CC Minutes - 04/13/09 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilor Clark asked Ms. Wilson to explain why the recommendation had been to oppose the bill. He had heard compelling testimony to support the bill. Ms. Wilson responded that the bill had been assigned to five different staff members in five different areas of the City and all of them had recommended a Priority 3 Oppose position. She said one reason for opposition that had stood out was that the terminology and the way the bill was written made it hard to implement. She noted that the testimony during the hearing had echoed this. She explained that the bill did not define what was slowing to a safe speed and how one would know what speed that would be, especially law enforcement. She stated that the committee members had also raised the issue of the “messaging” from the bicycle community. She said staff had opposed the bill during the previous legislative session when it had been introduced for the same reasons. Councilor Poling indicated that he would not support anything but an oppose position. He felt that a change in the law would “open up the road.” His concerns were that it could lead to allowing other modes of transportation to forego stopping at stop signs and that it did not restrict the rolling stops to certain areas. He averred that stop signs and stoplights had been placed for safety reasons. He believed that the transportation system needed to be consistently safe for all people. Councilor Ortiz respected staff recommendations “99.9 percent of the time.” She said occasionally the councilors took a stance that was “against the norm.” She was willing to support a neutral position. She said, given that Ms. Wilson had indicated that the bill was not moving, she did not think the council should send her back with instructions to work on the bill. Councilor Pryor concurred with Councilor Ortiz. He had been originally inclined to oppose the bill. He did not think he could support the bill at this point, without further information, but he was willing to support adoption of a neutral position. Roll call vote; the motion to substitute a Priority 3 Support position failed, 5:3; councilors Taylor, Zelenka, and Brown voting in support. Roll call vote; the main motion to adopt a Neutral position passed, 7:1; Councilor Poling voting in opposition. House Bill 2842 – Would repeal Ballot Measure 57 and all related provisions. Ms. Wilson noted that Ballot Measure (BM) 57 had been passed in 2008. She said staff had recommended adoption of a Priority 2 Oppose position, but Councilor Taylor had moved to change this to a Priority 2 Support and received no second. Councilor Taylor explained that her feeling was that the prisons were already overloaded and BM 57 should be repealed. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt a Priority 2 Oppose posi- tion on House Bill 2842. Councilor Clark asked for a brief synopsis of BM 57. Ms. Wilson replied that HB 2842 would roll back the sentencing enhancements that were passed by the voters. She said BM 57 had been the “kinder and gentler” version of the measure submitted by Kevin Mannix and was less costly. She stated that the reason staff recommended adoption of an Oppose position was because the measure covered property crimes, the “number one problem” in Eugene. She added that because the bill would repeal a ballot measure, a two- third majority was required to overturn it. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 13, 2009 Page 13 Regular Meeting