Laserfiche WebLink
SB0488 MODIFIES OFFENSE OF VIOLATING SPEED LIMIT BY <br /> REQUIRING DRIVER TO DRIVE 20 MILES PER HOUR OR LESS IN <br /> SCHOOL ZONE WHEN CHILDREN ARE PRESENT OR FLASHING <br /> LIGHT IS IN OPERATION (Priority 2 - Support with Amendment) <br /> <br />Mr. Larsen stated that if the goal is to increase safety for children, using the definition put <br />forth in the proposed bill does not achieve that goal. He explained that the amendment <br />changes the language to reduce school zone speeds in effect during default effective <br />times, or during times posted at each school zone. Mr. Larsen shared there are three <br />other bills that address this issue, one of which includes language - all school zones will <br />postposted hours. Mr. Larsen commented that staff would prefer to see a more <br />uniformed posted-hours bill. Ms. Brooks shared that the House bills, which limit to <br />posted hours or flashing lights, are set for hearings in Bend. <br /> <br />Mr. Larsen revealed that the City of Portland is arguing for a 6 a.m. to 6 p.m.option, and <br />that House Bill 2740 is proposing a 7 a.m. to 7 p.m option. <br /> <br />Mr. Cushman opined that a bill that includes language when children are present is too <br />tightly defined. <br /> <br />Mr. Larsen stated that staff has the same opinion for the language noted in House Bill <br />2365. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman directed IGR staff to communicate to the Legislature that without an <br />appropriately worded amendment, the committee cannot support the bill. Ms. Brooks <br />responded that the City's position will be to support any effort to eliminate the 24-hour <br />position and further how that stipulation is accomplished is up for discussion. Ms. <br />Bettman opined that the proposed bill as written endangers the children as opposed to <br />being an inconvenience to the drivers. She stressed that the City values the safety of the <br />children over the inconvenience to the drivers. <br /> <br />SB 0582 LIMITS THE USE OF CELLULAR TELEPHONES FOR DISPATCH <br /> BY PUBLIC SAFETY ANSWERING POINT THAT RECEIVES 9-1-1 <br /> EMERGENCY CALLS.-(Priority 2 Oppose) <br /> <br />Ms. Hammitt explained that staff is concerned this bill limits the public safety <br />dispatchers' options to notify field responders of information pertinent to calls for <br />service. <br /> <br />SB681 PROHIBITS STORAGE OR DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS <br /> MATERIALS AND RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS AT SOLID WASTE <br /> DISPOSAL SITES ESTABLISHED IN EXCLUSIVE FARM USE <br /> ZONES (Priority 2 Oppose) <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor questioned why the City would not prohibit the hazardous and radio-active <br />materials. Mr. Ruffler responded that the City is not opposed to that portion of the bill. <br />Rather, he explained that the bill is being sponsored by the Farm Bureau and it is a <br /> <br />MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 24, 2005 Page 7 <br /> <br /> <br />