Item 4: Ratification of IGR Committee Actions

Home Browse Search

Mr. Pryor provided a second to the motion. Mr. Pryor said his rationale was that he did not like the 40 percent ratio because it was too low. He questioned why the County should get 60 percent. He preferred to work on a solution where the cities received a higher proportion of the money. He thought support of the bill allowed the County to impose a tax without an election and utilize a distribution ratio that he could not support. Ms. Bettman asked Mr. Pryor if he would prefer the original proposed amendment, which sought to amend the bill to provide the cities with 70 percent of the revenue generated by the fees that would then be equitably distributed according to population. Ms. Wilson stated that given the precariousness of the Secure Rural Schools funding the leadership in both chambers of the Legislature had pushed for resolutions that included funding solutions. Mr. Pryor suggested the City say that it was opposing the bill because the City wished to leave things “as they are” until a better solution could be worked out. Ms. Taylor reiterated that the CCIGR should state that the City of Eugene opposed the bill unless the cities received a fair amount of the revenue. Ms. Bettman modified her motion to adopt a Priority 1 Oppose stance on the bill unless it was amended to provide 70 percent of the revenue to cities and that the revenue should be distributed equitably to the cities according to population. Ms. Taylor provided the second. Mr. Jones pointed out that the bill would apply to other counties and he was uncertain whether a 70 percent split to cities would be a fair ratio in Gilham County, as an example. Ms. Wilson noted that the current bill stated 40 percent unless the cities and counties had come to a different agreement. Mr. Pryor felt this indicated there were too many issues to be worked out. He reiterated his opposition to the bill. Mayor Piercy recommended, given that the bill was at this juncture, that the CCIGR be non-specific about the amount but refer to the fairness. Ms. Bettman revised her motion to read that the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations would adopt a Priority 1 Oppose stance on the bill unless it was amended so that the ordinance shall provide for payment of the money to cities equitably on a population ba- sis. Ms. Taylor seconded the revised motion. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2114-A Ms. Bettman surmised that the bill would exempt an operation conducted as part of a stewardship agreement from the requirement of a written plan and that it would exempt the land management plans toward stewardship agreements from disclosure unless public interest required disclosure. She asked why such information would have to remain secret. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations May 29, 2007 Page 3