My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02/24/1975 Meeting
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
Historic Minutes
>
1975
>
02/24/1975 Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/27/2007 5:42:49 PM
Creation date
11/2/2006 5:09:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Meeting
CMO_Meeting_Date
2/24/1975
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
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
<br />e <br /> <br />S.B.3ll - Fred Mohr, chairman of the citizens committee working against exten- <br />sion of the field burning ban, reported a turn around in the com- <br />munity's attitude due for the most part to Mayor Anderson's recent <br />press conference where he advised the community of the lack of citizen <br />input to the Legislature in this regard. Mr. Mohr said there now Comm <br />were considerable numbers of letters, phone calls, etc., going into 2/12/75 <br />legislators in support of continuing the ban. He noted hearings <br />scheduled for February 24 at which citizens' testimony would be taken, <br />the city's formal presentation rejecting S.B.3ll in its entirety to <br />be made at hearings scheduled February 25. <br /> <br />B. Legislative Subcommittee Report - February 17, 1975 was read by Councilwoman Beal: <br /> <br />1. S.B.3ll - Seed growers bill on open field burning. Oppose in its entirety <br />with the attached statement offered for Council approval. <br /> <br />"The city of Eugene opposes this bill in its entirety on the following <br />grounds: (1) It would permit open field burning to continue indefinitely <br />with no cutoff date, (2) it provides no limitation on the number of acres <br />burned annually, (3) it offers no incentives to develop or use available <br />alternatives to open burning. <br /> <br />"The city of Eugene considers this bill an insult to residents of this <br />area who have endured the misery of open field burning for many years. <br />We bear no ill will towards the farming community. We strongly desire <br />a solution to the field burning problem which will not injur either us <br />or the growers. S.B.3ll, however, offers no basis for any fruitful <br />compromise. " <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Mr: Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to approve the subcommittee's <br />statement in opposition to S.B.3ll. Motion carried unanimously. <br /> <br />2. H.B.2050 - Approve in principle this bill designed to provide more dis- <br />cretion for cities in making annexations. However, the bill <br />appears to make annexation mandatory under certain conditions, <br />and the subcommittee would recommend an amendment which would <br />provide that an annexation request brought to a boundary board <br />or commission could be approved only with the consent of the <br />annexing city. This would avoid placing a city in the position <br />of having to absorb large areas not in the city's sequential <br />planned growth or before urban services are available. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />3. S.B.248 - The subcommittee requests comments from the municipal court, <br />city attorney, and other interested staff on this bill, an omnibus <br />bill prop~sed by the Governor's commission on judicial reform. <br />Among other things the bill would abolish municipal courts, placing <br />litigation normally handled by municipal courts directly in state <br />district courts. The subcommittee would like to know the fiscal <br />impact of this bill on the city and whether the municipal court <br />and/or city staff feel that the general public and the city of <br />Eugene would benefit or suffer from this proposed legislation. <br /> <br />4. S.B.182 - The subcommittee took no position on this bill s,ince no information <br />could be obtained on how it would affect the city financially. This <br />bill increases unemployment compensation payments and also increases <br />assessments paid by employers. It provides for payment of unemploy- <br />ment compensation in cases of lockout and to union members not <br />directly involved in a strike who are unemployed because of refusal <br />to cross the picket line of another union. Since the city doesn't <br />pay regular assessments but operates on a reimbursement plan when <br />unemployment compensation is paid, the personnel office was unable <br />to estimate the bill's financial impact. <br /> <br />83 <br /> <br />2/24/75 - 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.