Item 2D: Ratification of IGR Committee Actions

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 2, Monitor. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 3566 Ms. Wilson recalled a similar bill was opposed by the committee but it had been reintroduced and more people had joined in support. Mr. Yeiter noted the lack of an agency to review extra-territorial boundary extensions now that the boundary commission was being eliminated. The bill made an exception for certain types of extensions, such as those on behalf of another government entity. Mr. Lidz did not see the bill as a being about whether extraterritorial extensions, but under which circumstances the City could say to the recipient of the service that if they wanted the service they must annex. The City did not have to provide extraterritorial service and if it did it could condition it. The bill stipulated that when a city provided such a service on behalf of another government, it could not use the service as a rationale for annexation. Mr. Lidz thought the bill was intended to address a situation where a city used an agreement to provide services on behalf of a rural entity to force annexation. If, for example, someone was receiving service from a rural water district that contracted with a city for water service, that city could use that as a reason to force annexation. He thought it had to do with the fairness of using Intergovernmental Agreement to force annexation. He was concerned because it was not well-drafted or precise, and there could be circumstances where the bill could prevent annexation where it should not. In addition, it was to be applied retroactively, which was another concern for him. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Yeiter said that the City had agreements for service with the County that allowed development contingent on the signing of the annexation agreement by a date certain or when sewer services were provided. Sewers were being provided now in anticipation of annexation, and it might be that those agreements were affected. Mr. Lidz was unsure but was concerned about the unintended impacts of the bill. He said the intent seemed fair, but it was not well-drafted. Ms. Wilson said that the original bill, HB 3012, had died, but this was a priority for the sponsor, who had resubmitted it and received ten more votes of support. It had not had a hearing and had been referred to a committee. She did not think it would make progress. Mr. Pryor recommended that the City continue to oppose the bill. Ms. Wilson suggested a Priority 2 position. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 2 Oppose. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Ms. Wilson called the committee’s attention to request from Mayor Piercy to sign on to a letter opposing field burning to be sent to the Department of Environmental Quality Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to sign on to the letter. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Wilson said she would get the letter to the council. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations June 15, 2007 Page 3