Item 6: Ratification of IGR Minutes and Direction on Legislative Policy

Home Browse Search

Mr. Pryor said he would go along with this because if the Legislature was looking at a school impact fee or a school park systems development charge (SDC) as an “either/or” he definitely felt the City should steer them in the direction of the former. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. (Note from minutes recorder: there was no second.) HB2314 Mr. Perry, responding to questions from a previous meeting, stated that the City spent approximately $1.3 million on collections agencies, excluding the Municipal Court. He explained that this equaled $294 on average, with 4,414 accounts submitted. The City had collected approximately $80,000 and about $75,000 in materials from the Library. He stressed that the City followed a standard practice and bills were sent to collections agencies after an extensive process to collect them had been fruitless. Ms. Taylor opposed the bill, which would allow a public entity to add the collections fee to the amount collected in an effort to recoup that cost. She thought people who did not pay could not afford to pay. She said adding to their debts would increase poverty and therefore increase homelessness. Ms. Bettman ascertained that there would be no second should there be a motion to change the recommended position which was ‘Priority 3 Support.’ HB2530 Mr. Hill explained that the bill would provide an entire overhaul of the State tax system. He said among the provisions that would affect the City of Eugene was the establishment of a homestead property tax exemption for some low-income people and senior citizens. He noted that it would also prevent local governments from piggybacking taxes on a state general sales tax, which would be a limitation of home rule in that area. He recommended ‘Priority 2 Monitor’ and that the City should work closely with the LOC in tracking and following it. Ms. Piercy related that a bipartisan group of legislators was moving the bill forward in an effort to reform funding for the State. She commented that at this point it was likely “packed full of flaws and challenges.” The CCIGR agreed to retain the staff position of ‘Priority 2 Monitor.’ HJR14 Mr. Hill noted that this bill sought to modify the double majority rule that had been brought about by a ballot measure. He said the LOC had documented the effect of the double majority requirement on local measures and had determined that approximately 25 percent of the measures had failed exclusively because not enough people had voted. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to take a ‘Priority 2 Support’ position. The mo- tion passed unanimously, 3:0. Ms. Piercy called the bill “crucial” and did not want the Priority 2 to be interpreted as some kind of lack of support at the legislative level. Ms. Wilson assured Ms. Piercy that she would make it known that the Priority 2 position reflected the amount of resources Eugene had to apply to the bill and not the importance of the bill to local citizens. HJM1 MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental February 13, 2007 Page 9 Relations