Item 8 - Ratif.IGR Comm.Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

mittee, however, may try to bottle the bill up. He intended to work with her to attempt to clear the bill. He believed the bill had genuine bipartisan support. Priority 2 Bills Mr. Pap6 referred to HB 2014, which would create a crime of unlawful direction of a laser pointer, and expressed concern about the size of the fine contemplated. He asked if the crime would be a first degree felony. Mr. Cushman said the penalties were being ramped up because of the hazard to air travel. He said that one must point a laser directly in the cockpit of an aircraft to trigger the arrest, and such an action was extremely hazardous. Ms. Taylor asked how HB 2481, related to speeds in school zones, related to City legislative policy. Mr. Cushman said the bill was a traffic safety bill intended to clean up the problems that existed with the current speed zone law. He said if the bill were to pass, it would improve the current situation. Mr. Larson agreed that the bill was an improvement on current law. The committee briefly discussed HB 2485, relating to controlled substances. Mr. Heuser anticipated a comprehensive approach to methamphetamine on the part of the legislature. Mr. Pap6 wanted to support a more comprehensive package of bills related to the topic to ensure no gaps were missed. Ms. Bettman suggested that it was not the committee's job to consolidate the bills. Mr. Heuser noted a hearing was being held the next day in Cottage Grove on the bill, which staff would attend. He said that the grocer's association expressed some discomfort with the bill and staff wanted to assure that the interests of commerce did not overwhelm the interests of public safety. Ms. Bettman wanted to change the status of liB 2523, relating to systems development charges (SDCs), from a Priority 2 to a Priority 1. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of liB 2523 to Priority 1 Support, with amendments to narrow the expansion of the SDC to schools and public safety. Mr. McVey indicated staff assigned the bill a Priority 2 because it was so broad and was unlikely to pass. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Mr. Pap~ referred to SB 2574, relating to decreases in capital gains tax rates, and determined from Mr. Hill that the bill would reduce taxation on capital gains. Mr. Pap~ asked why the City opposed the bill. Mr. Hill said the City had a legislative policy in support of adequate State revenues. There were many bills proposing to reduce the government revenues without replacement revenues, which was the reason for his recommended opposition. Mr. Heuser indicated that the bill and similar bills were unlikely to pass. Mr. Pap~ said he would have preferred a position of Priority 2, Support due to his concern about the fact Oregon's income tax was one of the highest in the nation. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman about HB 2575, relating to applications to the Oregon Department of Transportation, Mr. Heuser indicated the bill was unlikely to make progress and if it did, he would bring it back to the committee. MINUTES--Council Committee on INtergovernmental Relations March 9, 2005 Page 2