My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 3: Discussion and Action on Non-Unanimous IGR Actions/HB 3608
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2010
>
CC Agenda - 02/08/10 Meeting
>
Item 3: Discussion and Action on Non-Unanimous IGR Actions/HB 3608
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:43:17 PM
Creation date
2/5/2010 11:13:16 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
2/8/2010
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
generated by increases in vehicle registration fees. Alters requirements for low- <br />speed vehicle and medium-speed electric vehicle safety standards. Provides that <br />moneys received by Oregon Historical Society from issuance of Pacific <br />Wonderland registration plates may be used for purposes other than establishing <br />and maintaining Oregon History Center at State Capitol. Restricts requirement <br />that parents and other persons responsible for safety and welfare of child who is <br />under 16 years of age secure child with safety system, safety belt or safety <br />harness when child operates or is passenger in or on certain all-terrain vehicles to <br />operation of vehicles on public lands. Expands scope of variance permits. Directs <br />Department of Transportation to submit quarterly report on revenue raised from <br />certain increased fees and taxes. Declares an emergency, effective on passage. <br />Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Policy Policy No Recommendation <br />Tom Larsen PWM 01/13/2010 Monitor <br />Comments: The way I read the original bill low speed vehicles and medium speed electric vehicles <br />would need to comply with "any vehicle safety standards" established at the Federal <br />level. I liked this part of the original. To remove it as housekeeping because there is no <br />Federal safety standard for low or medium speed vehicles works against public safety. <br />These low or medium speed vehicles will be on the road with standard vehicles. They <br />may not be able to reach 50 MPH on their own, but could be hit by another vehicle <br />travelling 50 or more. ODOT muyst still write the regulations so it is premature to say <br />that things like seat belts, turn signals and defrosters won't be required. Depending on <br />how hard ODOT is lobbied could influence how much safety equipment is actually <br />required. Leaving the language in about meeting all federal safety rules for any vehicle <br />will make a safer vehicle more predictable. <br />Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Policy Policy No Recommendation <br />Rob Inerfeld Lee Shoemaker PWE 01/19/2010 Neutral or Drop <br />Comments: This is mainly clean-up language regarding adopted fees, requirements for reports on <br />fees, and some variances that road authorities may make for special conditions. We will <br />defer to Tom Larsen or others if they have strong opinions on how this would affect <br />Eugene. <br />Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Policy Policy No Recommendation <br />Eric Jones PW-ADM 01/12/2010 Monitor <br />Comments: Brenda's clarification about the 2% surcharge on multimodal projects to be used for a <br />multimodal study answered my main question about this legislative concept. Because the <br />charge on ConnectOregon III projects was "accidentally" carried over from <br />ConnectOregon II, and with the understanding that additional $$ aren't necessary for a <br />multimodal study, I concur with Larry Hill that a monitor level 2 position is prudent, <br />given the overall significance of HB2001. I'm somewhere between confused and <br />concerned about the variance language at Section 10 (m). Per Brenda's plain English <br />interpretation, there's a reasonable amendment that would allow a permitted over-width <br />vehicle to use a bike LANE and/or a left-turn refuge lane (after all, the over-width vehicle <br />understandably requires more than a normal travel lane). Why is the reference in the <br />legislative concept to bicycle TRAIL? <br />6 | Page <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.