Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Heuser confirmed the bill was introduced at the behest of the <br />governor. Mr. Heuser noted the broad bipartisan support for the bill, which would authorize the issuance of <br />lottery bonds for transportation projects, and said he would be asked how the bill affected the City of <br />Eugene. Ms. Bettman maintained that during each session, the legislature found a way to indebt future <br />generations for transportation projects. She believed that the last transportation bill had been a complete <br />%oondoggle" as it benefited the construction industry at the expense of schools and the Oregon Health Plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Heuser said that the school groups and social service groups were not opposed to the bill. Ms. Bettman <br />said that was because ;;they had not connected the dots" between the issues of transportation funding and <br />school funding. She opposed the concept of borrowing against future lottery revenue to build more roads. <br />She objected to the fact only ten percent was to be dedicated to alternative modes. <br /> <br />Mr. Jones indicated the bill was likely to change between the House and Senate. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap6 did not object to monitoring the bill for the time being. <br /> <br />Mr. Heuser questioned what impact the City's opposition to the bill would have in the absence of opposition <br />from the school and social service supporters. Ms. Bettman said that those entities were afraid to alienate <br />their legislators with their opposition. Such bills had considerable support among legislators, who wanted to <br />%ring home the pork." She said the bill was bad from many perspectives. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Jones indicated his belief that if the legislature was to do <br />anything in regard to transportation funding, the bill in question was the vehicle it would use to accomplish <br />that goal. Mr. Pap~ did not want to oppose the bill and preferred to attempt to get it amended. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pap~ voting no. <br /> <br />Priority 3 Bills <br /> <br />HB 2199B <br /> <br />The committee considered HB 2199B, related to vertical housing developments, held over from the previous <br />meeting. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Weinman believed the cost of administering the program <br />would be negligible for the City since the application would be made to the State rather than to the City. <br />Ms. Bettman had no further questions about the bill. <br /> <br />HB 1048A <br /> <br />Mr. Weinman said the bill, related to the coordination of social service efforts, was not going to make any <br />further progress. It had not received a hearing. The committee indicated acceptance of the staff- <br />recommended position to support the bill. <br /> <br />HB 3310A <br /> <br />MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations May 26, 2005 Page 5 <br /> <br /> <br />