Item 8 - Ratif.IGR Comm.Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

began as a $9 million wish list had been narrowed to $3.8 million, and negotiations were continuing among the different jurisdictions. Mr. Solin further confirmed, in response to a follow-up question from Mr. Pap6, that the City would know itS share of the grant dollars before the grant was submitted. Mr. Solin noted that interoperability was a priority for many Lane County cities. 4. Review Pending Legislation Priority 1 Bills Referring to Senate Bill (SB) 0412, which would eliminate the tax increment generated by school district revenues from urban renewal districts, Ms. Bettman said while she understood the staff recommendation to oppose the bill, she believed that anything that increased school funding was a good thing. She supported the bill with amendments to ensure that the money was directed toward schools. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Support with Amendments. Mr. Pap6 indicated opposition to the motion. He asked Ms. Cutsogeorge to explain the statement in the agenda materials that the bill did not guarantee the schools more funding. Ms. Cutsogeorge said that currently, school taxes were included in the urban renewal division of tax calculation. The State school funding formula gives schools a certain amount per pupil no matter the source, so changing the amount of property taxes schools receive would not necessarily mean they receive more funding. That was the reason for Ms. Bettman's amendment. Ms. Bettman said the bill would increase school funding. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Ms. Cutsogeorge said staff recommended opposition to the bill because it would reduce urban renewal revenues. She noted that it was a council-adopted legislative policy to oppose such bills. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pap6 voting no. Ms. Taylor asked why staff did not recommend support for SB 0555, which would eliminate the mixing zone provision in National Pollutant Elimination Discharge System (NPDES) permits. Mr. Ruffler said that the question was one of whether the costs that would be incurred by the City to meet the requirements of the bill would have a commensurate benefit. He did not think so. Mr. Ruffler understood it was unlikely the bill would come out of the House of Representatives. He said that those involved in municipal wastewater treatment had discussed the possibility of providing additional information to the lawmakers about how permitting was done now to protect public safety and health and the environment, and the costs of moving to the higher level of protection called for in the bill so they could make a better-informed decision. He said that while a generalized ban on mixing zones might have some environmental benefit, it would not produce the cost-benefit return one would want to see. He believed a better approach was a site-specific approach that was based on the pollutants being discharged. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Support with amendments to allow phasing of the requirements. Mr. Ruffler explained that the bill already contained a phasing element for municipal agencies. The City would go through one more permit cycle under the current program before the law would apply. He said that the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission's (MWMC) facilities planning effort projected MINUTES--Council Committee on INtergovernmental Relations February 24, 2005 Page 2