Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Pap6 asked why staff did not recommend support for the bill, which would raise witness fees, as he did <br />not think it would have much financial impact but could get people to testify in criminal trials without the <br />need for a judge to issue a bench warrant. Mr. Hill said the cost would be less than $3,000 annually. The <br />current payment for witnesses in other than criminal proceedings was $30; in criminal proceedings it was $5 <br />a day. While he believed it was warranted to raise the fee, he recommended a neutral position because the <br />bill represented an unfunded mandate. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pap6, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 3, <br /> Support. The motion passed unanimously <br /> <br />HB 2729 <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 2. <br /> <br />Mr. Duckett reported that the bill, which would authorize a community to create a Community Forest <br />Authority, would soon be amended to apply only to Forest Park in Portland. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman suggested that the City may acquire sufficient parkland in the future to qualify for the benefits <br />of the bill. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked that the bill be brought back if it was amended. <br /> <br />HB 2750 <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 2, <br /> Oppose. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Ms. Bettman said the bill removed current standards for <br />determining a parcel's eligibility for development. Mr. Heuser indicated the bill was not scheduled for a <br />hearing. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously. <br /> <br />HB 2755 <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Kepler explained the purpose of the bill, saying the City <br />would have to seek the approval of the utilities before doing a subdivision or partition. In Eugene, the <br />utilities had a review role already. The bill did not include wastewater or stormwater utilities. Ms. Bettman <br />believed the City would want to oppose the bill. Ms. Kepler said staff recommended a position of Oppose <br />with amendments. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to change the status of the bill to Priority 2, Oppose <br /> with amendments. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 7, 2005 Page 8 <br /> <br /> <br />