment sine die. Sponsored By: Sponsored by Representative OLSON, Senator MORSE (Presession filed.) URL:http://www.leg.state.or.us/bills_laws/concepts/hse/HB3609.pdf Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Policy Policy No Recommendation Larry Hill 01/13/2010 Pri 2 Yes II.B9 Support CS-FIN Comments: HB 3609 would allow the local sponsor of an enterprise zone, under certain conditions, to modify the requirements imposed on businesses benefiting from an enterprise zone tax exemption. This could occur if there has been a decline for two or more consecutive quarters in employment and the county unemployment rate is 2 percentage points higher than the state unemployment rate. The legislation's purpose is to allow flexibility to the local sponsoring government to further assist an enterprise zone business during an economic downturn. There could be a negative effect on city revenues if an enterprise zone tax exemption were extended under the proposed legislation, but this impact would be under the control of the local government. City legislative policies specifically call for increased local enterprise zone flexibility. Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Policy Policy No Recommendation Richie Weinman 01/20/2010 -- No -- PDD-DEV Comments: Will defer to Larry Hill. This bill enables local jurisdictions to relax job creation standards in Enterprise Zones during difficult economic times. This is enabling legislation and there is no requirement for any jurisdiction to participate. Generally Eugene supports actions that promote local flexibility and oppose actions that limit local flexibility. Since this bill doesn't directly impact Eugene we should stay neutral. HB 3632 Relating Clause: Relating to viability of pay or play system of employer-sponsored health insurance coverage in Oregon; and declaring an emergency. Title: Requires Oregon Health Authority to study viability of implementing pay or play system of employer-based health insurance coverage in Oregon and to report 3 | Page results of study and, if system is viable, proposed plan for implementation to interim legislative committees. Declares emergency, effective on passage. Sponsored By: Sponsored by Representative WITT (Presession filed.) URL:http://www.leg.state.or.us/bills_laws/concepts/hse/HB3632.pdf Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Policy Policy No Recommendation Myrnie Daut 01/25/2010 No Monitor CS-HRRS Comments: This bill is for a study only but if employer "pay or play" health insurance system was implemented it could potentially have a significant impact on the City. HB 3640 Relating Clause: Relating to cancellation of ad valorem tax assessment of personal property; creating new provisions; amending ORS 308.250 and 308.290; and prescribing an effective date. Title: Requires county assesor in county with population of more than 340,000 to cancel property tax assessment for manufactured structures if total assessed value of all manufactured structures taxable as personal property of taxpayer is less than $12,500. Takes effect of 91st day following adjournment sine die. Sponsored By: Sponsored by Representative HOYLE (Presession filed.) URL:http://www.leg.state.or.us/bills_laws/concepts/hse/HB3640.pdf Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Policy Policy No Recommendation Richie Weinman 01/20/2010 -- -- PDD-DEV Comments: We defer to Larry’s comments. Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Policy Policy No Recommendation Larry Hill 01/12/2010 Pri 1 Yes II.A2 Oppose CS-FIN Comments: The City’s long-time position on additional property tax exemption is to oppose them. Local government property tax revenue is suffering the “death of a thousand cuts”; a little exemption here, another little exemption there, every year. It adds up to big money. This bill, if passed, would have no revenue impact on the state because the state does not depend on property taxes. Exemptions are a way for the legislature to fund their social programs or political goals without incurring any cost to state programs. Local governments and schools are the ones that suffer. I recommend the City of Eugene maintain our historic legislative policy and strongly oppose legislation granting additional property tax exemptions. If this is a worthwhile social goal, the Legislature should fund the property tax relief directly out of state revenue, not out of the City’s revenue. If this proposal were in effect this tax year, FY10, it would reduce the City’s total property tax revenue by $67,000. The total taxable value 4 | Page of the subject property within Eugene is currently more than $8 million and the total FY10 tax loss to city, county, LCC, 4J and Bethel School Districts within city boundaries would have been $138,430. SB 0990 Relating Clause: Relating to unemployment insurance benefits; creating new provisions; amending ORS 657.321 and section 10, chapter 115, Oregon Laws 2009, and sections 8 and 9, chapter 857, Oregon Laws 2009; and declaring an emergency. Title: Modifies definition of "emergency benefit period" to begin on first week that begins at least 14 days after effective date of Act and ending when total of Oregon emergency benefits paid reaches $19 million. Adjusts maximum Oregon emergency benefits individual may receive to 23 percent of individual's most recent regular unemployment benefit claim. Authorizes Employment Department to adopt rules providing for eligibility period for purposes of extended benefits if federal law provides for greater than 50 percent funding of extended benefits. Declares emergency, effective on passage. Sponsored By: Printed pursuant to Senate Interim Rule 213.28 by order of the President of the Senate in conformance with pre-session filing rules, indicating neither advocacy nor opposition on the part of the President (at the request of Senate Interim Committee on Commerce and Workforce Development) URL:http://www.leg.state.or.us/bills_laws/concepts/sen/SB0990.pdf Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Policy Policy No Recommendation Jamie Iboa Jan Bergquist CS-HRRS 01/27/2010 Pri 3 No Neutral Comments: This bill generalizes the period of Emergency Benefits whereas previously it had a specific date range and it places a limit on the total. It also reduces the maximum benefit to 23% of the most recent unemployment benefit claim, rather than 50%. The City is self- insured for unemployment so this bill will could increase the amount the City pays on unemployment claims. SB 0995 Relating Clause: Relating to renewable portfolio standards; creating new provisions; and amending ORS 469A.020 and 469A.025. Title: Allows facilities that generate electricity by using biomass or combusting municipal solid waste to comply with renewable portfolio standard under certain conditions. Specifies conditions under which State Department of Energy may certify facilities as eligible for renewable energy certificates. Authorizes full recovery of costs by public utilities in prudent energy investments related to planning, financing, construction and operation of hydrogen power stations. Sponsored By: Sponsored by Senators KRUSE, EDWARDS (Presession filed.) 5 | Page URL:http://www.leg.state.or.us/bills_laws/concepts/sen/SB0995.pdf Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Policy Policy No Recommendation Ethan Nelson PDD-BPS 01/27/2010 Pri 2 Yes IV.A Oppose Comments: 5(a): By allowing generation from facilities in service prior to the 1995 date in the RPS, disincentizes new investments in renewable energy technologies. Oregonians get no net gain. 5(b): linked with 5a but further allows REC’s to be banked for use after 2026. Again, provides financial disincentive toward investments in new clean renewable energy or conservation. 5(c): Okay section if this is decoupled from a and b. But I am thinking there is an existing provision within the RPS legislation that allows non-conforming generation units to be upgraded to meet the requirements (but not sure). 6: Combustion of solid waste cannot be thrown into this without better research and qualifications on what is being sent to the incinerator. This provision incentives greater disposal and disincentives diversion and prevention opportunities. Also, existing technologies such as the Marion County incinerator do nothing to add renewable capacity to the system. Section 2: The language is way too loose to support. What criteria will the PUC use in determining “prudent investments”? This should be decoupled from the biomass and waste RPS provisions in this bill. It is fine to request cost recovery through rates when investing in new technologies, but that needs to be carefully evaluated and monitored, which is not how this bill is written. Section 3 6(a-c): Read comments on d above. MSW incineration should qualify as renewable energy, only if there are other concomitant steps taken to improve the diversion and prevention of wastes. What is happening is a “garbage to gold” strategy that does not address the carbon or natural resource impacts of waste generation in the first place. A comprehensive waste bill that addresses lifecycle should move forward with an incineration element and then update the RPS legislation only after the former has occurred. Lastly, when the RPS was first established, there was a robust discussion on the criteria for what would be allowed under the bill. The legislature should revisit those discussions to clarify the original intent of the law. SB 1008 Relating Clause: Relating to crime; creating new provisions; amending ORS 131.588, 131A.300, 166.250, 166.260, 166.270, 166.274, 166.291 and 166.470; and declaring an emergency. Title: Modifies circumstances under which person convicted of felony may obtain relief from prohibition against possession and transfer of firearms. Modifies firearms provisions related to commitment of person with mental illness. Eliminates requirement that forfeiture counsel send copy of judgement to Asset Forfeiture Oversight Advisory Committee. Declares emergency, effective on passage. Sponsored By: Printed pursuant to Senate Interim Rule 213.28 by order of the President of the Senate in conformance with pre-session filing rules, indicating neither advocacy nor opposition on the part of the President (at the request of Senate Interim Committee on Judiciary) 6 | Page URL:http://www.leg.state.or.us/bills_laws/concepts/sen/SB1008.pdf Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Policy Policy No Recommendation E. Cushman D. Mozan EPD-ADM 01/26/2010 Pri 3 No Support Comments: We support this bill, which was introduced at the request of the Senate Interim Committee on Judiciary. The primary impact of the bill will be to limit the ability for certain persons convicted of more than one felony to petition for relief from the provision that they not possess firearms. We do not believe that persons who have been convicted of multiple felonies should be able to possess firearms because of the potential threat those persons present to members of the community and to officers. The bill also adds wording to clarify that certain firearms restrictions apply to mentally ill persons who have been committed to the Department of Human Services as well as to the Oregon Health Authority (although persons in this category are allowed to petition for relief from those restrictions). SB 1009 Relating Clause: Relating to plastic bags; creating new provisions; amending ORS 459.235 and 459A.115; repealing ORS 459A.695; and declaring an emergency. Title: Prohibits use of plastic bags as checkout bags. Allows Department of Environmental Quality to impose civil penalty. Repeals statute requiring retail establishments that offer plastic bags to customers to also offer paper bags. Declares emergency, effective on passage. Sponsored By: Sponsored by Senator HASS; Senator ATKINSON (Presession filed.) URL:http://www.leg.state.or.us/bills_laws/concepts/sen/SB1009.pdf Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Policy Policy No Recommendation Ethan Nelson PDD-BPS 01/26/2010 Pri 3 Yes VII.A.4b Oppose Comments: This bill's goal is to reduce the environmental impact of plastic bags. If the bill were passed, it would most likely accomplish this goal with a tangible benefit to 1) decreased litter, 2) reduction of contamination in material recovery facilities (MRF) and 3) decrease in environmental pollutants associated with the manufacture of plastic bags. But, the reason to oppose this bill is that there would be a rebounding environmental impact in that disposable bags would still be available at checkouts. This means paper bags or alternatives. While paper bags are more likely to be recycled than plastic, the environmental impacts (including production of GHG’s) associated with the production of paper bags far outweigh those associated with plastic bags. Other alternatives include oxy-degradable bags. These bags only break into smaller pieces and the impact to the environment of these is not known. Additionally, when they break down in a landfill they increase production of methane. Lastly, the degradable bags are very difficult to discern between plastic bags, which if source separated, can be recycled, therefore possibly 7 | Page increasing the contamination rate of a recyclable material. Additionally, if the goal is to reduce MRF contamination, programs targeting the use of reusable bags (to decrease the number of plastic bags), better education of curbside recycling customers, or investments to retool existing MRF's with better separation technologies would be a much more cost effective approach. The City of Seattle adopted a similar policy (a tax) and faced an immediate referendum that passed. SB 1018 Relating Clause: Relating to sobriety checkpoints; and prescribing an effective date. Title: Authorizes law enforcement agencies to establish sobriety checkpoints. Takes effect only if Senate Joint Resolution 43 (2010) is approved by people at next regular general election. Takes effect on effective date of constitutional amendment proposed in Senate Joint Resolution 43 (2010). Sponsored By: Sponsored by Senator MONROE (Presession filed.) URL:http://www.leg.state.or.us/bills_laws/concepts/sen/SB1018.pdf Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Policy Policy No Recommendation E. Cushman E. Cushman EPD-ADM 01/27/2010 Pri 3 Yes V. C7 Support Comments: We support this bill, which would authorize law enforcement agencies to establish sobriety checkpoints to enforce DUII laws if certain conditions were met. First, SJR 43 would have to pass, referring an amendment to the Oregon Constitution to the voters at a general election. Then the voters would have to pass the constitutional amendment in order for this bill to take effect. Even if that happened, the bill simply provides authority for police agencies to utilize sobriety checkpoints---it would still be a decision by each jurisdiction whether to use them at all and, if so, how frequently. The bill also requires that such checkpoints be conducted in a manner consistent with the federal guidelines issued by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Sobriety checkpoints are potentially a very useful tool to identify and apprehend persons driving under the influence of intoxicants---a violation which results in many deaths every year, and has resulted in deaths in this community. SB 1025 Relating Clause: Relating to radon in buildings; and declaring an emergency. Title: Requires Building Codes Structures Board and Residential and Manufactured Structures Board to adopt radon mitigation standards for certain buildings. Requires Real Estate Agency to develop information concerning radon in one and two family dwellings and to make information to potential buyers of one and two family dwellings by specific date. Declares emergency, effective on passage. 8 | Page Sponsored By: Sponsored by Senator DINGFELDER; Senators BATES, BONAMICI, BURDICK, EDWARDS, HASS, MONNES ANDERSON, MONROE, ROSENBAUM, SCHRADER, SHIELDS, VERGER, Representatives BUCKLEY, CANNON, DEMBROW, HOLVEY, RILEY, ROBLAN, STIEGLER, TOMEI (Presession filed.) URL:http://www.leg.state.or.us/bills_laws/concepts/sen/SB1025.pdf Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Policy Policy No Recommendation Mark Whitmill PDD-BPS 01/27/2010 Monitor Comments: I recommend that we monitor this bill. Since Lane County is not one of the counties specifically listed in the bill, this does not currently affect Eugene. However, if the bill is revised to include Lane County, I believe the City should support the bill as it is directly related to policy and building dept goals of ensuring safe buildings. There are areas in Lane County where radon has been measured to be at unhealthy levels in buildings. If the bill is revised to be applicable in Eugene, there may be additional costs to the City to administer and enforce the mitigation standards. These would need to be covered by existing or new building permit fees. Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Policy Policy No Recommendation Mike Penwell CS-FAC 01/26/2010 Monitor Comments: The bill as written doesn't currently apply to Lane County, though it could in the future. However, radon is not prevalent in Lane County so this bill is unlikely to have any effect on the City of Eugene. We should monitor the bill, however, in case it is expanded to include Lane County. SB 1050 Relating Clause: Relating to public subsidies for structures on real property. Title: Prohibits public body from providing public subsidy for purpose of constructing, reconstructing, renovating, altering, maintaining or repairing, or entering into contract to construct, reconstruct, renovate, alter, maintain or repair, structure on real property unless iron, steel and manufactured goods used in structure are made within United States. Provides that prohibition does not apply if public body or contracting agency finds that amount or quality of iron, steel or manufactured goods made within United States are insufficient or in applying prohibition would increase cost or contract price by more than 25 percent. Sponsored By: Sponsored by Senator VERGER; Senators KRUSE, METSGER, ROSENBAUM, SCHRADER, WHITSETT, Representatives BARKER, BARTON, HOLVEY, KAHL, SCHAUFLER, VANORMAN, WITT (at the request of Oregon State Building and Construction Trades Council, Oregon ALF-CIO, Oregon AFSCME) (Presession filed.) URL:http://www.leg.state.or.us/bills_laws/concepts/sen/SB1050.pdf 9 | Page Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Policy Policy No Recommendation Mike Penwell CS-FAC 01/27/2010 Pri 3 Yes VIII.B Oppose Comments: This is basically a "Buy American" bill for publicly subsidized structures in Oregon similar to Buy American requirements of many federally funded programs and contracts. While this makes sense at the federal level, it doesn't make much sense for Oregon at the state level. Very little steel is manufactured in Oregon, so this bill will probably not generate any jobs in Oregon, much less in Lane County or Eugene. What it will do is make it more expensive to achieve other City goals (such as development of more low- income housing and construction by subsidized non-profit organizations) by making City subsidized building projects more expensive since much of the steel used in Oregon comes from Asia at a lower cost than American steel. Steel production in Asia has its own set of issues but, again, it seems more appropriate to deal with these issues at the federal level than the state level. Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Policy Policy No Recommendation Mark Whitmill PDD-BPS 01/27/2010 -- -- Comments: Defer to others. Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Policy Policy No Recommendation Richie Weinman PDD-DEV 01/26/2010 -- -- Comments: Defer to others. This bill protects American jobs and supports the US economy. I think it would be interesting to know if there will be any analysis provided about whether this increases construction costs -- which increases housing costs. I don't know if the City should take a position or not. I'd say watch the bill, see if it moves, and consider the impacts that are discussed during the testimony. Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Policy Policy No Recommendation Jenifer Willer PWE 01/27/2010 -- -- Comments: Defer to others. Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Policy Policy No Recommendation Paul Klope PWE 01/25/2010 Pri 3 Yes VIII.B Oppose Comments: This bill would affect projects built on real property that the city might subsidize such as low income housing and downtown development. The exception allowed in this bill to use of materials made in the US is only if it would increase the cost of the structure by 25%. This seems like a very large increase to allow and potentially could cause projects that are important to the community to be cut back by the same amount. The goal of the bill seems to have some merit, but the bill should be modified to apply the consider the percentage increase only to the specific items/goods that are not made in the U.S., rather than to the whole structure. Recommend support if amended as noted. SB 1054 10 | Page Relating Clause: Relating to rural airports; creating new provisions; amending section 2, chapter 859, Oregon Laws 2007; and declaring an emergency. Title: Exempts rural airports from requirement to pay portion of grant or loan received from Multimodal Transportation Fund for statewide multimodal study. Permits Oregon Transportation Commission to provide grants or loans from Multimodal Transportation Fund to rural airports for certain transportation projects already completed or under construction. Declares emergency, effective on passage. Sponsored By: Sponsored by Senator WHITSETT; Senators KRUSE, MORSE (Presession filed.) URL:http://www.leg.state.or.us/bills_laws/concepts/sen/SB1054.pdf Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Policy Policy No Recommendation Eric Jones PW-ADM 01/25/2010 -- -- Comments: Defer to Cathryn Stephens for analysis. Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Policy Policy No Recommendation Cathryn Stephens PW-APT 01/26/2010 Pri 1 Support Comments: The Eugene Airport is a “rural airport” as defined by the State Aviation Department for this purpose. This bill allows for the Oregon Transportation Commission to provide funds for the matching funds required for federal grants. It extends the timeline for federal grants received on or after July 1, 2009. The change to this OTC rule will provide about $370,000 in matching funds (Connect Oregon) to the Eugene Airport for the runway rehab project slated for this summer. SB 1059 Relating Clause: Relating to greenhouse gas emissions; and declaring an emergency. Title: Creates process for adoption and implementation of plans for reducing greenhouse gas emissions caused by motor vehicles with gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. Directs Department of Transportation and Department of Land Conservation and Development to report progress and recommendations for future actions to Seventy-seventh Legislative Assembly. Declares emergency, effective on passage. Sponsored By: Sponsored by Senator COURTNEY (at the request of the Metropolitan Planning Organization Greenhouse Gas Emissions Task Force) (Presession filed.) URL:http://www.leg.state.or.us/bills_laws/concepts/sen/SB1059.pdf Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Policy Policy No Recommendation Kevin Finney CS-CMO 01/27/2010 Pri 1 Oppose 11 | Page Comments: The Council and the Sustainability GHG emissions and the Community Climate and Energy Plan now being developed will very likely include some recommendations for reducing GHG emissions, including reducing vehicle miles travelled. We’ve got vision and goal congruence at the state and local level on this, but there are some significant problems with this bill. It looks like, but lacks some important aspects of, the MPO GHG Task Force Legislative Concepts Report. Specifically, the bill requires action at the local level and does not address funding, and it does not take the phased approach suggested by the MPO effort. If the funding piece was an oversight and it is addressed in later version, would recommend reconsidering City's position on the bill. Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Policy Policy No Recommendation Eric Jones PW-ADM 01/25/2010 -- -- Comments: To Kevin Finney to see if he would like to have input on bill. Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Policy Policy No Recommendation Rob Inerfeld PWE 01/27/2010 Pri 1 Yes IV.A Oppose Comments: Councilor Zelenka was the MPO representative to the MPO Greenhouse Gas Emissions Task Force. The Task Force created a carefully crafted consensus report called the Legislative Concepts report. This proposed legislation is counter to the Legislative Concepts report in several key ways: it does not provide a phased approach; the Task Force report only requires action contingent on funding provided by the State but this bill requires action at the local level regardless; this bill provides no funding to local governments or MPOs for modeling, planning or implementation; it puts responsibility completely at the local level rather than involving MPOs as well. If this bill were moved closer to the Task Force report, then I think we should possibly support it. It might be worth checking in with Councilor Zelenka since he was on the task force. SJR 0043 Relating Clause: Proposes amendment to Oregon Constitution authorizing sobriety checkpoints for law enforcement purposes. Title: Proposes amendment to Oregon Constitution authorizing sobriety checkpoints for law enforcement purposes. Refers proposed amendment to people for their approval or rejection at next regular general election. Sponsored By: Sponsored by Senator MONROE (Presession filed.) URL:http://www.leg.state.or.us/bills_laws/concepts/sen/SJR0043.pdf Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Policy Policy No Recommendation E. Cushman E. Cushman EPD-ADM 01/27/2010 Pri 3 Yes V.C7 Support Comments: We support this resolution, which would refer an amendment to the Oregon Constitution to the voters at a general election authorizing the use of sobriety checkpoints to enforce DUII laws in Oregon. This SJR would simply put the question to the voters as to whether they want to support this constitutional amendment. If the voters approved the 12 | Page amendment, and if SB 1008 (or an equivalent bill) were approved, such action simply provides authority for police agencies to utilize sobriety checkpoints---it would still be a decision by each jurisdiction whether to use them at all and, if so, how frequently. Sobriety checkpoints are potentially a very useful tool to identify and apprehend persons driving under the influence of intoxicants---a violation which results in many deaths every year, and has resulted in deaths in this community. SJR 0046 Relating Clause: Proposes amendment to Oregon Constitution to limit awards of noneconomic damages against health care providers, nonprofit corporations and public bodies to $1 million. Title: Proposes amendment to Oregon Constitution to limit awards of noneconomic damages against health care providers, nonprofit corporations and public bodies to $1 million. Refers proposed amendment to people for their approval or rejection at next regular general election. Sponsored By: Sponsored by Senator GIROD; Senators ATKINSON, BOQUIST, FERRIOLI, KRUSE, MORSE, TELFER, WHITSETT, WINTERS (Presession filed.) URL:http://www.leg.state.or.us/bills_laws/concepts/sen/SJR0046.pdf Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Policy Policy No Recommendation Myrnie Daut CS-HRRS 01/27/2010 Pri 2 No Support Comments: During the 2009 legislative session the legislature passed tort claim reform which increased tort claim liability for state and local governments. The provisions in this resolution would limit tort claim liability for non-economic damages for the state and local governments as well as health care providers and non profit organizations which would be favorable to these entities. 13 | Page ATTACHMENT B IGR Committee Meeting Wednesday, February 3, 2010 HB 3609 Pulled for discussion by Councilor Taylor. Larry Hill was the staff person Neutral, to speak. Councilor Taylor moves the bill to Councilor Ortiz seconds. Mayor Piercy comments that she doesn’t share Councilor Taylor’s view on Enterprise Zone. She would like to know the implication of the bill further, and instead monitor the bill to hear arguments, and bring the bill back. Councilor Taylor changes her motion to move the bill Monitor to, Councilor Ortiz seconds. Councilor Poling votes against the This bill will go before full City Council. motion. HB 3640 Pulled for discussion by Brenda Wilson and Councilor Ortiz. Larry Hill Support, was the staff person to speak. Councilor Ortiz moves the bill to (No Priority Stated), Councilor Taylor seconds. All in favor. SB 1050 Pulled for discussion by Councilor Taylor. Mike Penwell and Paul Klope were the staff persons to speak. Councilor Taylor moves the bill to Monitor, Councilor Poling seconds. All in favor. SB 1009 Pulled for discussion by Councilor Ortiz. Ethan Nelson was the staff Monitor, person to speak. Councilor Ortiz moves the bill to Councilor Taylor seconds. All in favor. SB 1059 Pulled for discussion by Councilor Ortiz. Brenda Wilson was the staff person to speak. No change in staff recommendation was taken on the bill; Priority 1, Oppose. it remains at ATTACHMENT C HB 3609 Relating Clause: Relating to enterprise zones; creating new provisions; amending ORS 285C.105, 285C.200, 285C.210, 285C.225, 285C.230, 285C.235 and 285C.240; and prescribing an effective date. Title: Permits enterprise zone sponsor to waive employment requirements and extend property tax exemption period for authorized firms under certain economic conditions. Takes effect on 91st day following adjournment sine die. Sponsored By: Sponsored by Representative OLSON, Senator MORSE (Presession filed.) URL:http://www.leg.state.or.us/bills_laws/concepts/hse/HB3609.pdf Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Policy Policy No Recommendation Larry Hill 01/13/2010 Pri 2 Yes II.B9 Support CS-FIN Comments: HB 3609 would allow the local sponsor of an enterprise zone, under certain conditions, to modify the requirements imposed on businesses benefiting from an enterprise zone tax exemption. This could occur if there has been a decline for two or more consecutive quarters in employment and the county unemployment rate is 2 percentage points higher than the state unemployment rate. The legislation's purpose is to allow flexibility to the local sponsoring government to further assist an enterprise zone business during an economic downturn. There could be a negative effect on city revenues if an enterprise zone tax exemption were extended under the proposed legislation, but this impact would be under the control of the local government. City legislative policies specifically call for increased local enterprise zone flexibility. Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Policy Policy No Recommendation Richie Weinman 01/20/2010 -- No -- PDD-DEV Comments: Will defer to Larry Hill. This bill enables local jurisdictions to relax job creation standards in Enterprise Zones during difficult economic times. This is enabling legislation and there is no requirement for any jurisdiction to participate. Generally Eugene supports actions that promote local flexibility and oppose actions that limit local flexibility. Since this bill doesn't directly impact Eugene we should stay neutral.