Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Councilman Wood wondered whether the possJ.bility of receiving money from the <br />. Stat:e .would create competition among cities for State buildings in their com- <br />mun~t~es. Manager said it would be a minor factor in decision on location of <br />State buildings since those decisions are based usually on statutory require- <br />ments and where State se,rvices are needed. <br /> <br />Vote was taken on the motion to support H.B.2108 in principle. Moti.on carried <br />. unanimously. <br /> <br />6;H.B.2204 - Establishes field burning fee, $1,00 per acre for fields with str w <br />,. 50~ if cleared of straw ,- a <br /> <br />H.B.2205 - Extends life of committee on field burning for ~ix months' <br /> <br />Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. ,Keller to support H.B.2204 and 2205. Motion <br />; carried unanimously. <br /> <br />.' ,.-. <br />7.H~B.2329 - Abo1ishesregiana1 air pollution control authorities. Authorizes <br />formation of regiona,1 and local air pollution control districts at <br />discretion of EOC for purposes of making studies and advising EOC <br />:Councilwoman Beal strongly opposed this bill. She said that Lane County region <br />,has the best air quality enforcement in the ,State and a good record in disposal <br />lof waste materials. In addition, there is no assurance that the local office <br />:wou1d be funded or continued here under the proposed bill. <br /> <br />'Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Hr. Keller to take a strong stand against H.B.2329. <br /> <br />Councilwoman Campbell suggested pUblic testimony should be taken on this legis- <br />lation. Mrs. Bea1 didn't feel it necessary. She said the DEO proposed to <br />maintain a neutral position, and this region would have to protect its own air <br />quality organization. <br /> <br />: Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. <br /> <br />8. H.B. 2657 - Requires popular vote on all urban renewal projects and all revisions" <br />thereto. Prohibits municipality ,from doing more than one project <br />at a time. <br />Mr. williams moved seconded by Mrs. Bea1 to oppose H.B .2657. Motion carried <br />: unanimously. <br /> <br />9.S.B.l59) <br />H.B.2424)- Uniform residential landlord and tenant act <br />Copies of summaries of the two bills were previously distributed to <br />. members. Councilman Williams said that because of the controversial <br />,the proposed legislation the Joing Housing Committee is not ready to <br />,position. <br /> <br />Council <br />nature of <br />take a <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />Comm <br />2/28/73 <br />Approve <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Comm <br />2/28/73 <br />Approve <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />Comm <br />2/28/73 <br />Approye <br /> <br />Comm <br />2/28/73 <br />Approve <br /> <br />Comm <br />2/28/73 <br />Affirm <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />': No action was taken. <br /> <br />Councilwoman Campbell cited various complaints of students at the University about available <br />housing. $he hoped that there would be a recommendation from the Joint Housing Committee in <br />time for the Council to take a stand on this legislation. CounciLman Williams reviewed <br />actions taken by the Housing Committee in its consideration of the legislation~ Also, some <br />CjJ?eas. of agreement and disagreement which seem apparent between landlords and tenants. He <br />$,aid the Housing Committee wantedJIlore specific inforination on those areas so did not want <br />t01llake a recominendation. until that was done.. CODl1cilwOJilan Real said there appeared to be <br />nothing' ohjectionahle about the legisl'ation and it wouid provide a skeleton from which to <br />work in leasing living quarters. <br /> <br />In answer to Councilwoman Campbell's question as to whether the Legislative Analyst could <br />research the legiSlation more fully, Manager said in view of the controversial nature of the <br />bill it-;,is doubtful anything effective could be prepared in time for the March 14 committee <br />meeting. He suggested that infoI'Jllation presented at hearings would be of benefit, and the <br />Council would have an opportunity to go on record after that testimony is received. Some <br />di::;cussion centered on unifoI'Jll legislation, Mr. Williams noting that the legislation before <br />tneLegislature was rushed from committee without going through the normal procedure of <br />$ain.ing, approvill from the Bar Association. It was 1lllderstood further information would be <br />deyeioped for Council consideration before a position is taken. <br /> <br />.r. <br /> <br />OverparkAssessment, Kaufman's :"'Truae'Kaufman' Objected to'the"assessment against <br />Kaufman's store property at 957 Willamette Street for the 10th and oak Overpark. <br />:'She said recent changes in the downtown area resulted in very little djfference <br />'in distance between the entrances of Kaufman's and The Broadway to the Overpark, <br />and that the difference in assessment rate for the two stores is not justified. <br />'It was understood staff rePort on the question would be prepared for future <br />Council consideration. <br /> <br />.'On <br /> <br />,+ <br /> <br />3/12/73 - 6 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Comm <br />2/28/73 <br />'Affirm <br />