Item 2C: Ratification of IGR Committee Minutes of January 30, 2007

Home Browse Search

Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the status of the bill to Monitor. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Ms. Bettman continued to believe that the bill would increase funding for education. Ms. Wilson indicated she would follow up with the Oregon Education Association about its position on the bill. Referring to HB 2239, Mr. Hill reviewed the bill, saying it was introduced by the Department of Revenue (DOR) and it would modify the procedure for reviewing the assessment rules and modifying an assessment. As drafted, the bill was a technical bill, and he could identify no impact on the City of Eugene, but suggested that the bill could be modified to ensure cities were notified when assessments within their boundaries were appealed or reassessed. He recommended a position of Neutral with the intent of seeking such an amend- ment. If the amendment could be obtained, he recommended the City support the bill. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the status of the bill to Neutral with an amendment. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Mr. Hill said that HB 2236 was also introduced at the request of Governor Ted Kulongoski through the DOR. It was intended to address the fact some tax appeals take years to resolve. During that time, interest accrues on any refund, and the bill would allow a county Board of County Commissioners to evaluate the risk in an appeal and pay the appeal pending resolution to save those interests costs. In the case government wins the appeal, the money would be returned. He believed that the delinquent taxes were subject to interest as well when returned. Ms. Bettman thought the better remedy was to decrease the interest rate that accrues on the disputed amount during the length of the appeal, and considered the bill a second-best remedy. Ms. Wilson said she would check with the County on its position. Mr. Pryor suggested that the City take a position consistent with that of the County. Ms. Bettman concurred, saying she wanted to hear from the County so the CCIGR could take a position. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to take a position of Neutral on the bill pend- ing input from the County. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Regarding SJR 10, Mr. Hill said the resolution proposed a constitutional amendment to change the double- majority requirements for local tax measures. He recommended the committee take a position of Priority 1, Support. Mr. Pryor supported the staff recommendation. Ms. Bettman disagreed with the staff position, saying she understood that government employees might support such a bill, but from the taxpayer point of view, it created a higher threshold for new taxation. She did not necessarily support the double-majority but she did support having money measures on the ballot when people were engaged in the election process, which was in general election years. Ms. Bettman moved to change the City’s position on the bill to Priority 3, Support. The motion died for a lack of a second. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental January 30, 2007 Page 4 Relations