Intergovernmental Relations Committee

MINUTES Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street, Eugene, Oregon April 19, 2007 Noon PRESENT: Bonny Bettman, Betty Taylor, Chris Pryor, members; Mayor Kitty Piercy; Mary Walston, Jessica Cross, Brenda Wilson, Randi Zimmer, Mary Feldman, City Manager's Office; Helen Towle, Myrnie Daut, Human Resource and Risk Services; Richie Weinman, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Eric Jones, Therese Walsh, Public Works Department; Renee Grube, Sara Medary, Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services; Glen Svendsen, Facilities. 1. Call to Order and Review Agenda Ms. Bettman called the meeting to order. 2. Approval of Minutes Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to approve the minutes of April 5, 2007. The mo- tion passed unanimously, 3:0. 3. Review Pending Legislation HB 3397 Ms. Towle explained that House Bill (HB) 3397 would have a significant impact on many services, beginning with the services delivered by the Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services and Public Works Department. It would increase the cost of temporary employees by 40 to 50 percent because it increased wages and included a 30 percent surcharge. A significant percentage of recreation services were provided by temporary employees, many of whom were college students. The same was true of summer work at Public Works. She said that one of the reasons employers given benefits and increase wages was as a means of employee retention. Ms. Bettman asked the impact of the bill on employment agencies. Ms. Towle said they would have to increase their wage scales as well. Ms. Towle clarified that when the City used temporary agencies, it paid the wages through the temporary agency. She said that generally the City hired such employees directly, and had only employed temporary agencies over the past two years. The bill would make the City a co- employer in such circumstances, and the bill have the same impact as it did on the City’s own temporary employees. It also applied to contractors. Ms. Bettman asked if there was any momentum behind the bill. Ms. Wilson said no. It was introduced on behalf of the Northwest Workers Justice Project. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 19, 2007 Page 1 Ms. Taylor was concerned about temporary workers who were actually permanent but kept in that status to be kept at lower wages. She thought the intent of the bill was good. Ms. Towle pointed out the City’s part-time employees were represented by bargaining units and were fully benefited. The bill would impact the City’s ability to provide the services now provided by temporary workers. Ms. Grube noted that the City recently added 20 regular positions to replace what were formerly temporary positions because those employees were regularly working more hours. The department continually evaluated its use of such employees and they were all seasonal or sporadic, based on existing needs. Ms. Bettman asked why the bill would have such a significant financial impact on the City if it was doing a good job for its temporary employees. Ms. Towle said it eliminate wage differentials between temporary and regular employees and required a 30 percent surcharge to be paid to temporary employees. Ms. Bettman did not want to create a financial burden on the City but suggested the bill might be a good bill otherwise. She suggested that the City’s take a position of oppose with an amendment that made the bill consistent with what the City offered its temporary employees. Ms. Towle explained that a unionized environment helped keep the use of temporary employees down as the union owned the work being done and had a right to bargain regarding the use of temporary employ- ees. All the City’s union contracts limited the use of temporary employees to a certain number of hours in a calendar year. She suggested that the bill could be amended to exclude temporary employees who worked less than a certain number of hours; less than half time in a year was the City’s most generous definition. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman about the progress the bill was likely to make, Ms. Wilson said the bill was very complex but it did not take into account many other issues such as PERS and had it far-reaching implications and would be very difficult to administer. Ms. Towle thought it would be difficult to amend because it was so complex. Ms. Wilson thought it would be easier to kill the bill than amend it. Ms. Towle said the City did not support the misuse of temporary employees and had worked hard with the Recreation Division to identify the distinctions between employees. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to accept the proposed status of Priority 1 Oppose and seek amendments related to the definition to be crafted by staff. Mayor Piercy said it the bill emerged, the committee should be careful to say it supported the intention of the bill. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2118A Ms. Bettman indicated she had the opportunity to review the bill and accepted the staff recommendation for House Bill (HB) 2118A. HB 3264 Mr. Weinman said both bills, HB 3624 and HB 3363, were a lot of work without benefit to the City. He termed the reporting requirement in HB 3624 an unfunded mandate. Ms. Bettman agreed, but said she believed the bill provided a means of ensuring public disclosure and accountability in regard to how money was spent on economic development. She said that in the past, Eugene had attempted to target its subsidies to job provision but was thwarted by the existing State regulations. The bill removed that MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 19, 2007 Page 2 limitation and gave the City the ability to ask for “claw-backs.” She supported the bill as she believed it improved the statutes related to economic development. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 2, Support. Responding to a question from Mr. Pryor, Mr. Weinman did not know what the reporting requirement would cost the City. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman regarding the cost of the Multiple Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) and the enterprise zone, Mr. Weinman said the City’s costs were minimal as the Assessor’s Office was doing most of the work and the City’s applications fees covered its costs. Staff was concerned about the additional work load that would result from the bill. Mr. Pryor asked what problem the bill would solve. Ms. Bettman said the bill would require public disclosure of a subsidy, would create a nexus between the subsidy and the quality of the job created, and allow for the recapture of subsidies to businesses in default. Ms. Wilson said the bills were similar to bills introduced in the senate and a working group had been formed to merge the bills into a single bill. The individual leading the work group was from Minnesota, which had enacted a similar bill that was working well in that state. She said that she could return with more information about the work group process. Ms. Taylor wanted to support the bill. Mr. Pryor suggested the bill be monitored. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pryor voting no. HB 3363 Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 2 Support. Ms. Bettman thought the bill’s requirements were minimal as it essentially provided for a tracking mechanism. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pryor voting no. HB 2944-A Ms. Wilson noted widespread opposition to the bill, which was “gut and stuffed.” The original draft was written by the League of Oregon Cities and modified by the Committee on Business and Labor. Several prevailing wage bills had been moving, and this bill had some of the bad prevailing wage bills merged into it. Mr. Weinman said the bill would apply State prevailing wages to all low-income housing projects, which would increase the cost of such housing by 30 percent. Projects like WestTown on 8th Avenue could not have been built at all. It exempted projects of four stories or less, which was at odds with the City’s goal of compact urban growth. He supported fair wages, but said some of the Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) rates were out of scale. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 19, 2007 Page 3 Mayor Piercy suggested the staff recommendation might be different if the bill did not address low-income housing. Mr. Weinman did not think so. He said the bill would also affect other City projects, such as downtown projects. Ms. Bettman determined from Ms. Wilson that the BOLI Commissioner supported the bill. Ms. Bettman said she would like to see a living wage bill that the City could support. Mr. Weinman did not perceive the bill as being a living wage bill. Mayor Piercy said the bill touched on living wages and equity and she needed more information to take a position. However, the bill appeared to be badly written and she could oppose it on that basis. She said there was a tension between wanting the best deal for the City and the best deal for citizens. Ms. Bettman recommended the committee monitor the bill. Ms. Wilson suggested that the committee support the prevailing wage element of the bill but limit the public works definition that the bill applied to. Ms. Bettman was willing to exempt low-income housing but did not think that other general public works projects should be exempted. She suggested the City should take on the issue of the BOLI wages rather than continue to oppose living wage bills. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to take a position of Priority 2, Monitor, on the bill. Mr. Pryor was willing to support the motion but thought the issues of wages needed to be well thought out. There were many factors that affected how people were paid because they were interconnected. He agreed the council should have a conversation on the topic. He thought it was difficult to take a position on such bills without that conversation. He thought that as other such bills come up, the committee should take a position of monitor pending that discussion. Mayor Piercy suggested it would be helpful to asterisk such issues because they come up every legislative session. At the end of the session, the council could have more extensive discussions to be prepared for the next session. Ms. Bettman also wanted to discuss bills that could be introduced by the City. She said the City continued to come against State statutes on particular issues, and if the council thought people should be paid adequate wages, it should introduce a bill to that effect. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 3005 Mr. Cushman said he recommended a position of Monitor because the bill, which was related to sex offender reporting, could be amended. He said that it was unlikely the City would support it because it was unlikely the Sheriff’s Office would be able to do the work needed. Ms. Bettman liked the idea of a local reporting structure for sex offenders as a better means of tracking such individuals. Mr. Cushman said the County already had many mandates and he did not think it had the staff to meet the three-day reporting requirements included in the bill. Ms. Bettman asked how many sex offenders were registered in Lane County. Mr. Cushman did not know. He said that currently, sex offenders could register with any police department, which diffused the work load. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 19, 2007 Page 4 Ms. Bettman wanted to support the bill at a high priority level and lobby for an amendment that provided funding to support it. Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy, Mr. Cushman said he would characterize the current system as working. He did not think the bill would make the system work any better. Mayor Piercy agreed with Ms. Bettman’s concerns but suggested the City continue to monitor the bill given the additional work load it would create. Ms. Bettman concurred. She asked why the definition of half-way house was deleted in the bill. Mr. Cushman did not know. Ms. Wilson noted that the bill had not moved at all. SB 846 Ms. Wilson said the bill, which would require law enforcement agencies to take DNA samples from persons arrested for certain felony crimes, had not yet been referred to a committee. She believed the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) would be opposed to it and said she could double-check that. The bill was sponsored by Senator Winters and Ms. Wilson speculated that it arose from a personal situation. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to drop the bill from consideration. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Mr. Cushman recommended that the committee also drop HB 2949, which was identical. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to drop HB 2949 from consideration. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SJR 32 Ms. Bettman support Senate Joint Resolution (SJR) 32, which would amend the Oregon Constitution to allow revenue from gas taxes and vehicle registration fees to go to the State police, with an amendment to hold the existing allocations to the cities harmless. Mr. Jones said the bill appeared to be stalled while other related bills were moving forward. He asked if those were perhaps more viable bills to support. Ms. Wilson said if the joint resolution passed, the legislature would refer an amendment to the Oregon Constitution to the voters. She agreed there were other bills the legislature was considering, and if it could succeed with legislation, it would turn to the ballot. Ms. Wilson suggested the City also work toward a similar amendment for the related bills. The committee concurred. Ms. Taylor opposed the bill because it would place a constitutional amendment on the ballot. Mayor Piercy concurred. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to assign the bill a status of Priority 3, Sup- port with amendments. The motion passed, 2:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. HB 2372-A MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 19, 2007 Page 5 Ms. Bettman wanted to support the bill, which would require employers of 25 or more employees to provide unpaid rest periods to employees to express milk. Mr. Pryor asked about the current law and what the bill changed. Ms. Daut said the law currently encouraged employers to make accommodation for breast feeding available. The bill was more specific than that. She had not recommended support for the bill because of the council’s policy related to mandates. Ms. Daut noted that initially, the bill was targeted at school districts. Ms. Bettman said breastfeeding was a health issue for both mother and baby as well as a gender equity issue. She believed that breast-feeding mothers were discriminated against in the work place. Mr. Pryor also supported the bill. Ms. Wilson noted that the bill had passed the House. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 3, Support. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2761 Ms. Feldman recommended the committee take a position of monitor on the bill, which would allow cities, counties, and special districts to employ instant runoff voting. She noted that the Association of County Clerks was very opposed to the bill because should individual jurisdictions opt to do use that approach, it would be the jurisdiction’s responsibility to cover all the added costs. The jurisdiction would have to pay for the needed technology or hand counting. It would require separate ballots, adding to the mailing costs. Ms. Bettman pointed out the bill did not mandate instant runoff voting. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 3, Support. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Mr. Pryor indicated support for the bill because it did not mandate instant runoff voting. HJR 43 Ms. Feldman said the resolution was the same as SJR 17, which she recommended the City oppose. She said the Oregon Revised Statutes provided for registered voters to update their registration until 8 p.m. on Registration Day, or until the polls closed. This would allow those who moved from out of state to register on Election Day without a way of verifying whether they voted that day in another state. Some believed it would lead to massive voter fraud. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 2, Oppose. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0 Mayor Piercy had concerns about people being able to register closer to the election date but was persuaded by Ms. Feldman’s comments to support the staff recommendation. Ms. Bettman pointed out that with mail-in ballots people had three weeks to vote and plenty of time to register. SB 972 MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 19, 2007 Page 6 Ms. Bettman thought the bill complicated and she did not know if it was better or worse than what was in place. She recommended the City drop the bill from further consideration. Ms. Walston thought there were other better bills, and concurred with Ms. Bettman’s recommendation to drop the bill. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to drop the bill. The motion passed unani- mously, 3:0. HB 3333 Ms. Bettman determined from Ms. Wilson that the bill was not making headway. Ms. Walston noted the bill was targeted toward protection of electronic cookies. Ms. Bettman indicated acceptance of the recommendation. Mr. Pryor said if cookies were made public they could be exploited by others. Ms. Walston said that Information Services Director Randy Kolb had indicated that the City would have to warn people it was collecting data it did not intend to use. HB 3531 Ms. Taylor questioned if the bill, which would prohibit counties from imposing a surcharge on Oregon income tax, was worth any effort. Ms. Wilson acknowledged the bill had not made any progress. The committee agreed to accept the staff recommendation to oppose the bill. SB 496 Ms. Walston believed the bill made some improvements and had recommended support. Ms. Bettman was concerned about the extension of time for the investigation phase of a complaint. Mr. Pryor said the bill added time that benefited both the commission and those making complaints as it gave them more time to marshal their arguments. Mayor Piercy said the commission had resource issues as well. Ms. Wilson said the bill had a hearing at the beginning of the session. She thought it would be merged with other bills. Ms. Bettman determined from Ms. Walston that the City had no registration process for lobbyist and to her knowledge no other Oregon city had one. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the status of the bill to Monitor. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. The committee then considered the bills related to annexation. Mr. Yeiter recalled the council’s direction regarding annexation as reflected in a series of motions distributed to the committee. Ms. Wilson indicated all the annexations bills being considered would be merged in HB 2760. HB 2025 MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 19, 2007 Page 7 Ms. Bettman questioned why the City would oppose the bill when it did not seem to apply to Eugene. Mr. Yeiter acknowledged that he could think where the bill would apply locally. Ms. Wilson thought the bill was introduced to address a specific situation elsewhere in the state. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to drop the bill. The motion passed unani- mously, 3:0. HB 2050 Ms. Bettman wanted staff to oppose the bill vigorously because it violated home rule. HB 2638 Mr. Yeiter recommended the City’s position on the bill be changed to Priority 3 rather than Priority 2, while maintaining opposition on the bill. Ms. Bettman wanted to oppose the bill with amendments that distinguished between voluntary and involuntary annexations. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to maintain a status of Priority 2, Oppose with amendments to distinguish between voluntary and involuntary annexations. The mo- tion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2760 Mr. Yeiter noted this was the bill that would be “gut and stuffed” in the end. Ms. Wilson recommended the City take a position of Monitor on the bill as it would be very different in the future. She said that staff would monitor the bill to ensure any amendments reflected the committee’s position on the related annexation bills. HB 3011 Responding to a suggestion from Ms. Bettman that the City monitor the bill, Ms. Wilson indicated she preferred the committee take an oppose or support position with amendments to address the principle items in the bill of interest to the City. Ms. Bettman confirmed with Mr. Yeiter that the bill eliminated noncontiguous annexations even if they were voluntary annexations. She thought that ability should be preserved because of the fact of the urban transition area. She also thought voluntary island annexations should be allowed in extenuating circum- stances or where a certain percentage of the street system being annexed created an island. Mr. Pryor noted the bill would prevent streets from being used to create a contiguous annexation, which he thought a bad thing. Mr. Yeiter agreed. He said the City had treated the urban transition area as though every thing was contiguous but other communities only annexed contiguous properties. He said that members of the committee working on annexation bills were concerned that annexation of streets could be misused. Ms. Bettman said she would be inclined to support many of the bills in question if the boundary commis- sion was to continue, but it appeared the commission would be abolished, and if that was the case she wanted to preserve as much home rule authority as possible for the council. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 19, 2007 Page 8  Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to oppose the bill unless amended to allow noncontiguous and island annexations. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 3012 Ms. Bettman suggested the City take a Priority 2 Oppose position on the bill. Mr. Yeiter had no objection. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 2, Oppose. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 3013 The committee accepted the staff recommendation that the City take a Neutral position on the bill. HB 3291 The committee had no objection to the staff recommendation of Priority 3, Oppose. HB 3303/HB 3304 The committee indicated acceptance of the staff recommendations for both HB 3303 and HB 3304. HB 3410 Mr. Yeiter said he had recommended the status of the bill be changed to Priority 2, Oppose. There was no objection to the staff recommendation. HB 3446 The committee had no objection toe the staff recommendation Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to accept the committee’s recommendations on the bills and the recommendation of staff on the bills not discussed. The motion passed unanimously. 4. Items from Members and Staff The committee agreed to consider its operating agreements at the next meeting. Mayor Piercy asked if the full council had taken a position on the legislation supporting the establishment of an Area Commission on Transportation in Lane County. Ms. Wilson said the council had not discussed the bill but the CCIGR had taken unanimous position of support. Mayor Piercy indicated she would raise the bill at the council. She had mixed feelings about the bill. She preferred to see a bill that directed the government partners to discuss the formation of an Area Commission on Transportation rather than have the legislature make that decision. She had shared that with Representative Holvey. Mayor Piercy acknowledged there was support for the concept but her objection was the lack of an inter-jurisdictional conversation on the topic. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 19, 2007 Page 9 Ms. Bettman believed such a conversation had occurred over and over again throughout the years at the Metropolitan Policy Committee. Mayor Piercy said that it had not occurred in her time as mayor. Ms. Bettman said that under the Metropolitan Policy Committee model such a commission would never be formed. She supported the legislation because she believed it would give some semblance of structure to the decision making process for expending State money, rather than Lane County being its “own little fiefdom.” Mayor Piercy acknowledged Ms. Bettman’s reasoning, but thought there should have been a discussion. She pointed out that the legislation to separate the Springfield and Eugene urban growth boundaries and that occurred without a conversation with Eugene. Ms. Bettman believed that given some of the urban growth boundary expansions that had occurred in the past, it made no difference if the legislation succeeded. She said that Eugene had “just stood aside” and let Springfield do what it wanted. She cited the Blue Water Boats proposal as an example. Mayor Piercy did not agree, saying the metropolitan area should be making decisions together. Ms. Bettman said the two cities had philosophical differences and values and different constituencies. She thought another problem was what she considered disproportional representation on the Metropolitan Policy Committee because Eugene had the same number of representatives as the other communities rather than more representatives to reflect its greater population. She thought that represented a major dysfunction. Mayor Piercy said she preferred to have community conversations first. Ms. Bettman asked “then what would you do?” Mayor Piercy did not know where the conversation would lead to so could not answer the question. Ms. Bettman suggested that it would lead to Springfield having its way without compromise or it would go its own way. Ms. Taylor said there was never going to be agreement about an Area Commission on Transportation. Mayor Piercy wanted the City to model good behavior and to keep working with its interjurisdictional partners. Ms. Bettman replied that modeling good behavior was having a sustainable transportation system. Mayor Piercy did not think that one precluded the other. Ms. Bettman said so far, it had. Mayor Piercy said it did not have to be so. The next meeting was scheduled for April 26, 2007. Ms. Bettman adjourned the meeting at 1:36 p.m. (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 19, 2007 Page 10