Item 8 - Ratif.IGR Comm.Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman believed the bill could create a legal expense for the City but she supported the staff recommendation. Mr. Papd and Ms. Taylor agreed. Ms. Bettman determined from Ms. Cutsogeorge that House Bill (HB) 2440 was intended to allow school districts to take advantage of urban renewal to underwrite the costs of school construction. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Ms. Cutsogeorge said that such urban renewal districts could impact the $5 cap for schools established by Ballot Measure 5. If there was no room under the cap, such districts would affect a school's general fund budget. She said the advantage for schools was that they would not have to get voter approval to issue urban bonds. She said that it would take some time for the tool to be useful for schools because bond buyers do not buy bonds from new urban renewal districts. The committee indicated acceptance of the staff recommendation to oppose HB 2440. The CCIGR considered SB 0379, held over from the previous week, related to the prosecution of crimes involving methamphetamine. Mr. Cushman recalled the committee wanted to know the source of the funding. Ms. Brooks indicated she had no further information, and the bill had not been scheduled for a hearing. The committee held the bill over again until the next meeting. Ms. Bettman referred to SB 0420, which would assess local governments a fee based on the number of public officials to support the operations of the Oregon Government Standards and Practices Commission, and asked the basis of the staff recommendation to oppose the bill. She thought Eugene had an interest in seeing there was oversight of such officials. She suggested the City could levy the fee on the officials themselves. Ms. Walston acknowledged the amount involved was small, but indicated her recommendation was based on the fact the bill was an unfunded mandate from the State and covered virtually everyone, including City employees and volunteers. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Support with amendments to limit the application of the bill to appointed and elected officials. Ms. Bettman believed that the good called for in the bill was worth supporting. Mr. Pap~ thought the issue was a State responsibility and noted his concurrence with the staff recommenda- tion. He believed there were too many such unfunded mandates. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Lidz confirmed that members of the commission were appointed by the governor. Mr. Pap~ did not believe the City could charge its officials to take office. Mr. Lidz indicated the fee would have to be paid by the City. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pap~ voting no. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~ regarding SB 0432, which proposed to convert the Land Use Board of Appeals to a land use court of appeals, Mr. Lidz indicated he did not think the legislation had much of a chance. His recommendation to monitor the bill was based on the fact it was a State issue rather than a City issue. From the City's perspective, the process would be the same. The result of the bill would be to reduce the number of people who would have standing before the court as opposed to those who have standing before the current board. He noted that the bill was supported by the Oregonians in Action. He thought the current system worked well and turning the Land Use Board of Appeals referees into judges MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 24, 2005 Page 4