Item 8 - Ratif.of IGR Actions - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Referring to House Bill (HB) 2184, Ms. Bettman asked how officers would establish that motorists were impaired by such things as cold medicine, for example. Mr. Cushman said staff would have a greater burden in proving impairment. He anticipated that sobriety tests similar to those asked of motorists suspected of violating current DUll laws would be conducted, and agreed with a suggestion from Ms. Bettman that the in-car videos would assist in the process of proving impairment. He clarified, in response to a follow-up question from Ms. Bettman, that no motorists would be taken into custody to be blood-tested. The basis for an arrest would be the person's driving and sobriety tests. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6 about HB 2197, Mr. Hill said that the bill expanded the definition of what was taxed now to include such things as tent spaces and condominiums. He said the 2003 legislature intended to add condominiums to the list of what could be taxed but due to a scrivener's error, that did not occur. The Association of Condominium Owners had no objection to the bill. He said there was no preemption issue, but the relating clause was very broad and he recommended the City continue to monitor the bill. Ms. Bettman referred to House Bill 2300, requiring a person with the duty to report as a sex offender within ten days if that person had no fixed address, and asked how it would be enforced. Mr. Cushman indicated the time was likely to be extended to 30 days. He said that the bill was a tool for officers making contacts with offenders who had not registered. The police could take enforcement action at that time. He did not anticipate police would actively track such offenders except in egregious cases. Ms. Bettman determined from staff that HB 2365 was introduced in response to the changes made by the last legislature in regard to school zones, and asked what it would change. Mr. Cushman indicated the bill was an attempt to clarify the issue of when children were present. He noted changes made by the last legislature to that definition and indicated that other options were available to correct the confusion created by Senate Bill 179. Mr. Jones said that the cost to the City of complying with the last legislation had been approximately $7,500, and he thought it would be useful if the bill could be amended with a provision that reimbursed the City for those costs. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the priority of the bill to Priority 1, Support with Amendments. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Taylor asked why staff was recommending the City oppose HB 2427, which would require all counties and cities to create civilian police review boards. Mr. Cushman said the department was not opposed to civilian review. However, the bill represented not just an unfunded mandate, but it mandated the model of the review board to be used. In addition, the bill required the City to disclose all records without stipulating who determined the record and what appeal avenues existed. The bill also gave individual board members subpoena power equal to that of a magistrate. He suggested that cities that wanted such review boards should be able to design what worked for them. Ms. Bettman acknowledged the staff issue but was concerned about opposing the bill given the City's history of supporting civilian review. She wanted Lane County to have such a review board and thought the bill might be the only way to accomplish that. She suggested that the bill be deferred to the council for further discussion. MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 11, 2005 Page 2