Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
The committee considered another bill held over from the previous meeting, SB 2083, related to streamlining <br />of Water Resources Department (WRD) regulations. The bill would eliminate the requirement that the seller <br />of a property with a water right notify the WRD of the sale. The seller would have to notify the buyer of the <br />water rights, and the water rights would accompany the transaction of the land. Mr. Duckett indicated that <br />after analysis, staff did not think the bill would have any affect on Eugene. He said the WRD did not have <br />the resources to track the information it already had. <br /> <br />Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Duckett said the bill would have no impact on the <br />Eugene Water & Electric Board's water rights in the McKenzie River. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked if the bill could evolve into something different. Mr. Heuser did not know. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Monitor. <br /> The motion passed, 3:0. <br /> <br />The committee considered another bill held over from the previous meeting, HB 2155, which expanded the <br />authority of the governor to assign fire fighting resources across jurisdictional boundaries in the case of a <br />major conflagration. The bill expanded the type of situation where that could occur, and lowered the <br />threshold for invoking the State Conflagration Act. Chief Obadahl said the department's position was <br />somewhat mixed, as it saw both upsides and downsides to the bill. Generally Eugene was required to send <br />resources rather than receive them, and while the City was reimbursed, in the meantime its resources, such <br />as the availability of tenders, were diminished, often at the time of greatest need. She suggested that it was <br />not in the best interest of Eugene to support the bill without amendments that allowed it to decline to send <br />aid. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pap6, moved to change the status of the bill to Oppose. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap6 believed the City Council needed to focus on protecting Eugene first. Ms. Obadahl said the bill <br />could work in Eugene's favor in the case of a south hills fire, but she pointed out that the City currently had <br />mutual aid agreements with all other Lane County cities. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman pointed out the committee was only opposing the expansion of the State Conflagration Act, not <br />the act itself, which still existed. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously. <br /> <br />The committee considered another bill held over from the previous meeting, HB 2234. Mr. Braud <br />recommended that the committee drop the bill from further consideration. It established tax breaks for <br />companies making certain types of telecommunications equipment already located in an enterprise zone. It <br />was not connected to the expansion of such zones. <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to drop the bill from further consideration. <br /> The motion passed unanimously. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman referred to HB 2268, relating to eminent domain. Mr. Lidz indicated the bill addressed the <br />process for exchanging appraisal information. It would have little impact on Eugene, but he continued to <br />recommend that the bill be monitored given the breadth of the relating clause. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 11, 2005 Page 4 <br /> <br /> <br />