Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
HB 2545A <br /> Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the status of the bill from Neutral <br /> to Support. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Heuser said the bill had widespread support. It would <br />make public documents more open and accessible but not in a frivolous way that would require large <br />amounts of staff time. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously. <br /> <br />HB 2840A <br /> <br />Mr. Papd asked if the bill, regarding speeding in school zones, was an improvement over existing law. Mr. <br />Larson said yes. The bill created a reasonable driver expectation by establishing default speed zones for all <br />zones in the state from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. throughout the state. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. <br />Papd, Mr. Cushman said the bill appeared to limit the use of flashers to specific times, which he thought was <br />inadvertent and easily remedied. <br /> <br />HB 3220 <br /> <br />The committee considered HB 3220, carried over from the previous week at the request of Mr. Papd. Mr. <br />Papd indicated opposition to the bill, which related to compensation for Ballot Measure 37 claims. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman believed the bill was consistent with the City's ordinance, which indicated transferability <br />depended on the outcome of Ballot Measure 37. Mr. Papd interpreted the bill as prohibiting waivers from <br />being transferred. <br /> <br /> Mr. Papd moved to change the status of the bill to Oppose. <br /> <br />The motion died for lack of a second. <br /> <br />Mr. Heuser noted the bill had yet to receive a hearing. <br /> <br />SB 0429A <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Papd, Mr. Larson indicated the current law was better than the bill, <br />which would revise the statutes in relationship to a driver's responsibilities toward pedestrians. <br /> <br />HB 2157 <br /> <br />Mr. Cushman said the bill, which was related to finger printing for non-criminal purposes, was introduced at <br />the behest of the Oregon State Police. He was unsure of the implications of the bill, noting there were <br />already regulations regarding the need for finger printing of those with access to public safety records. Mr. <br />Heuser believed the bill was intended to apply only to State agencies, although it may be amended to clarify <br />that. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations May 12, 2005 Page 6 <br /> <br /> <br />