Item 3: Ratification of Unanimous and Non-Uanimous IGR Actions

Home Browse Search

redundant. Nevertheless, HB 2487 would impose a new requirement that seven additional counties, those with a population over 100,000 including Lane County, each form a county tax supervising and coordination commission. The 5 commission members for each county would be appointed by the Governor and would adopt their own budgets for staffing and administrative which the counties would then be required to fund. Participating local governments within each county would be billed a proportional share in order to reimburse 50% of the county's cost. Municipalities with 200,000 or more population would have to participate, and those of under 200,000 population would be required to participate unless a formal election to not participate were adopted by their governing board. This election would expire after 3 years, after which it would have to be renewed. Tax supervising and conservation commissions are state agencies with certain statutory jurisdiction over municipalities budgets and taxation. Local governments would be required to provide copies of proposed municipal budgets on which the commission could hold public hearings. Commissions would vote on any advisory objections and recommendations it wishes to make on any proposed municipal budget. The commissions also could strike any items from a proposed municipal budget if the commission finds that the item is an expenditure not allowed by law, or if the amount of a tax exceeds what is allowed by law. The commissions would also be required by statute to hold public hearings on all local special tax levy or bond proposals. Municipalities would have to submit annual audit reports or financial statements, and the commissions would be authorized to inquire broadly into management, books of accounts and systems of the municipalities, down to the department level. The commissions could compel attendance by municipal governing boards at meetings. HB 2493 Relating Clause: Relating to residential service disruption. Title: Prohibits cable television provider, competitive telecommunications provider, consumer- owned utility, public utility or telecommunications utility from charging customer for repair related to disruption of service when disruption was not caused by customer. Sponsored by: Introduced and printed pursuant to House Rule 12.00. Presession filed (at the request of House Interim Committee on Consumer Protection and Government Accountability) URL: http://www.leg.state.or.us/11reg/measpdf/hb2400.dir/hb2493.intro.pdf Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation Pam Berrian CS-ISD 1/31/2011 Pri 3 Support Comments: Support as a Consumer advocacy issue unless NOT supported by EWEB. I do not think the text is as clear as it could be but City Risk staff do not see any indirect or precedent setting issue. I sent to Wastewater Director Jeff Lankston to see if he saw any precedent setting issue should such a law be applied to Wastewater, for example, in the future. There could be situations not caused by customer (disaster-related), that I wondered whether City would be held responsible for repairs to equipment on person's property. 8