Intergovernmental Relations Committee

MINUTES Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall—777 Pearl Street Eugene, Oregon April 12, 2007 Noon PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Chair; Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, members; Mary Walston, Brenda Wilson, Jessica Cross, Randi Zimmer, Mary Feldman, City Manager's Office; Ellwood Cushman, Kristi Wilde, Eugene Police Department; Eric Jones, Lacey Risdal, David Breitenstein, Steve Gallup, Public Works Department; Nancy Young, Stuart Ramsing, Planning and De- velopment Department; Myrnie Daut, Larry Hill, Sue Cutsogeorge, Glen Svendsen, Jeff Perry, Greg Rikhoff, Karen Hyatt, Char Mauch, Central Services Department; Glen Potter, Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department; Jerry Lidz, City Attorney. 1. Call to Order and Review Agenda Ms. Bettman called the meeting of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) to order at 12:03 p.m. and reviewed the agenda. 2. Review Pending Legislation HB 2872 Mr. Cushman explained that the bill was one of those intended to govern cell phone use while driving. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to oppose the bill unless it was amended to exclude two-way radios. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 810 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to accept the staff recommendation to take a Priority 3 Support stance on the bill. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 3106 In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Cushman stated that the potential negative impact to the City of Eugene included that it might create a situation in which the Department of Public Safety Standards and Training (DPSST) would not be able to provide all of the basic police training it was committed to providing when Eugene had to give up its academy and go there. He said any mandate for additional training on DPSST would exacerbate the budget problem. He related that he had looked into the training curriculum and it appeared that about 24 hours of training would fit into what the bill addressed. He believed that it would be like a 16-hour expansion, meaning that it would either cut 16 hours out of another curriculum area to accommodate it or they would have to lengthen the academy at an additional cost. Ms. Taylor said she would prefer to monitor the bill rather than oppose it. She asked if there was another MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 12, 2007 Page 1 bill that related to the DPSST. Mr. Cushman replied that there was not another bill on this particular subject. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Wilson indicated she would find out why the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) was involved. Ms. Bettman felt there was a lot of community support for more training. She wanted to support the bill. She suggested the CCIGR adopt a Priority 3 Support stance with a proposed amendment to hold the rest of the training harmless. Ms. Wilson stated that the bill could not be amended at this point, but there was a separate bill that addressed the potential cut in training. She thought the two bills could be “used against each other.” Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to adopt a Priority 2 Monitor stance with the understanding that the City supported the training but it did not want to shift resources. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 3295 Mr. Hill stated that currently there was a state program for the deferral of property taxes for seniors and/or disabled people. He said the program allowed for complete deferral of property taxes for people who were eligible, with property taxes paid by the State out of a revolving fund. He related that when the senior or disabled person left the home or the home was sold property taxes would be recovered as a lien against the property. He explained that the bill in question would leave the program intact but would create a program that was an outright exemption which would mean it would be a straight loss of property tax revenue. He noted that the legislative policies document had a strong statement in opposition to additional tax exemptions that injure local tax jurisdictions. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to monitor the bill. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2795 Mr. Perry thought the bill was a “clean up” that would allow the Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) to access wage survey data. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt a Priority 3 Support stance. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 725 Mr. Ramsing reported that the way the bill was drafted it would give BOLI the authority to address fair housing complaints, the definition of which would be expanded. He was somewhat concerned as it would now include construction. He stated that with the bill BOLI would not collect Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) monies. He said the concern lay in that BOLI could take complaints that came to its attention and would delegate the investigation to the local jurisdictions, though the HUD money would remain at the level of BOLI. He stressed that staff was not concerned with the fair housing aspect of the bill, they just opposed the method by which it was being delegated to the local jurisdictions. He noted that BOLI indicated that it was not the intention to set this up in this way, but BOLI was being intentional in chasing HUD dollars. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 12, 2007 Page 2 Ms. Bettman observed that the bill had “quite a list of sponsors.” Ms. Hyatt related that the Human Rights Program supported a prohibition on discrimination in housing, but this bill had seemed inconsistent to them. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to adopt a Priority 2 Monitor stance. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 813 Mr. Breitenstein stated that the bill sought to regulate non-point source pollution by adding a surcharge to point source dischargers, which would be, in the City’s case, both the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS-4) stormwater discharge permit and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDS) waste discharge permit that the wastewater treatment plant had in order to provide money for the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to regulate non-point source pollution. He believed that non-point source pollution was one of the biggest contributing factors to the impairment of the water quality. He noted that the most significant contributions of non-point source pollution were from agriculture and forestry practices. He thought this bill provided a subsidy which would affect ratepayers in this area by adding an extra charge on their bills. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to monitor the bill. Mr. Pryor averred that he was willing to support monitoring the bill but it seemed to him that someone wanted money. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 111 Mr. Cushman said the biggest concern lay in that the bill would make grand jury transcripts of proceedings that involved a police officer’s use of deadly force accessible to anyone. He averred that there was reason people who served on grand juries remained anonymous. He also thought if people knew their words would end up in the paper they would be more guarded about the way they would speak. Ms. Bettman said the plan would be adopted by the local jurisdictions. She thought the bill provided a standardized approach to “these kinds of extreme circumstances” and that was appropriate in this situation. She agreed that the bill should be amended so that transcripts would not be made public, though the findings would still be published. Ms. Wilson stated that the bill would have a fiscal impact. She noted that it the bill had a hearing but it still needed to go to the Ways and Means Committee. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to oppose the bill unless it was amended so that the transcripts would not be made public, but the findings would be published. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2819 Mr. Cushman believed that the bill would not fly as it was written. He said it was a very broad exemption MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 12, 2007 Page 3 to the advisement requirement. He noted the department’s desire to waive the requirement for in-car videos specifically. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the position on the bill to Oppose. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2865 Mr. Cushman stated that the bill was written with the intent to bolster impaired driving enforcement, but it was badly written and contained some unintended consequences. He opposed the bill as written. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the recommended stance on the bill to Oppose unless amended. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2874 Mr. Cushman explained that the bill required the Attorney General to take charge of the investigation or prosecution of any death caused by a police officer in the line of duty. He said it was an unfunded mandate. He stated that what would make sense in terms of standardizing the situation would be to have the Attorney General’s office review every investigation. He felt this would ensure a thorough and objective investigation had been undertaken and that there would be some consistency in how they were handled. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the recommended stance on the bill to Monitor. Ms. Bettman averred that at this point the Lane County District Attorney oversaw such investigations. Mr. Cushman affirmed that statutorily the District Attorney’s office of each county was charged with the responsibility of those types of death investigations. Ms. Bettman asserted that there was much overlap between the Eugene Police Department (EPD) and the Lane County Sheriff’s Office (LCSO) that it was “very much like having the police monitoring their own investigations.” The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2890 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to adopt the staff’s position that the bill be a Priority 3 Support with the amendment that would reduce possession of a handcuff key by someone with prior convictions to a misdemeanor. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2934 Ms. Bettman supported the underlying objective of the bill though she did not support this specific bill. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to take an Oppose stance against the bill unless it included the following three amendments: 1. Amend to grandfather in existing civilian oversight systems. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 12, 2007 Page 4  2. Amend to remove the provision that allows any member to subpoena and make it only possible if the majority of the review board supported it. 3. Amend it so that the protocol for criminal allegations would be modified – at pre- sent criminal allegations were forwarded and this could jeopardize the criminal investigation. Mr. Pryor could not support the amendments as he felt this was a local control issue and that the State should not dictate to other cities and counties to do this. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pryor dissenting. HB 3176 Mr. Cushman stated that the EPD supported the concept behind the bill but that it was pretty broad. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to adopt the recommended stance of Priority 3 Support, with an amendment to limit the authority granted by the bill (to obtain the in- formation without going through a subpoena process) were narrowed to include only situa- tions where there were exigent circumstances. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 3240 Ms. Taylor moved to adopt an Oppose stance. The motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to Drop the bill. The motion passed unani- mously, 3:0. HB 3272 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to Drop the bill. The motion passed unani- mously, 3:0. HB 3299 Mr. Cushman explained that the bill would exclude marijuana that was not dried. EPD staff thought this would allow for a person to have a large quantity of marijuana plants as long as he or she had a medical marijuana card and the plants were not dried. Ms. Wilson noted that the bill was not going anywhere. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to Monitor the bill. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 3313 Ms. Bettman asked if the County was the only entity that dealt with decontamination of properties on which drugs had been manufactured. She thought the City might want to support an expansion of the bill so that Eugene also received some of the money from a lien on a property in that circumstance. Mr. Cushman responded that he would find out whether Eugene staff engaged in contamination clean-up activities of this kind. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 12, 2007 Page 5 Ms. Bettman suggested that the CCIGR defer the discussion of the bill until this information had been determined. The committee was amendable to deferring its discussion of HB 3313. HB 2628 In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Risdal stated that the City did not have too many mercury vapor light fixtures left. She said the main issue that the Public Works Department had with the bill had to do with public safety. Ms. Bettman surmised that the bill tried to reduce the use of the mercury vapor lights. She felt a reduction in mercury overall would be a “good thing.” She asked if the City could support the bill and lobby for keeping a safer type of light on in a park after 11 p.m. Ms. Risdal replied that one of the amendments suggested by Mr. Jones was to exclude jogging paths and off-street bicycle paths. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the stance to Priority 2 Support with the following amendments, as recommended by staff: 1. Section 2, Subsection 2: Amend (d) so that fixtures on bicycle paths and jogging paths would be exempted from the requirement to be equipped with an automatic shutoff device that would prevent operation of the fixture between 11:00 p.m. and sunrise. 2. Section 2, Subsection 3: Amend (a), (Excluding) lighting fixtures on property owned or operated by the United States, to include State, County and City owned properties. 3. Amend (b), lighting needed for the safe operation of navigation of aircraft or ships, to include onstreet and offstreet bicycle paths, pedestrian paths, and jogging trails. Ms. Wilson noted that the bill was not moving. Ms. Bettman asked Ms. Wilson if she would recommend opposing the bill unless it was amended. Ms. Wilson indicated that she would. Ms. Bettman moved to adopt a Priority 2 Oppose stance with the aforementioned amend- ments. Mr. Pryor asked if it was known whether private businesses and residences used the mercury vapor light fixtures. Mr. Cushman responded that this was part of the problem with the bill; it was just not very clear. Ms. Bettman asserted that everyone knew that mercury impacted humans and that the disposal of the light fixtures had been inadequate. Mr. Pryor averred that a mercury light disposal bill might solve the problem more efficiently. Mr. Cushman stated that the main concern was not so much with the mercury vapor light as it was with some of the other provisions of the bill such as the shielding and the wattage. He said the bill almost combined provisions regarding light pollution with provisions regarding mercury vapor lamps. Ms. Taylor asked why the City would be opposed to preventing light pollution. Mr. Cushman replied that no one was opposed to that, but there was opposition to a bill that would reduce the ability of people to use lighting to provide increased security. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 12, 2007 Page 6 Ms. Taylor said she would like to prohibit all lights at night. Mr. Pryor wanted more information. He wanted to know who currently used mercury vapor lamps and what the current disposal system for them was. Mr. Pryor provided the second. The motion passed, 2:1, Ms. Taylor dissenting. SB 642 Ms. Wilson stated that there had been a hearing on SB 642 but it was unlikely that it would advance. She noted that State Senator Vicki Walker had a lot of problems with the bill. Ms. Taylor averred that she never supported excluding anyone. Ms. Taylor moved to change the stance on the bill to Priority 3 Support. Mr. Pryor asked what the usual practice was in terms of how the City treated a person convicted of a crime as opposed to someone who had been arrested. Mr. Cushman replied that the exclusion zone the City had instituted on the downtown mall several years earlier was based on the arrest. He said people were not typically penalized until after they had been convicted because of being presumed innocent until proven guilty. However, he explained, the issue with the exclusion zones was that should a person be arrested for dealing drugs, the time between that arrest and the subsequent trial could be significant. He averred that if a person was excluded from an area there was potential that the behavior could be stopped during that period of time. Mr. Pryor found the exclusion of people based on arrest to be troublesome. Mr. Cushman stated that the bill preempted a jurisdiction from establishing an exclusion zone. Regarding Mr. Pryor’s concern, he said local jurisdictions can establish the kinds of criteria for an exclusion zone, the length could be limited and an appeal process could be part of it. Additionally, he noted that the Hearings Official could separately establish probably cause for the arrest. The motion died for lack of a second. HB 3157 Mr. Cushman stated that senior patrol enforced handicapped parking. He said this bill would allow the volunteer patrol to ticket people with forged permits. Mr. Pryor said he would change the stance to a Priority 1 Support. Ms. Taylor preferred to adopt a neutral stance. Ms. Bettman ascertained from her colleagues that there would be no second. The staff recommendation to Support the bill as a Priority 3 Support stood. HB 2839 Ms. Bettman noted that the bill was moving and because of this she wanted to increase the priority. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the stance on the bill from Priority MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 12, 2007 Page 7  3 Support to Priority 2 Support. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2964 Ms. Wilson stated that HB 2964 was a companion bill to HB 2839 and was also moving. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the stance on the bill from Prior- ity 3 Support to Priority 2 Support. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2031-B Mr. Hill explained that HB 2031-B and HB 2707-C had been part of the package negotiated by the Legislature and had been passed and signed into law by the Governor. Regarding the annexation bills, Ms. Bettman had hoped that the bills would go back to staff for reevalu- ation given the policy direction that occurred at the work session held on April 11. Ms. Wilson stated that at present staff was monitoring those bills. Ms. Bettman requested that the bills be reevaluated en masse with the recommendations reflected in the new policy for the next CCIGR meeting. HB 2731 Ms. Bettman asked if staff had any idea of what portion of the tax revenue would be dedicated to public safety. Mr. Hill replied that 25 percent of the monies collected under the additional tax on malt beverages would go to the mental health, alcoholism, and drug services account and the state police would receive 75 percent of the money. He said none of the revenue would be allocated to local governments. He noted that he had suggested in his comments that an amendment to send a share to local governments was worth considering. He related that the League of Oregon Cities had conducted a study that the City of Eugene had participated in that demonstrated that the City was spending in excess of the money it received from alcohol for alcohol-related purposes. He felt the City could clearly justify additional money from alcohol taxes for local government activities, especially law enforcement and social services. After some discussion, Ms. Bettman averred that the CCIGR should take a Support with amendment stand on the bill to request that some money be allocated to local jurisdictions. Mr. Hill suggested the amendment state that the money be allocated so that local government received 25 percent, mental health services received 25 percent, and the Oregon State Police received 50 percent. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to increase the Priority to Priority 2 with the aforementioned amendment. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 3257 Mr. Hill reported that the proposal to establish a state property tax had not had a hearing. He said it “alarmed” the people working in the Finance Division. Ms. Bettman asked if that was because the dollar was not in addition to the cap. Mr. Hill replied that it would probably move people into compression. Ms. Bettman did not feel the need to change the staff recommendation. HB 2998 MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 12, 2007 Page 8 Ms. Taylor wanted to take a Neutral stance on the bill. Mr. Pryor agreed with the staff position. Mr. Svendsen said he understood the representative’s intent in the bill, but he felt it would create a lot of administrative issues in how it would work as there were no definitions of what “non-standard equipment” was. He stated that the current regulations by BOLI define the eligibility or requirement for prevailing wages in terms of the construction site. He felt it was not clear how contracting for fabrication of items would relate to the way BOLI traditionally looked at construction. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Svendsen expressed concern that with no definition of “non-standard” the bill could potentially apply to the “exhaust-scrubbing” apparatus that attached to fire engines when they were parked at the station, which were fabricated in Sweden. Ms. Bettman was unwilling to oppose the bill until she was certain what it would apply to. Ms. Taylor thought it was related to outsourcing. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the stance on the bill to Monitor. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 3463 Mr. Gallup explained that the bill would restrict the extraction of rock from alluvial sources used in ODOT contracts. Mr. Pryor asked what the motivation was to restrict the extraction. Ms. Bettman averred that the extraction impacted the rivers and salmon. Mr. Gallup pointed out that it would force road construction to find new sources and would cause new impacts in other places. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt a Neutral stance on the bill. The motion passed, 3:0. HB 3063 Mr. Perry said he recommended a neutral stance on the bill because he did not want to limit any kind of competition. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to Oppose the bill. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pryor dissenting. Mr. Pryor asked what the impact of opposing the bill would be for the Finance Division. Mr. Perry replied that opposition to the bill would let things remain as they currently are. He said from the administrative side of things the current process tied their hands a lot of the time at the end of the season when a project could be punched out in a hurry if it did not have to go out for a bid. He noted that the City had a set amount of vendors who would receive the project information regardless of whether a project was a bid or a quote. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 12, 2007 Page 9 Mr. Pryor surmised that supporting the bill would make things easier and more convenient and opposing it changed nothing. SB 716 Ms. Wilson reported that the bill was currently on the Senate floor and had been amended to remove the preemption of local governments from adopting a more uniform application of it. She noted that the original bill provided for different treatment for people in wheelchairs than other disabilities and would have prevented local governments from adopting more uniform treatment and this was no longer true. She said the only other change the bill would bring about was that the wheelchair user placard would be a different color than blue (the current color). In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Hyatt stated that the bill also provided for people who have wheelchairs to have a different placard and it allowed for one out of every eight spaces to be used only by people who had wheelchair placards. She explained that the distinction that had been removed was one the provided free parking for people with wheelchair placards. Ms. Bettman asked why the City was not supporting the bill. Ms. Wilson replied that the City was supporting it; Ms. Taylor had brought it up in order to take a Neutral stance. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt a Priority 3 Support stance. The mo- tion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2095-A Ms. Wilson reported that the bill had passed unanimously in the House. Ms. Bettman moved to take a Priority 2 Oppose stance. Ms. Bettman interpreted the bill to indicate that a person who earned $3 million could be subsidized to purchase a house worth $1 million. Ms. Taylor said the working poor needed help with housing as the housing prices went up. Mr. Pryor commented that opposition to the bill created hardship for many out of fear that a few could abuse it. He thought in the real world that he was less concerned that a few rich people could take advantage of the program than he was concerned that a lot of poor people could not take advantage of it. He preferred to err on the side of a lot of poor people Ms. Bettman revised her motion to take a Priority 2 Oppose stance with an amendment to create a definition for low income housing which was consistent with the definition for low income and affordable housing that was already being used in the City of Eugene. Mr. Lidz noted that Mr. Weinman’s comments indicated that the bill had been amended to address the concern about affordable housing. Ms. Bettman reiterated her motion and the motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Bettman asked to pull the bill for City Council discussion. SB 839 MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 12, 2007 Page 10 Ms. Wilson reported that the bill was not moving. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, to change the stance to Monitor. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 869 Ms. Wilson noted that the bill was also not moving. Ms. Taylor was amenable to letting the staff recommendation to Drop the bill stand. SB 701 Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman moved to change the stance on the bill to Support. Mr. Pryor did not want the aspects of the bill that took away local control. Ms. Bettman disagreed that it was an issue of local control, calling the bill the “epitome of local control.” The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pryor dissenting. HB 3455 Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, stated that the bill was not going anywhere at this point. Ms. Bettman thought the CCIGR should support the bill with an amendment. She added that it would be good to have more information and requested that the bill be deferred until the following week. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to Monitor the bill. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 696 Ms. Bettman indicated she agreed with the staff recommendation to take a Priority 3 Support position on the bill. HB 3229 Ms. Bettman asked why there was no support for the bill. Ms. Young replied that it was one of many placeholders. She said the one that was going forward was SB 707. She understood that the bill had been “gutted and stuffed.” Ms. Wilson added that the bill seemed dead. HB 3018 Mr. Jones stated that the bill increased vehicle registration fees, a portion of which went to projects of statewide significance. He added that “statewide significance” was notably not defined. He believed that there was a possibility that a portion of this money could be distributed to cities and counties. He said the MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 12, 2007 Page 11 disposition of the remainder of the money was not clear at this time. He stated that the bill did not seem to be moving. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the stance to Monitor. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Mr. Pryor noted that the bill also deleted the requirement that vehicle registration fees be approved by county voters. He asked if that indicated that the Lane Board of County Commissioners could pass a vehicle registration fee without having to go to a vote. Mr. Jones affirmed this was true. HB 3413 Mr. Jones stated that the bill specified what projects of statewide significance were. He stated that it was not a helpful definition for the region because of the nature of the May, 2002, list. He noted that it also did not include operations, maintenance, and preservation as a defined use. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to adopt a Priority 2 Oppose position on the bill with a proposed amendment to update the project list to include local OM&P projects. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 855 Mr. Jones thought the bill mirrored HB 2778 which had already received a hearing. Ms. Wilson thought the bill was dead. Mr. Jones suggested the CCIGR adopt a Monitor stance on the bill. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to take a Monitor stance. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2200 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to increase the priority given the bill to a Priority 2 Support. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 2 Ms. Wilson reported that this bill already passed through the Senate on a 21:7 vote. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to increase the priority given the bill to Pri- ority 1 Support. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 3520 Ms. Wilde explained that this was a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) consolidation bill that was undefined. Ms. Bettman asked why the stance on the bill was Priority 1 Oppose. Ms. Wilde replied that past policy was such that consolidation should be a local merit-based decision related to services and costs. She said the bill would take away local control for PSAP consolidation. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 12, 2007 Page 12  Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the priority for the bill to a Prior- ity 2 Oppose. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2644 Ms. Wilson reported that the bill was not moving. She noted that Ms. Taylor had suggested a Neutral stance on the bill. Mr. Jones related that Airport Manager Bob Noble had indicated that the bill had a broad usefulness in terms of economic development but was not significant for the Eugene Airport. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to Drop the bill. The motion passed unani- mously, 3:0. SB 971 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the priority for the bill to a Prior- ity 2 Support. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2700-A Ms. Wilson reported that the bill had passed the house by a 49:1 vote. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the stance on the bill to a Priority 3 Support. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 3079 Ms. Wilson said she thought it was a dead bill. Ms. Bettman agreed to leave the staff recommendation as it stood. HB 2311-A Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the priority for the bill to a Prior- ity 2 Support. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 915 Ms. Bettman said she would want to move to support the bill with an amendment to delete the requirement that the court should award the attorney’s fees. Mr. Lidz stated that the concern regarding the bill lay in the addition of punitive damages. He said this would be almost the only situation in which a court could level punitive damages against a government body. He felt the whistleblower statute was a “tricky thing.” He believed the underlying policy to be very important, but he also believed that one person’s whistleblower was another person’s insubordinate employee. Ms. Bettman moved to adopt a Support stance with an amendment to delete the unlimited punitive damages and delete the mandated award of attorney’s fees. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 12, 2007 Page 13 Ms. Wilson thought it would be easier to kill the bill rather than asking that it be amended. Mr. Pryor, noting the clause requiring someone to serve as ombudsman, asked if there was already someone who would act on behalf of the employees. Mr. Lidz replied that there was not anyone who served in that capacity other than the Union representatives. Ms. Taylor provided a second. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 948 Ms. Bettman related that she had heard concern expressed in the community that there was no planning process for locating services. She averred that there should be a planning process other than just having “some entity shopping around” and determining what its needs were. She liked the bill. Mr. Pryor declared a potential conflict of interest. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to take a Priority 3 Support stance on the bill. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2595 Mr. Lidz said while he had indicated there should be support for the bill he did not think active support was necessary. Ms. Walston commented that the bill was housekeeping from her reading of the bill. She thought the bill should be monitored given the current existing workload for the Intergovernmental Relations Manager in Salem. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to adopt a Priority 3 Support stance on the bill. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to approve the positions of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations on the bills that had been reviewed at the meeting held on April 12, 2007, and to approve the staff recommendations on the bills that had not been pulled for review. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Mr. Pryor left the meeting at 2:10 p.m. 3. Approval of Minutes This item was carried over to the next meeting. 4. Items from Members and Staff Ms. Bettman stated that the four bills that the CCIGR had not reviewed and the annexation bills would be carried over to the next meeting. She thought there should be some meetings set for the IGR operating procedure committee. She also requested that staff comments on bills contain both a pro and a con point of view. She also requested that information on the bills include who introduced the bill and who MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 12, 2007 Page 14 sponsored it. Additionally, she thought bills introduced on behalf of the City should be reviewed by the CCIGR before the bills were put forward. The meeting adjourned at 2:13 p.m. (Recorded by Ruth Atcherson) MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 12, 2007 Page 15