Laserfiche WebLink
facilitate such tax collections included some restrictions that staff opposed as too limiting in light of the <br />City’s home rule authority. He thought it a good, but not perfect, idea. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor suggested the committee accept the staff recommendation to oppose the bill unless amended. The <br />committee concurred. <br /> <br />HB 2599 <br /> <br />Mr. Hill explained that he recommended the bill be dropped because the lottery was a revenue source and <br />advertising was a way to promote the lottery. He suggested it was a lottery management decision as to <br />whether advertising was necessary. Mr. Pryor preferred to accept the staff recommendation. Ms. Bettman <br />perceived the bill as impacting the total dollars available from the lottery, but agreed with Mr. Pryor. <br /> <br />HB 2643 <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said the bill created a new commission to provide subsidies for businesses using lottery money, <br />which she opposed. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 2, <br />Oppose. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. <br /> <br />HB 2600 <br /> <br />Mr. Weinman indicated that HB 2735 was actually the bill to watch. The bill in question would be folded <br />into that bill. He recommended it be dropped as it would not make progress. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to drop the bill from consideration. The mo- <br />tion passed unanimously, 3:0. <br /> <br />HB 2688 <br /> <br />Mr. Weinman indicated the bill had been introduced as a courtesy to a local elected official but it was not <br />going to make progress. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to drop the bill from further consideration. <br />The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. <br /> <br />HB 2735 <br /> <br />Mr. Weinman noted that four Oregon communities had some form of protection for manufactured home <br />park tenants. Most of the State had no protections at all. Nothing being introduced prohibited such parks <br />from being closed; instead, they provide tenant protections. The bill most likely to pass is 2735, which had <br />been negotiated for the better part of a year by landlord and tenant organizations. The bill offered greater <br />protections than Eugene currently does, but not greater than what the Housing Policy Board would <br />recommend. The bill was likely to pass but it included a pre-emption on local ordinances. Few owners own <br />parks in different parts of the state so he did not see the need for a uniform bill. Mr. Weinman said that <br />many people had testified in support of the bill but in opposition to the preemption. He recommended <br />Eugene take a position of Support with amendments to eliminate the pre-emption. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 9, 2007 Page 4 <br /> <br />