Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
agreed. He said the bill did not accomplish what he <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor moved to change the status of the bill to Monitor. The motion died for lack of a <br />second. <br /> <br />HB 2653 <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 2, Monitor. The motion died <br />for lack of a second. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked about the status of the bill and the potential it could evolve into something with a local <br />impact. Ms. Wilson indicated the bill had not yet received a hearing. Mr. Jones recalled that a retailer <br />testifying before the council on the local gas tax had indicated the intent of the bill was to increase the gas <br />tax in return for a pre-emption on local fuel taxes. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman preferred the bill without amendments. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 1, <br />Support. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. <br /> <br />HB 2691 <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor wanted to amend the bill to allow cities to collect a vehicle registration fee. Mr. Jones noted that <br />the bill would provide some funding to Eugene if Lane County decided to pursue a vehicle registration fee. <br />Ms. Bettman determined that current law allowed the City to receive up to 40 percent of those revenues, and <br />suggested that the bill be amended to make the revenues shared with cities proportional to their populations. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy supported the bill in its current form given the financial stress Lane County was operating <br />under. Ms. Bettman questioned why the council would not oppose the bill. Mr. Jones recalled that the City <br />Council had discussed such a registration fee as a funding strategy for roads. Mayor Piercy suggested that <br />40 percent was better than nothing. Mr. Pryor suggested another approach to consider was allocating the <br />funding on the basis of road mileage if the intent of the bill was to provide funding for street preservation. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor did not think the County would enact such an ordinance. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to support with an amendment determining <br />proportional distribution on the basis of proportionate registrations. The motion passed <br />unanimously, 3:0. <br /> <br />SB 225 <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the status of the bill to Support. <br />The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. <br /> <br />HB 2592 <br /> <br />Mr. Hill explained the amendments sought by staff. He said under current law, the City could negotiate <br />with the Department of Revenue (DOR) to collect an income tax, but there was no guidance about how that <br />would be done and the DOR had not collected any local income tax to this point. The bill introduced to <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 9, 2007 Page 3 <br /> <br />