Item 2C: Ratif. of IGR Actions - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

continued to oppose the bill, the legislators could take offense and choose to pass the bill without amend- ments. Ms. Bettman asked why the legislators would object to Eugene's opposition. Mr. Heuser said they were trying to create a compromise. Ms. Bettman asked who asked for the compromise. Mr. Heuser said no one asked them for a compromise; legislators try to find compromises. They felt they had eliminated all the sections that Eugene had a problem with through the amendments. Ms. Bettman thought it worth opposing the bill because she did not think the legislature would support a bill that violated home rule authority to such an extent. Ms. Bettman said that the issue for her was that the bill, even as amended, made it easier for Lane County to form a special district. Otherwise the County would not pursue the amendment. Mr. Heuser said that some portions of the bill would make it easier, but there were still hurdles the County would have to overcome. Ms. Bettman indicated her intent to testify against the bill. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Heuser said the bill did not distinguish between different service districts. Under current law, one could not specify a purpose for a special service district. Mr. Pap~ determined from Mr. Heuser that, under the proposed legislation, Eugene could opt out of a special district through a vote of the City Council, with no financial impact on the City. Mr. Pap~ asked if the City could take a position of neutral with amendments, and continue to oppose the bill if it was not amended. Mr. Heuser recommended that course. Mr. Pap~ moved to change the status of HB 3301 to Priority 2, Neutral with amendments. The motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Taylor wanted to change the status of the bill to Priority 2, Oppose. Ms. Bettman believed it was a matter of time before Lane County pursued a special service district if the legislation was passed. It gave the County access to money it would not otherwise have. She noted legislation that had been introduced to remove the double-majority requirement in State law, and suggested it would make it easier for the County to get a ballot measure passed. In addition, she believed it was a matter of time before the County could get the needed five votes of support it needed on the council to go forward with a district. She continued to oppose the bill. Mr. Pap~ asked why the committee should preclude a future City Council, as a representative government body, from supporting such a district. Ms. Bettman was not interested in making it easier for the County to form such a district. She said there were currently hoops the County must go through, and the bill eliminated some of those hoops. It did not mean the County could not form a special district. She did not want to make it easier because she did not think it was a good idea. Mr. Pap~ was concerned about the City's credibility at the legislature if it opposed the bill. Mr. Heuser believed that to oppose the bill at this point would be to set up the City for failure. There was not much left to argue about in regard to the bill. MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 31, 2005 Page 2