Item 2C: IGR Committee Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SB 0261 Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Cushman said the departments' concern was that the bill would reduce the charge assessed to someone riding a bicycle while intoxicated to a violation, and the officer would not be able to arrest the offender; it would only be a citable offense. Mr. Papd, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Support with the amendment that the offense be a Class C rather than a Class A felony. Mr. Cushman said the position meant that the City would support the bill if it moved forward without amendments. He suggested the City continue to oppose the bill with amendments. Mr. Pap6 withdrew his motion and Ms. Taylor withdrew her second. The committee agreed staff would seek amendments to the bill. SB 1000 Mr. Pap~, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 1 Ms. Klemp indicated a hearing was scheduled on the bill, which would eliminate discrimination against persons in certain areas of the law based on sexual orientation. That hearing would occur on May 4 at 5 p.m. in Salem. The motion passed unanimously. Priority 3 Bills' HB 2872 Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman regarding the bill, related to conformance with nationally recognized building standards, Ms. Osborn said there had been a move across the country to standardize building codes. The bill was an attempt to further streamline and standardize such codes in terms of consistency of application. She said there was no home rule issue involved. The City had no choice in regard to the Building Code it used. Ms. Bettman asked why the bill was needed if the City could not deviate from the standards. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Ms. Osborn said the bill contained criteria that would enable the Building Codes Division to adopt variations to nationally recognized codes. Currently, the division adopted codes unique to Oregon, which made it difficult to get training and code books. Ms. Bettman said the bill appeared to be a way of moving toward the least common denominator standard- ized code that would not provide local flexibility. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to change the status of the bill to Oppose. Ms. Osbom said that the City did not have any local flexibility in its building codes. It had no ability to be more or less restrictive than the State allowed. MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 21, 2005 Page 11