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

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman was glad to see a focus on methamphetamine given the escalating nature of the problem. Mr. Heuser noted that the bill directed the Department of Justice to proceed as directed, subject to the availability of funds. He said that the use of the phrase %ubject to the availability of funds" was a trend the committee would see in other bills. Rather than put off a bill due to a lack of money, in this case as in many others, legislators were choosing to establish a legal framework for a grant structure for a time when money was available. Mr. Pap~ thought that was a dangerous precedent to establish. Ms. Bettman suggested that staff develop a process to monitor bills for their funding source. Mr. Heuser said he would ask the legislative coordinators to call that information out. Ms. Bettman asked why staff recommended the City oppose SB 0425, which would require a percentage of the cost of all urban renewal projects to be for affordable housing. She thought it sounded like a great idea. Mr. Weinman said the bill was an attempt by Portland low-income housing advocates to force the Portland Development Commission (PDC) to spend urban renewal dollars on housing. He did not think it made sense for other urban renewal agencies statewide, such as those located in industrial areas, and for districts with little revenue such as the City's Riverfront District. It would direct 20 percent of the revenues from the intended purposes of the district on housing. Ms. Bettman pointed out that if the City could demonstrate an adequate supply of low-income housing outside the urban renewal district, it would be exempt. Mr. Weinman said the City did not have anywhere near an adequate supply of low-income housing. The City had 20,000 households eligible for subsidized housing, and fewer than 4,000 people being served. Ms. Bettman asked how the State would determine the City had an adequate supply for the purposes of the bill. Mr. Weinman did not know. Ms. Bettman suggested that Eugene would benefit from the bill if cities such as Portland had to provide more low-income housing. If more low-income housing was spread around the state, that would relieve the burden on jurisdictions such as Eugene that had a commitment to low-income housing. Mr. Weinman said that Portland had an active low-income housing effort. For the most part, poor people were not very mobile, and people needing low-income housing in Eugene tended to be long-term Eugene residents. The same was true of Portland. The provision of more low-income housing in Portland did not solve the problem in Eugene. Ms. Bettman believed that was debatable. Ms. Bettman asked if the bill was scheduled for a hearing. Mr. Heuser did not think it had been scheduled. Mr. Weinman anticipated the bill would be unlikely to get out of committee given the opposition of PDC. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Neutral. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Weinman said he did not think the implications of the bill were widely understood. He did not think the bill served the City of Eugene well. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pap~ voting no. Priority 3 Bills Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman regarding SB 2034, which proposed to authorize the deposit of public funds into financial institutions outside Oregon in certain circumstances, Ms. Cutsogeorge said the bill would ensure the City's certificates of deposit to be 100 percent secure because of FDIC insurance. She believed it would be more secure than the current situation. In addition, there was more potential for earning more interest due to reduced costs. MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 11, 2005 Page 3