HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2C: Resolution on 2013 Oregon Legislature and IGR
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Adoption of a Resolution Concerning the 2013 Oregon Legislature and the City
Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations Operating Agreements
Adopted By Resolution No. 5043
Meeting Date: February 11, 2013 Agenda Item Number: 2C
Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Lisa Gardner
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-5245
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ISSUE STATEMENT
This is an action item to approve a resolution adopting a pilot process for the 2013 Oregon
State Legislative Process.
BACKGROUND
The council operating agreements lay out the process for review, prioritization and
lobbying of legislation for the State legislative sessions. This process has been previously
approved by the City Council by the adoption of Resolution 5043.
Staff have proposed a pilot process for the 2013 legislative session with the goal of
developing a more focused, efficient, and effective lobbying approach. The pilot process
will reduce the number of bills that are reviewed by the Intergovernmental Relations
Committee (IGR), and recommends that only a very few, high priority bills be actively
lobbied by the City. Consistent with past practice, all bills that the City takes a position on
will continue to be reviewed and approved by the IGR. An overview of the pilot process was
previously forwarded to the council by the City Manager for review and comment, and is
included here as Exhibit A of the resolution.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
The City Council has the following options:
1. Adopt the resolution;
2. Amend the resolution;
3. Take no action.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends adoption of the resolution.
SUGGESTED MOTION
I move to adopt a resolution concerning the 2013 Oregon Legislature and the City Council
Committee on Intergovernmental Relations Operating Agreements adopted by resolution
S:\CMO\2013 Council Agendas\M130211\S1302112C.doc
No. 5043.
ATTACHMENT
A.Resolution (including Exhibit A)
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Lisa Gardner
Telephone: 541-682-5245
Staff E-Mail: lisa.a.gardner@ci.eugene.or.us
S:\CMO\2013 Council Agendas\M130211\S1302112C.doc
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE 2013 OREGON LEGISLATURE
AND THE CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL
RELATIONS OPERATING AGREEMENTS ADOPTED BY
RESOLUTION NO. 5043.
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that:
A.
Section 2.007 of the Eugene Code, 1971, contains provisions regarding Council
meetings and the establishment of Council groundrules.
B.
The Eugene City Council Operating Agreements (referred to as groundrules in the
Eugene Code, 1971) were adopted by Resolution No. 4588 on April 12, 1999, and have
subsequently been amended, most recently by Resolution No. 5043 on October 11, 2011.
C.
Included in the Operating Agreements is the document titled “City Council
Committee on Intergovernmental Relations Operating Agreements” which contains the process
for the City’s participation in sessions of the Oregon Legislature. The City intends to pilot an
alternate process for the 2013 Oregon Legislative Session as set forth in Exhibit A to this
Resolution, and Resolution No. 5043 should be temporarily amended to enable the City to try the
pilot process.
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EUGENE, a
Municipal Corporation of the State of Oregon, as follows:
Section 1.
Based on the above findings, the process for review, prioritization and
lobbying of legislation for the 2013 Oregon Legislative Session shall be as described in Exhibit
A to this Resolution, rather than the process set forth in Resolution No. 5043.
Section 2.
A copy of this Resolution shall be appended to Resolution No. 5043.
Section 3.
This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.
The foregoing Resolution adopted the _____ day of February, 2013.
___________________________________
City Recorder
Resolution - Page 1 of 1
Exhibit A
PROCESS FOR REVIEW AND PRIORITIZATION OF LEGISLATION
FOR THE 2013 LEGISLATIVE SESSION
The 2013 session will start on February 4, 2013. The Legislature convenes annually in February
at the State Capitol in Salem. Sessions may not exceed 160 days in odd-numbered years and 35
days in even-numbered years. Five-day extensions are allowed by a two-thirds vote in each
house. In odd-numbered years, the Legislative Assembly convenes on the second Monday in
January, to swear-in newly elected officials, elect legislative leaders, adopt rules, organize and
appoint committees, and begin introducing bills.
REVIEW OF LEGISLATION BY CITY STAFF LEGISLATIVE COORDINATORS
In past years, bills have been assigned by the IGR staff to appropriate staff throughout the city.
This has resulted in the generation of a tremendous amount of work, both for staff, as well as
for the IGR committee, often with limited or no tangible benefit. Very few bills that we take
positions on merit targeted lobbying efforts on behalf of the city of Eugene. This year, we will
be approaching the legislative session in a much more targeted way, with the goal of being
more efficient, and effective in our lobbying efforts.
The most obvious change in the process will be that IGR staff will no longer routinely assign bills
to legislative coordinators for comments and positions. Instead, we will rely primarily on
departments to identify significant legislative issues/bills that merit taking a position on and
actively lobbying. Department/division staff will be asked to rely on professional affiliations
and jurisdictional counterparts across the state to stay in touch with legislative issues arising in
their area of expertise. In addition to bills identified by departments, bills will be identified in a
two other primary ways, through the League of Oregon Cities, and through paid lobbyists. The
League of Oregon Cities has recently implemented a new bill tracking software system, which
will be a significant new resource this session. Additionally, the city council or city manager
may identify issues that come to their attention for IGR staff. It is strongly believed that all
significant legislation of potential impact to the city will be identified through this approach.
Once an issue/bill is identified by department staff, legislative coordinators will assess
consistency of the issue with adopted City policies and past legislative positions, and will
provide comments and a recommended position and priority for referral to the IGR committee.
Bills/legislative issues brought to IGR staff should be limited to those determined to be high
priority; that is, the bill would have significant impact on City operations, services, or finances in
such ways as to fundamentally impact department administration, organization, personnel,
allocation of City resources, or local decision-making, either negatively or positively. Examples
of legislative issues that have already been identified for this session include PERS reform,
telecom, and public safety. Legislation related to these issue areas could have significant
Exhibit A - Page 1 of 3
{00083961;1 }
financial or operational impact on the City – therefore we plan to actively lobby the city’s
interests in these areas.
LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY
As described in the previous section, advocacy efforts will be narrowed and targeted to focus
on a very few, high priority issues of potential impact to the City. In the past, this was done on
the basis of the priority assignment and recommendation system. Because only bills of
potential impact will be referred to the CELEG system, the priority assignment system will be
modified. Staff will be asked to provide a “support,” or “oppose,” recommendation for all bills
to be reviewed on which we want to take a position. In rare cases, there may be a need to
“monitor” a bill. In that case, specific information will be provided to explain the merits of
tracking such a bill.
Position Recommendations:
From the City’s perspective, we are in favor of the bill and the impacts.
Support:
Legislative Coordinators should note why we are in favor of the bill and note any
amendments that would make the bill better.
From the City’s perspective, we are opposed to the bill and the impacts.
Oppose:
Legislative Coordinators should note why we are opposed and make any
recommendations that would make the bill better, if applicable.
Priority Recommendations:
-We will be highly selective in identifying priority bills to be
High Priority Bills:
forwarded to the Intergovernmental Relations Committee (IGR). For a bill to be
recommended as a high priority bill to be actively lobbied, either in support or in
opposition, the bill would have a significant impact on City operations, services, or
finances in such ways as to fundamentally impact department administration,
organization, personnel, allocation of City resources, or local decision‐making, either
negatively or positively. The issues addressed by the bill are of significant interest to the
City even if they do not directly impact the operations, services, or finances of the City.
Examples of high priority bills could include Telecom/local pre-emption efforts, PERS
reform, Public Safety, and transportation funding.
-In addition to be bills identified as high priority, other bills and legislative issues may be
forwarded to the IGR committee to enable staff to provide supportive or opposing
written or oral testimony. Examples of issues that may require supporting testimony (as
opposed to active lobbying) include support for the Oregon Cultural Trust, support for
Exhibit A - Page 2 of 3
{00083961;1 }
one of our partner agencies lobbying efforts (University of Oregon, City of Springfield,
EWEB), etc.
Voting on bills:
The IGR Committee votes on all bill priorities and recommendations.
All unanimous positions are presented on the full City Council’s agenda for review and
approval. The minutes of the IGR Committee are ratified by the City Council. Any bill that has
been reviewed by the IGR Committee may be pulled for discussion at the request of any
Councilor or by the Mayor.
If a position the IGR Committee has taken on a bill is not unanimous, the position on that bill
will be Neutral until the full City Council weighs in and directs a position. If possible, the bill
will then be placed on the next available City Council agenda. If time makes placing the bill on
the City council agenda impossible, City council members will be emailed with the details of the
bill and asked for their direction.
Exhibit A - Page 3 of 3
{00083961;1 }