04/14/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

It is an attempt to clarify existing law which dates from 1919 plus an addi- tion in 1973 by doing three things: (1) It makes zoning decisions optional by permitting them to be made either by hea,rings officials or by city counciis; (2) ,i t provides optional procedures for appeals. Depending on the choice of .. local governments, appeals can' be made to the planning commission, to the citlj council, or directly to the courts; (3) it simplifies the requirement for transcripts by providing thilt a record showing the identity of speakers and r~flecting the substance or. their statements call be substituted for a ver- bat.im transcript. The subcommittc>c rc'commends that the Council agree in concept since the bill is still being amended and worked on. fl.B.2940 - Would establish reqiona1 airports in districts crossing county boundaries. The subcommi ttee agrees in concept on .this bill which would make it possible to finance operations of airports by revenue bonds on a regional basis. H.B.2693 - This bill would make it possible for local government purchasing agents to purchase suppl.ies from the state if they so desire. It is permissive only. The subcommittee recommends support of th.is bill. The subcommittee recommends that the Council go on record opposing the following bills: H:i3.2651 - TV translators. This bill would allow financing of TV translators by setting up special service districts. It is enabling legislation only. Although the bill does not concern this city directly, the subcommittee opposes the proliferation of special districts. Moreover, the l.Jill appears to be poorly drafted. H.B.2981 - This bill precludes cities from extending the,ir services outside the city . limits. We strong,ly oppose this l.Ji11 in concept since it transfers the right of local government to act in an emergency. 5.B.248 - The subcommittee approv.es a statement prepared by Mr. Martin for testimony on this bill. The subcommittee was' split on whether the basic principle of this law should be supported. The bill is the omnibus bill on reform of the state court system. The section dealt with in Nr. Nartin's memorandum refers on1t) to the Tecommendiltion which would prohilJit municiiJa1ities from incorporating traffic regulations into municipil1 courts by ordinance. The. hill would transfer jur.isclict:ion for these offensos from municipal court to the district court. Mr. Martin's testimony deals only with the effect of this law on the muniqipa1 court of the city of.Eugene. It is factual in nature and does not discuss the principles involved. Mr.. /laws has no objection to the factual testimony as outlined in Mr.Martin' s memorandum. i/owevcr, flU disagrees wi th the objections exprossed., by Mr. Hamel and Mrs. Bea1 to tfw trilnsfer of all traffic cases from municipal to state' cour t:s . Attention was called to the difference of opinion in the subcommittee on the principle of transferring municipal court traffic functions to district court (S.B.248). Mr. Haws did not object to comments to be presented by Assistant Manager in testimony before the Legislature's judiciary committee in opposition to the bill. However, he said he would like to see the Council adopb the concept of transferring state traffic violations from municipal co~rt to the district court. He wanted it made clear that the bill would 4IIJ not abolish municipal courts. It would merely transfer jurisdiction for state violations, which he thought in the long run would save the taxpayers 4/14/75 - 18 '7,0