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

Home Browse Search

Priority 2 B~lls HB 2356 Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Keppler said there were other bills that would accomplish the same thing as the bill in question. HB 2356 would allow the City to process final plats as Type I applications rather than Type II applications. Ms. Keppler said that amendments had been made to the bill that appeared to have tightened the language. Ms. Bettman believed the bill was inconsistent with the City's Land Use Code and its passage meant the code would have to be amended. She did not understand why the City would support something that was inconsistent with its code. Ms. Muir clarified the City would not have to amend its code. The bill gave jurisdictions the option of processing such application as Type I applications. She said that the bill was consistent with the way the City had previously done such plats. The code had been amended because of a court decision. Ms. Keppler noted that once a tentative plat was approved, the law stipulated the approval could not be reversed and the conditions of approval could not be changed. She thought it seemed to be an unnecessary added process to run it through the same land use process again. The final plat must be consistent with the tentative plat. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of liB 2356 to Neutral. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Papd voting no. HB 2356A The similarities between this bill and the previous bill were noted by Ms. Bettman. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of liB 2356A to Neu- tral. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Papd voting no. HB 2540 Mr. Jones indicated that no hearings or work sessions had been held on the bill, which would prohibit a contracting agency from canceling, rejecting, delaying, or suspending contract activity because a bidder was engaged in a labor dispute. Ms. Brooks noted that the bill had not gotten out of committee. She indicated the deadline for House bills to get out of committee was May 6. HB 3033 Mr. Papd questioned the mandatory nature of the bill, which would require diesel fuel sold in Oregon to contain a certain percentage of bio-diesel fuel. He expressed concern about the potential of creating a competitive disadvantage with other nearby states. Mr. Davis said there was currently a five-cent margin between regular diesel and bio-diesel. The mandated amount was quite small. He said there were manufacturers hoping to manufacture bio-diesel fuels in Oregon, which would bring the costs down. One such facility was under construction. However, supplies were not a problem. He noted that Washington had adopted a similar bill and California was in the process of doing so. It seemed to be the trend in the northwest. MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 7, 2005 Page 2