Item 4: Ratification of IGR Committee Actions

Home Browse Search

SB 83-A Ms. Wilson reported the governor had signed the bill. Ms. Bettman asked if the bill created a different definition or threshold for disability. Ms. Wilson replied that testimony on the bill indicated the intent was to avoid labels and the implication that the term defined the person instead of their disability. She said the Oregon State Bar had strict guidelines on the removal of judges and those would still have to be followed; the bill just required that the judge be referred to as having a disability instead of being disabled. SB 827-A Mr. Yeiter said the amended bill appeared to be very similar to the original with the difference that the amount of the revolving loan fund was now established as $25 million. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt a Priority 1 Oppose position. The motion passed, 3:0. SB 926-A Ms. Bettman asked if the bill would require the State to pay for the velodromes as well as directing that they be constructed. Ms. Medary said the bill would appropriation $3.5 million from the State Parks and Recreation Department’s budget to construct three velodromes. She said the appropriate was regarded as seed money, with the intent that local communities would contribute the remaining funds. She said that no funding for maintenance and operation was identified, although in other communities velodromes generated enough revenue to pay for their operation and maintenance costs. Mr. Pryor remarked that as long as the bill did not require the City to build the velodrome he was willing to consider it. Ms. Bettman determined that there were no objections to a Priority 2 Support position. HB 5036 Ms. Wilson explained that Lane Transit District (LTD) was requesting the City’s support of their request for $10 million in lottery bonds revenue for the EmX project. Ms. Bettman stated that funds were identified for rail and LTD was asking for a percentage of them to go to bus rapid transit (EmX project). She said she would not support the request because she and many other people had indicated to LTD that they preferred rail to bus rapid transit. She said that LTD had argued in favor of BRT instead of Rail on the basis that they would not have to compete for funding with rail projects. She said that LTD had killed a rail or streetcar system by choosing the EmX project and she would not support their request. Ms. Piercy stated that she did support LTD’s request and also supported the EmX system as it looked to the future and had widespread support from the community and the area’s congressional delegation. Ms. Taylor stated her opposition to diverting money from rail because rail was the future and more important than bus rapid transit. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt a position of Priority 3 Op-