Item 4: Ratification of IGR Committee Actions

Home Browse Search

citizens of Eugene. Ms. Bettman asserted that Lane Council of Governments operated senior and disabled transit services. Ms. Bettman suggested a Priority 3 Support position. There were no objections. HB 2541-A Mr. Hill said the bill represented the interests of the Oregon Association of Realtors and would limit the City’s authority to impose a business license tax on a realtor who did not maintain a main or branch office in the City. Ms. Bettman moved to adopt a Priority 2 Oppose position. Mr. Hill related that the bill had passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 55:0. He felt the bill could not be stopped and lobbying efforts could be better spent on other matters. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to adopt a Priority 3 Oppose position. The motion passed, 3:0. HB 2134-A Ms. Bettman asked about the nature of the changes to the legislation that staff had characterized as not substantial. Ms. Phelps replied that the changes in the current version did not modify the fundamental aspects of the bill. Ms. Wilson agreed that the changes were housekeeping and clarification. Ms. Bettman indicated she was fine with the recommendation but asked that the nature of modifications to a bill be more clearly described in the future. SB 573-A Ms. Taylor moved to adopt a Monitor position instead of an Oppose position. There was no second. Ms. Taylor said she though it was a conflict with the City’s policies to oppose a bill for pedestrian safety. Ms. Phelps said the concern was the inclusion of crosswalks where there was a traffic control device and it would be less confusing and dangerous if those crosswalks were eliminated from the bill. Ms. Wilson said it was unlikely that amendment would occur. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to adopt a Priority 2 Oppose position. The motion passed, 2:1; Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. HB 2626-A Ms. Bettman stated there was nothing in the bill related to reuse of electronic devices and the intent was to support the bill with an amendment to specifically address reuse. There were no objections. HB 2992-A Mr. Wold said the amendments provided additional clarity on the intent of the legislation and did not change its substance.