Laserfiche WebLink
would allow the City to do so potentially without state approval. Mr. Hill responded that this would only <br />be so if the exact conditions specified in the bill were present and only to the extent that it would allow the <br />change in the existing agreement. He said this particular change in the statute was highly qualified; the <br />City would have to be in a recession and it would only be allowed to make two changes to the enterprise <br />zone agreement. <br />Mr. Poling ascertained that the bill would not change any of the other requirements specified in the City’s <br />Enterprise Zone; the bill specifically addressed what would happen during an economic downturn. <br />Ms. Taylor moved to adopt a Neutral position. Ms. Ortiz provided a second for discussion <br />purposes. <br />Mayor Piercy did not share Ms. Taylor’s view of enterprise zones. She felt the zone had worked the way <br />the council intended it to. She preferred to start out monitoring the bill in order to hear some of the <br />arguments. <br />Ms. Taylor changed her motion to adopt a Monitor position. Ms. Ortiz indicated she was <br />amenable to the change. <br />Intergovernmental Relations Manager, Brenda Wilson, stated that there was a hearing on the bill scheduled <br />for February 5. She indicated she would be happy to report back on it. She felt it would give plenty of <br />time for the City to weigh in on it, should they determine a need to do so. <br />The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Poling voting in opposition. <br />House Bill 3640 <br />Ms. Wilson stated that the bill was the very first bill for State Representative Hoyle as a state legislator. <br />She related that Rep. Hoyle had telephoned her the previous evening and had been angry. She said <br />someone had sent a copy of the legislative report to Rep. Hoyle and all she had seen was that staff had <br />recommended that they adopt an Oppose position. She asked that she be made aware of any communica- <br />tion with a state legislator so that she could better represent the City of Eugene. <br />Ms. Wilson stated that they had a long-standing practice of opposing bills that created property tax <br />exemptions. She explained that the bill would exempt manufactured homes valued at $12,000 or less from <br />paying property tax. She had heard from the County Assessor that the bill would cost $67,000 in lost <br />revenue for the City, but the delinquent rate for these homes was 94 percent. She noted that Multnomah <br />County had done the same inquiry into their records and found a similar delinquency rate. She related that <br />they had determined that channeling their energy into collecting from people who owed a lot more in <br />taxes, they would collect a lot more revenue for cities and counties. She said the bill had been amended so <br />that it applied to four counties, including Lane County, and that it would sunset after four years. The <br />involved entities were either taking a Neutral or Support position on the bill. She added that it would <br />“value us tremendously in the future” to at least not oppose Rep. Hoyle’s first bill. <br />Mr. Poling asked if the exemption would be automatic or would it have to be applied for by individual <br />property owners. Ms. Wilson replied that it would be automatic. <br />Ms. Ortiz asked what position Ms. Wilson would recommend. Ms. Wilson responded that she would <br />recommend anything but an Oppose position. <br />Mayor Piercy asked if the County had taken a formal position on the bill. Ms. Wilson replied that she had <br />MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 3, 2010 Page 2 <br />