Item 3: Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions

Home Browse Search

that opposition to the bill would let things remain as they currently are. He said from the administrative side of things the current process tied their hands a lot of the time at the end of the season when a project could be punched out in a hurry if it did not have to go out for a bid. He noted that the City had a set amount of vendors who would receive the project information regardless of whether a project was a bid or a quote. Mr. Pryor surmised that supporting the bill would make things easier and more convenient and opposing it changed nothing. SB 716 Ms. Wilson reported that the bill was currently on the Senate floor and had been amended to remove the preemption of local governments from adopting a more uniform application of it. She noted that the original bill provided for different treatment for people in wheelchairs than other disabilities and would have prevented local governments from adopting more uniform treatment and this was no longer true. She said the only other change the bill would bring about was that the wheelchair user placard would be a different color than blue (the current color). In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Hyatt stated that the bill also provided for people who have wheelchairs to have a different placard and it allowed for one out of every eight spaces to be used only by people who had wheelchair placards. She explained that the distinction that had been removed was one the provided free parking for people with wheelchair placards. Ms. Bettman asked why the City was not supporting the bill. Ms. Wilson replied that the City was supporting it; Ms. Taylor had brought it up in order to take a Neutral stance. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt a Priority 3 Support stance. The mo- tion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2095-A Ms. Wilson reported that the bill had passed unanimously in the House. Ms. Bettman moved to take a Priority 2 Oppose stance. Ms. Bettman interpreted the bill to indicate that a person who earned $3 million could be subsidized to purchase a house worth $1 million. Ms. Taylor said the working poor needed help with housing as the housing prices went up. Mr. Pryor commented that opposition to the bill created hardship for many out of fear that a few could abuse it. He thought in the real world that he was less concerned that a few rich people could take advantage of the program than he was concerned that a lot of poor people could not take advantage of it. He preferred to err on the side of a lot of poor people Ms. Bettman revised her motion to take a Priority 2 Oppose stance with an amendment to create a definition for low income housing which was consistent with the definition for low income and affordable housing that was already being used in the City of Eugene. Mr. Lidz noted that Mr. Weinman’s comments indicated that the bill had been amended to address the concern about affordable housing. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 12, 2007 Page 10