Item 8 - Ratif.of IGR Actions - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman regarding the staff recommendation for SB 013 6, related to flaggers employed projects regulated under federal Davis-Bacon Act, Mr. Jones said the legislation was introduced at the request of the director of the Bureau of Labor and Industries. He had recommended a neutral position because he did not think the bill would impact the City as there was not a significant differential between City and federal wage rates. Ms. Bettman did not think the City should support such an erosion of wages. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the status of the bill to Oppose. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pap6 voting no. At the request of Mr. Pap6, Mr. Hill reviewed Senate Joint Resolution 0001, which would change Oregon's ad valorem property tax system to a site value, or split system, that could be enacted by a local government. It would allow for the differential taxation of land and improvements. He said the system was currently in use in several Pennsylvania communities. It was intended to accomplish social goals through increased urban development, urban densities, and infrastructure, as that would be taxed at a lower rate than land, making it relatively cheaper to develop. In such a system it would be more costly to hold vacant land. The legislation offered an exemption from the current caps for the districts or governments implementing a site value system. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Hill acknowledged that the change would allow different taxing system to be established in, for example, a school district, a county, and a city. Mr. Hill recommended that the City continue to monitor the legislation. He said it was a very complex issue. The committee concurred. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman about the staff recommendation to drop HB 2327A, related to forest fire protection, Mr. Heuser said staff recommendation was based on the fact it was a State General Fund issue. Ms. Bettman asked if private land would be covered. Mr. Heuser said yes. He said that rather than raising fees for additional insurance, the legislature proposed to use General Fund dollars. He said every state handled the issue differently. Ms. Bettman opposed the shifting of privately generated costs onto the State. She thought those costs should be recovered. Ms. Bettman moved to change the status of liB 2327A to Oppose. Mr. Heuser cautioned the committee that the bill was on a fast track and enjoyed very wide bipartisan support. He believed it would be a waste of the City's political capital to oppose the bill, and recommended the City take a neutral position on the bill. Ms. Bettman's motion died for lack of second. Ms. Bettman argued that the City had a legitimate interest in the status of the State's General Fund given the service reductions that had occurred on the State level. Mr. Heuser suggested that such involvement in State affairs would serve to empower the State to look more carefully into Eugene's activities. He recommended that the committee write a letter to the Lane County delegation expressing its concerns. MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 11, 2005 Page 8