Item 5: Action: Discussion and Approval of Non-Unanimous IGR Positions

Home Browse Search

HB 2636 Relating Clause: Relating to taking wildlife. Title: Exempts employee or agent of United States Department of Agriculture in course of lawful taking of wildlife from criminal laws related to possession and discharge of firearms. Sponsored by: Representative KRIEGER; Representatives BENTZ, CAMERON, ESQUIVEL, GARRARD, GILMAN, HUFFMAN, JENSON, OLSON, THATCHER, THOMPSON, WEIDNER, WHISNANT, WINGARD URL:http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/hb2600.dir/hb2636.intro.pdf ContactRespondentDept Updated Priority Policy Poli Numb Recommendation E. Cushman S. Swenson EPD-ADM 2/17/2009 Yes V. C5 Neutral Comments: This is a bill that we would normally drop because we do not believe it has any significant impact on the City; however, we are taking a Priority 3/neutral position on the bill to allow for IGR Committee review of the City's position if it chooses to do so. The bill is aimed at exempting USDA employees and agents who are acting within the scope of their employment responsibilities in the lawful taking of wildlife from certain firearms regulations that might otherwise apply. Sections 2 and 3 of the bill technically constitute a very limited pre- emption on the City's ability to regulate firearms, since it adds this situation to the things that a city may not prohibit by local ordinance. However, this is a very narrow exception which seems to us to make sense, specific to USDA employees who might have to shoot wildlife while in performance of their duties---which would be an unusual occurrence inside the city limits. We therefore recommend that we do not expend lobbying efforts either in support of, or opposition to, this bill as it is currently written. : HB 2640 Relating Clause: Relating to designated speeds. Title: Authorizes city with population of 140,000 or greater to designate speeds on highways under specified circumstances. Sponsored by: Representative CAMERON (at the request of Sabrina Appel) URL:http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/hb2600.dir/hb2640.intro.pdf ContactRespondentDept Updated Priority Policy Poli Numb Recommendation Tom Larsen Tom Larsen PWM 2/13/2009 Pri 3 No Oppose Comments: This bill exempts cities with population over 140,000 from the regulation by the State Speed Control Board for non-state highway roads. On the surface this bills grants the city more control over it's own roads and one could argue that the city should be able to have full control over setting it's own speed limits. This point of view does not take into account the way that the State Speed Board functions and it's role in helping protect overall public safety. As the road authority, the city under current law can apply to the State Speed Board to modify any existing speed limit whenever we feel the change is justified. Speeds are more dangerous under two conditions, when they are extreme (high or low) and when there is greater speed differential between two vehicles. The Oregon State Speed Board functions to assure State wide uniformity in the process of establishing posted speeds. The criteria and evaluation are technically based; requiring road authorities to perform detailed engineering analysis in support of any non-statutory speeds. If the City were granted the right to make our own speed limit determinations, in order to adequately protect public safety, we would use criteria likely to be indistinguishable from the current state speed board criteria. In recent memory, the State Speed Board has never rejected a speed change proposed by the City. Currently many types of road in Oregon have statutory speeds. In every community in Oregon, the basic local street in a residential area is 25 MPH, in a downtown 20 MPH. This State wide consistency adds predictability for drivers. Allowing larger road authorities to undermine this statewide consistency could have a detrimental effect on public safety. This bill does not require the road authority to use criteria beyond "reasonable and safe". 6