Item 2C: Ratify IGR Comm.Action - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

to pay attorney fees in the event a claim went to court. The bill applied the measure more narrowly to cities than the measure. Mr. Klein said a downside the council would hear about was that of was one of concern to 1,000 Friends of Oregon, the opening up farmland and forestland to development. He believed the impact would be fairly minimal in the Willamette Valley as farmland was divided into different categories that took high-quality farmland was off the table in regard to Ballot Measure 37 claims. The worst quality farmland that might currently be zoned for exclusive farm use but could not be successfully farmed becomes non- resource land and it could be divided if that division was consistent with Goal 14, related to urbanization. Ms. Taylor expressed a concern about transferability. She asked Mr. Klein if he thought the City should support the bill. Mr. Klein said yes. Responding to a question from Mr. Heuser, Mr. Klein said the measure did not speak to what the cities did with regard to the study area. Ms. Bettman asked if there were further opportunities to amend the bill. Mr. Klein said yes, depending on the nature of the amendments. Mr. Heuser indicated those involved in the discussions were not taking suggestions from individual jurisdictions. The League of Cities was involved in the discussions. Ms. Bettman suggested the committee monitor the bill rather than take a position on it given that the individual jurisdictions had no opportunity to offer input. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to monitor the bill. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Klein anticipated a package of amendments would be ready the following week and the committee could discuss them at the May 25 meeting. The committee rescheduled the time for the May 25 to 8 a.m. 6. Review Pending Legislation Priority 1 Bills HB 2343 Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman about the status of House Bill (HB) 2343, Mr. Heuser said the chair of the committee, Gordon Anderson, did not appear to be as open-minded about the bill as he had previously thought. He wanted to see grassroots support from the business community regarding the bill, which would raise the cap on the fee that could be charged to businesses for a right-to-know program. Mr. Heuser had submitted three letters from various businesses such as Emerald Valley Kitchen but the chair was not convinced the bill was desired by the local business community. Mr. Anderson had wanted to hear from companies with 10 to 60 employees about their support for the bill, but Mr. Heuser had been unable to get anyone from the business community to testify in support of the toxics bill. Ms. Bettman determined from Mr. Heuser that the concept of trading the fee cap for a program cap had not been successful. Priority 2 Bills MINUTES--Council Committee on INtergovernmental Relations May 12, 2005 Page 5