Item 4: Ratification of IGR Committee Actions

Home Browse Search

HB 2872-A This bill, which prohibits the use of mobile communication devices while operating a motor vehicle, has been amended so that it applies only to people who are under 18 years of age and have a provisional driver’s license, a special student driver permit, or an instruction driver permit. The staff recommended supporting the bill, with amendments so that it applies to all drivers under 18 regardless of type of license and deleting language related to its application only as a “second offense.” Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Pryor, to a Priority 3 Support with the amendments proposed by the staff. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 431-A The staff recommended opposing this amended bill, which restricts landlords from removing tenant vehicles from premises. Ms. Osborn said the amended bill could have the unintended consequence of hampering nuisance and zoning code enforcement by Eugene and other cities. Ms. Taylor wanted to support the bill because she felt people frequently suffered from having their cars towed without notice. Ms. Osborn said that was a real issue, and the premise of the bill--to provide protection for tenants--was sound. However, she said if the bill passed as amended, the City would have to amend its code in order to address the junk car issue. Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Mr. Pryor, to adopt a position of Priority 2 oppose unless it was amended to allow local governments to deal with junk cars. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 1011-A The staff recommended supporting the bill authorizing counties and metropolitan service districts to designate rural reserves not included in urban growth boundaries or rural communities for agriculture. As amended, Mr.Yeiter said, the bill affected only the Portland metropolitan area. Ms. Bettman moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to Support Priority 3. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. SB 1036-A The bill restricts local governmental power to impose construction excise taxes. Mr. Lidz said the obvious downside of the bill was that it preempted some local authority; the downside of opposing the bill was that school districts could not impose these taxes without this statutory authorization. He added that if the City opposed the bill successfully, it would gut a proposed funding source for school districts. In reply to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Lidz said the City now had authority to impose a construction excise tax, but this bill would remove that authority. Ms. Bettman thought the bill should be opposed based on the City’s legislative policy that stated do not take away cities’ abilities to raise revenues or preempt their local authority. Mr. Hill said that was the basis of his recommendation to oppose the bill. Mr. Lidz said while he did not