Item 3D: Ratification of IGR Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

for by changing the entire state law. He underscored that the City could just pick what it wanted to apply for and leave the law as it was. Ms. Bettman asked why then the CCIGR did not wish to take a neutral position on the bill. Mr. Pryor responded by questioning why the City of Eugene would not want transportation legislation to go through. Ms. Bettman replied that it brought up a policy issue for her because of how it was financed. She opined that it was a very poor fiscal policy. She noted that it was obviously something that would have to come before the council. Ms. Taylor indicated she would support the motion. She added that the only reason they would do any of it was that they were trying to protect the interests of the City. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pryor voting in opposition. Ms. Wilson indicated she would attend the hearing and monitor the bill given that the council would not be able to discuss it prior to the hearing. Ms. Bettman stated that until the council was able to discuss it the recommended position was that of the motion. ? HB 2035 – Relating to habitual traffic offenders. Recommended Priority 3 Support Ms. Taylor explained that she pulled this bill because she wanted to know why a Priority 3 support had been recommended. Ms. Wilson clarified that the bill would change current law so that driving privileges could be revoked for 15 moving violations within five years; currently the number of allowable violations within that period is 20. Ms. Taylor said she did not want to discuss the bill. ? HB 2136 – Relating to appeals from judgments in violation proceedings. Recommended Priority 3 Neutral or Drop Ms. Wilson noted that Ms. Mauch had recommended the City drop it and City Attorney Jerry Lidz had recommended that the CCIGR adopt a neutral stance in regard to this bill. She noted that the bill would prevent the appeal from a judgment proceeding with an imposed fine of $500 or lower. Ms. Taylor thought the CCIGR should oppose HB 2136 as all people should have a right to appeal a legal judgment. Ms. Mauch explained that the reason she had suggested it be dropped was that the City Municipal Court saw very few appeals on violations at that level as the filing fee was over $200. Ms. Bettman questioned the difference between ‘drop’ and ‘neutral.’ She opined that it would be nice if people had the ability to appeal but she also thought, given the resources the City had, it was not prudent to allow it to rise to the level as something the City wanted to put its legislative resources behind. She ascertained from Mr. Pryor that he would not second a motion regarding the bill and noted that she would also not provide a second. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental January 23, 2007 Page 3 Relations