Item 3: Discuss and Approve Non-Unanimous IGR Positions

Home Browse Search

HB 3408 Relating Clause: Relating to prohibition on local real property transfer taxes. Title: Repeals law prohibiting imposition of real property transfer tax or fee by local jurisdiction. Sponsored by: COMMITTEE ON REVENUE URL:http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/hb3400.dir/hb3408.intro.pdf ContactRespondentDept Updated Priority Policy Poli Numb Recommendation Larry Hill Larry Hill CS-FIN 3/22/2009 Pri 2 Yes YesII. B8 Support Comments: In repealing the state ban on local real estate transfer taxes HB 3408 would accomplish an important legislative goal for the City of Eugene. This would allow the City the option of using this tax for additional revenue. HB 3420 Relating Clause: Relating to public contracts for software procurement. Title: Requires contracting agency to evaluate bids or proposals for software procurements using certain criteria. Sponsored by: Representative J SMITH; Representatives CLEM, ESQUIVEL, NATHANSON, STIEGLER URL:http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/hb3400.dir/hb3420.intro.pdf ContactRespondentDept Updated Priority Policy Poli Numb Recommendation Mia Cariaga CS-FIN 3/24/2009 Pri 3 VIII. B Neutral Comments: The City already uses proposal criteria outlined in HB 3420 as necessary. HB 3438 Relating Clause: Relating to motorcycles Title: Permits person to operate motorcycle without motorcycle helmet if person has increased motor vehicle liability coverage for personal injury. Sponsored by: Representative WINGARD URL:http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/hb3400.dir/hb3438.intro.pdf ContactRespondentDept Updated Priority Policy Poli Numb Recommendation Glen Potter Glen Potter EFD 3/19/2009 Pri 3 No No Oppose Comments: From a safety standpoint, an insurance policy is not an adequate replacement for a helmet. ContactRespondentDept Updated Priority Policy Poli Numb Recommendation E. Cushman D. Schulz EPD-ADM 3/24/2009 Pri 3 Yes YesV. C7 Oppose Comments: We concur with Fire. The primary reason for requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets is to reduce the injury to motorcycle operators and passengers if they are involved in a traffic crash. Substituting vehicle liability insurance for a helmet will not achieve that goal. In addition, enforcement would be difficult, because the only way to enforce this law would be to stop any motorcyclist who was not wearing a helmet to determine if s/he had the requisite insurance---something that police really don't have the time to do, and something which we are sure the motorcyclists would not like. (It appears that the bill is trying to mitigate one of the arguments by helmet proponents---i.e., that the more severe injuries likely to be sustained by those not wearing a helmet will create increased costs for medical care and insurance. However, it is not clear that the proposal as written would even accomplish that goal.) 37