My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 2C: IGR Committee Minutes
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2005
>
CC Agenda - 05/23/05 Mtg
>
Item 2C: IGR Committee Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:33:32 PM
Creation date
5/18/2005 4:15:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
5/23/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
114
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
The motion died for lack of a second. <br /> <br />SB 153A <br /> <br />The CCIGR considered SB 153A, which had been amended since the committee considered the bill in <br />February. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Cushman said the staff opposition was based on <br />the requirement in the bill that cities furnish the legislature with reports that included information about the <br />public acceptance of the Photo Red Light technology. He did not know how to accurately gauge that <br />without a survey, and recommended it be deleted from the bill. In addition, the bill stipulated that if a <br />vehicle's registered owner submitted a certificate of innocence, cities were restricted from reissuing a <br />citation unless it was found that individual lied about their innocence. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap6 wanted to support legislation that discouraged red light running, and suggested the committee <br />could support the bill with amendments addressing the issues raised by Mr. Cushman. Ms. Bettman and <br />Ms. Taylor indicated acceptance of the staff recommendation. <br /> <br />HB 0614 <br /> <br />The committee considered HB 0614, carried over from the last meeting. Ms. Feldman addressed questions <br />raised at that time. She said there was no definition of paid signature gatherer outside the dictionary <br />definition. Payment on the basis of the number of signatures gathered was forbidden by State law. In <br />regard to the second question, if an individual, such as a United Way employee, was gathering signatures as <br />part of their paid employment would be considered a paid signature gathering. She noted that the bill <br />applied only to State petitions. <br /> <br /> Mr. Papd moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 3, Oppose. <br /> <br />The motion died for a lack of a second. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pap~ moved to change the status of the bill Neutral. <br /> <br />The motion died for lack of a second. <br /> <br />SB 0593 <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 2. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked about the status of the bill, which would establish a property tax special assessment <br />program for land subject to conservation easements. Mr. Heuser said it received a hearing, and was <br />currently in the Senate Revenue Committee. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. <br /> <br />SB 0938A <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Papd, Mr. Cushman said staff's concern about the bill was centered on <br /> <br />MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations May 5, 2005 Page 6 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.