Item 3: Ratification of Unanimous IGR Actions and Action on Non-Unanimous IGR Actions

Home Browse Search

Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation Steve Nystrom PDD-ADM 01/19/2011 Pri 2 Oppose Comments: State statutes define the term "needed housing" and include regulatory limits which cities can impose. These statutes have been amended many times over the years and are difficult to understand. DLCD staff are proposing to clean up these statutes to make them more understandable. Although there are many policy level issues associated with this topic, DLCD is attempting to avoid any policy level changes. For the most part these changes have minimal impact to the city of Eugene. In fact, it's questionable whether the amendments provide any noticeable clarity. However, DLCD has added language which troubles city staff. The amendment would require that cities and counties compile and submit an annual report about the rates at which needed housing is being located within their jurisdictions. That subsection would prohibit LCDC from providing any financial assistance to a city that fails to provide the annual report. An annual review serves no purpose (there is no indication of what DLCD is supposed to do with the reports) and it's likely that DLCD lacks the staffing to do anything with these reports every year. Cities like Eugene are required to periodically develop and adopt regulations and programs to accommodate their housing needs for 20 years at a time. This 20-year planning process goes through a rigorous review before LCDC will acknowledge that the City’s regulations will accommodate its needed housing. Given the cost implications and lack of purpose for this reporting requirement, staff recommend this bill be opposed. HB 2142 Relating Clause: Relating to admissibility of drug recognition evaluations. Title: Provides that partial or complete drug recognition evaluation is admissible as evidence and may be used to determine whether person was driving under influence of intoxicants. Sponsored by: Ordered printed by the Speaker pursuant to House Rule 12.00A (5). Presession filed (at the request of Governor John A. Kitzhaber for Department of Transportation) URL: http://www.leg.state.or.us/11reg/measpdf/hb2100.dir/hb2142.intro.pdf Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation Chuck Tilby EPD-ADM 1/18/2011 Pri 2 Support Comments: A drug recognition evaluation is done by specially trained and certified police officers and the process is very rigorous. Basically the evaluation is a 12 step process. The current court ruling is that if any one of those steps is not included the entire evaluation with all of its evidence is not admissible. The most common occurrence is when the suspect refuses to provide a urine sample. Since it’s one of the steps, the court ruling essentially invalidates the entire evaluation. The statistical data supports the fact the opinion of the DRE is highly reliable from the objective analysis of the rest of the evaluation. In fact the 3