My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 3: Ratification of IGR Actions
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2009
>
CC Agenda - 02/23/09 Meeting
>
Item 3: Ratification of IGR Actions
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:45:18 PM
Creation date
2/20/2009 10:48:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Scripted
CMO_Meeting_Date
2/23/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
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
HB 2417 <br />Relating Clause: Relating to railroad-highway grade crossings. <br />Title: <br />Requires Department of Transportation to notify road authority 60 days prior to closing <br />railroad-highway grade crossing. <br />Sponsored by: By Representative GELSER, Senator MORSE <br />URL:http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/hb2400.dir/hb2417.intro.pdf <br />ContactRespondentDept Updated Priority Policy Poli Numb Recommendation <br />Tom Larsen Tom Larsen PWM 1/29/2009 Pri 2 Monitor <br />Comments: <br />Support for this bill will increase if amendments are made. The bill requires only <br />notification to the road authority when ODOT has decided to close a crossing. Corvallis, <br />Medford, Salem and Portland have apparently had problems with the consequences of <br />closures they had no invovlement with. This bill at least removes some of the surprise <br />associated with unilateral closures. <br />To be effective in protecting local interest, the optional public hearing should be <br />mandatory and held before the decision to close is made. There should be an appeal <br />process and ODOT should be made responsibile for the all the costs in the road system <br />that must be made as a result of the closure. <br />HB 2427 <br />Relating Clause: Relating to implied consent. <br />Title: <br />Provides that person commits offense of refusal to take test for intoxicants if person <br />refuses to submit to urine or blood test when requested to do so under implied consent <br />law. Punishes by fine of at least $500 and not more than $1,000. <br /> Provides that all fines collected for offense of refusal to take test for intoxicants that are <br />distributed to state be used by Department of State Police for enforcement of laws <br />concerning driving while under influence of intoxicants, whether or not resulting from <br />citations issued by state police. <br />Sponsored by: COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY <br />URL:http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/hb2400.dir/hb2427.intro.pdf <br />ContactRespondentDept Updated Priority Policy Poli Numb Recommendation <br />E. Cushman E. Cushman EPD-ADM 1/30/2009 Pri 3 No No Support <br />Comments: <br />This bill is very similar to HB 2239. <br />We support this bill, which would expand the offense of refusal to take a breath test to <br />include refusal to take a blood or urine test in those (fairly limited) situations where a <br />person is required by statute to submit to such a test. This would create a consistent <br />penalty for refusing any required test for intoxicants, instead of the rather odd situation <br />which currently exists where there it is an offense to refuse to submit to a breath test <br />when required by law, but not when the person refuses to submit to a required blood or <br />urine test. Having this law in place will provide more of an incentive for the person to <br />submit to the legal requirement, which is designed to provide a basis for objective <br />determination of whether the person is or is not under the influence of an intoxicant while <br />driving, and provide a sanction if s/he does not. <br />4 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.