Item 4: Ratification of IGR Committee Actions

Home Browse Search

HB 2656-A Ms. Wilson said originally staff had not perceived this bill as having a direct impact on the City. She related that after review staff had recommended adopting a Neutral stance on the bill. Ms. Bettman thought the bill would supercede the requirement to have an expert in this type of construction be consulted and would allow a contractor to hire an expert of his or her choice. Ms. Wilson provided the committee with copies of the staff review of the bill. Ms. Bettman said she supported the staff recommendation and committee members agreed. HB 3082-A Ms. Bettman opposed the bill unless it would be amended to require equitable distribution of the money garnered by the bill to the City of Eugene. She said if the City wanted to have any leverage regarding how the percentages of the money were allocated the City should oppose the bill unless it was amended. Mr. Jones understood that an effort had been made to offer such an amendment that had been unsuccessful. He related that there did not seem to be much hope that the State would change the formula. He averred that at this point the question facing the City was whether to support making it easier for the County to have a vehicle registration fee. Mr. Pryor said in this case he would agree that the bill should stipulate a more equitable distribution of funding. Mr. Jones related that by law 40 percent of the revenue raised by county vehicle registration fees would be distributed to cities. He added that in theory that 40 percent would be distributed on a fair basis such as population of the cities. Mr. Pryor asked how many of the cars in Lane County were registered in the City of Eugene. Mr. Jones speculated that approximately half of the cars were registered in the City. Ms. Bettman moved to adopt a Priority 1 Oppose stance unless the bill was amended to provide at least 40 percent of the revenue to the cities divided equitably according to popu- lation. Ms. Bettman asked where the bill was. Ms. Wilson predicted that the bill would remain under consideration beyond May 31 so there was still some time to work on it. Ms. Bettman commented that she was inclined to just adopt a Priority 1 Oppose stance on the bill. She asked Ms. Wilson for her thoughts on that. Ms. Wilson responded that at the beginning of the session the legislature had “grand ideas” about what they could get passed and one of those ideas had been the gas tax, which had failed. She thought there was a chance that the vehicle registration fees would not happen either. She felt it was possible to get the bill amended as Ms. Bettman had suggested. Mr. Jones observed that the bill was only related to the County’s authority to levy a tax without an election and it would not raise the State’s vehicle registration fees. He said the bill was the most removed from the fiscal impact at the state level. Ms. Taylor remarked that she was inclined to think it was a good tax. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations May 29, 2007 Page 2