Item 3: Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions

Home Browse Search

to job provision but was thwarted by the existing State regulations. The bill removed that limitation and gave the City the ability to ask for “claw-backs.” She supported the bill as she believed it improved the statutes related to economic development. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 2, Support. Responding to a question from Mr. Pryor, Mr. Weinman did not know what the reporting requirement would cost the City. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman regarding the cost of the Multiple Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) and the enterprise zone, Mr. Weinman said the City’s costs were minimal as the Assessor’s Office was doing most of the work and the City’s applications fees covered its costs. Staff was concerned about the additional work load that would result from the bill. Mr. Pryor asked what problem the bill would solve. Ms. Bettman said the bill would require public disclosure of a subsidy, would create a nexus between the subsidy and the quality of the job created, and allow for the recapture of subsidies to businesses in default. Ms. Wilson said the bills were similar to bills introduced in the senate and a working group had been formed to merge the bills into a single bill. The individual leading the work group was from Minnesota, which had enacted a similar bill that was working well in that state. She said that she could return with more information about the work group process. Ms. Taylor wanted to support the bill. Mr. Pryor suggested the bill be monitored. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pryor voting no. HB 3363 Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 2 Support. Ms. Bettman thought the bill’s requirements were minimal as it essentially provided for a tracking mechanism. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pryor voting no. HB 2944-A Ms. Wilson noted widespread opposition to the bill, which was “gut and stuffed.” The original draft was written by the League of Oregon Cities and modified by the Committee on Business and Labor. Several prevailing wage bills had been moving, and this bill had some of the bad prevailing wage bills merged into it. Mr. Weinman said the bill would apply State prevailing wages to all low-income housing projects, which th would increase the cost of such housing by 30 percent. Projects like WestTown on 8 Avenue could not have been built at all. It exempted projects of four stories or less, which was at odds with the City’s goal of compact urban growth. He supported fair wages, but said some of the Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) rates were out of scale. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 19, 2007 Page 3