Item 2C: Ratif. of IGR Actions - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

of the bill did not make it clear if the City would pay the full cost of an instant runoff election. He added he did not think the issue was how many times instant runoff voting was used, but rather the additional costs created by the need to tally ballots using a different system. Mr. Heuser indicated he would research whether additional costs were incurred by other communities using the system. The CCIGR agreed that Mr. Heuser would talk to the sponsors of the bill about the chances of secureing amendments to the bill and provide an update at the next meeting. HB 2654 Ms. Taylor wanted to change the status of the bill to Oppose because she did not think participation in a diversion program should count against a person, and the bill would count that participation toward a later felony charge. Mr. Cushman indicated the staff position was based on its support for diversion for first-time offenses of driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUll). In the case of repeat offenders, under current law an offender must be convicted three subsequent times for a higher penalty to be triggered. The bill would enhance the higher penalty. Mr. Heuser noted that there was considerable support for the bill at the legislature. HB 2811 Ms. Bettman said she liked the underlying bill, which would expand the types of devices that could not be used in a moving motor vehicle, but agreed with staff that it needed to be amended to avoid unintended consequences to the Eugene Police Department. She determined that the staff recommendation meant that without amendments, the City would oppose the bill. HB 2855, HB 2858 Ms. Bettman asked why HB 2855, which would appropriate money from the State General Fund for the State School Fund, was not assigned a higher priority. She determined from Mr. Heuser that the bill was a compromise between the House Republicans and the governor. Mr. Heuser did not think the City's position would make much of a difference given the level at which discussions were occurring, but he did not object to raising the priority of the bill. Ms. Boyle explained the differences between the two bills and suggested the CCIGR might want to recommend support of liB 2858 to the council as it deleted a provision in HB 2855 that required the Department of Administrative Services to estimate the savings to be realized from pooled insurance. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of liB 2858 bill to Pri- ority 1, Support. The motion passed unanimously. HB 3272 Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Jones clarified that the staff recommendation was to support the bill, with amendments. HJR 35 MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 7, 2005 Page 5