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

Home Browse Search

brought them into the statute. He clarified that the person charged with the crime must have already been placed under arrest for driving under the influence of intoxicants for the law to apply. HB 3414/HB 3415 Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Jones indicated staff supported the two bills if a study or re-appropriation took into account funding for operations, preservation, and maintenance or the Oregon Transportation Commission's 2006 priorities, which would likely include operations, preservation, and maintenance. If the study or reappropriation was directed only at the seven projects on the May 2002 OTC priority list, staff was recommending that the City at most stay out of the way. Ms. Brooks added that it was her sense from reading the bill that it represented a protest regarding the Oregon Department of Transportation's failure to move on projects of statewide significance. She did not think it had anything to do with Eugene. Ms. Bettman disagreed. She believed "there were dollar signs in their eyes"; those supporting the bill believed the Oregon Transportation Improvement Act money could be made available for those projects. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bills to Oppose with an amendment that funding go to operations, maintenance, and preservation. Ms. Brooks suggested that for Eugene to take a position on the bill was essentially to be commenting on the transportation priorities of other jurisdictions around the state. Ms. Bettman said some of the money for the projects was being raised from Eugene taxpayers, who were paying increased registration fees. She asked why Eugene residents should pay such fees without the City having input into how the money was spent. Mr. Jones believed that the League of Cities and Association of Oregon Counties would not take a position on the bill because all the cities have different interests. Those cities and counties with projects on the statewide significance project list were likely to be very supportive of the bill. Ms. Brooks added she did not think the bills were going anywhere. The bills were not scheduled for hearings. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pap~ voting no. HJR 0028 Ms. Brooks noted that the resolution had a single sponsor, and been referred to committee in mid-March. She did not think it would make further progress. The committee agreed to hold the resolution over for further information. Ms. Brooks suggested that if a school education funding resolution moved forward, it was likely to be HJR 0035. It had more sponsors, and had been referred to the Revenue Committee. She recalled that the committee had voted to support that resolution. SB 0649 Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of SB 0649 to Priority 1. Mr. Pap~ determined from Mr. Lidz that the bill did not eliminate the 20-year land supply requirement. The motion passed unanimously. MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 7, 2005 Page 10