Laserfiche WebLink
the City of Eugene would be provided by sections 10 and 11, which remove the statutory <br />exemption of taxable personal property with a total value less than $12,500. In FY10, <br />almost $7,000,000 in otherwise taxable personal property fell within this exemption in <br />the City of Eugene, representing about $50,000 in lost revenue. While this is a small <br />revenue improvement it does move the City's revenue in the correct direction. This bill <br />should be monitored and any amendments that would expand or add new property tax <br /> <br />exemptions should be opposed. <br /> <br /> <br />SB 0407 <br /> <br />Relating Clause: Relating to exceptions to prohibition against operating a motor vehicle using a mobile <br />communication device; creating new provisions; and amending ORS 811.507. <br /> <br />Title: Removes exception for person operating motor vehicle in scope of person’s employment <br />from offense of operating motor vehicle while using mobile communication device. <br /> <br />Sponsored by: Printed pursuant to Senate Interim Rule 213.28 by order of the President of the Senate in <br />conformance with presession filing rules, indicating neither advocacy nor opposition on <br />the part of the President (at the request of Senate Interim Committee on Judiciary) <br /> <br />URL: http://www.leg.state.or.us/11reg/measpdf/sb0400.dir/sb0407.intro.pdf <br /> <br />Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation <br />Eric Jones PW-ADM 1/25/2011 Pri 3 Oppose <br /> <br />Comments: We're trying to protect the situation where a Public Works motor vehicle operator uses a <br />cell phone to communicate with dispatch or with an incident commander when the <br />emergency command center has been activated. <br /> <br />It is unclear whether the existing law at Section 1(3)(e) would allow this possibility <br />(because the phrase "as a volunteer" at the end of the clause might exclude a Public <br />Works equipment operator). It's also not clear to this reviewer what "one-way voice <br />communication" would entail (and whether the exemption at Section 1(3)(j)(C) would <br />apply). <br /> <br />As written, the bill would continue to allow two-way radio communication. However, <br />cell phones are increasingly a viable communication tool for Public Works equipment <br />operators. <br /> <br />Recommend priority 3 oppose, seeking an amendment at Section 1(1)(e) to strike the <br />words "as a volunteer" (i.e., to allow the use of a cell phone for a Public Works <br />equipment operator providing emergency services). <br /> <br />Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation <br />Jamie Iboa Craig Sorseth CS-RS 1/20/2011 Pri 3 Oppose <br /> <br />Comments: The City already has a policy on this issue which, while it was being developed, <br />considered what this bill proposes. I believe that the feedback received from managers for <br />the City was that it would unnecessarily limit the ability to communicate or respond <br />under some circumstances. <br />21 <br /> <br /> <br />