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

Home Browse Search

would not be an improvement. The bill would essentially create a special court. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Lidz said that the Land Use Board of Appeals referees do not have to be lawyers, but usually are. Ms. Bettman suggested that if the bill passed, there would be less of a possibility the appointments to the court would be political because the State would have to appoint existing judges. Mr. Lidz believed the result would be that the current board of appeals would become the court of appeals. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Pap6, moved to change the status of the bill to Oppose. The motion passed unanimously. Priority 3 Bills Ms. Taylor referred to HB 2109, related to pedestrians, and asked how it clarified existing law. Mr. Cushman said that the bill standardized the rules for all drivers and made it clear when a driver could enter a signalized intersection if the crosswalk was occupied by a pedestrian. Ms. Taylor asked why staff recommended opposition to HB 2378, relating to the working family child care credit. Mr. Hill said it would expand the current credit to allow more people to claim the credit. It could be claimed by parents, grandparents, and guardians. The bill did not specify that the individual must have custody of a child. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Hill indicated the source of the revenue loss estimate was the State. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Hill said the impact of the bill would depend on how many more people took advantage of the tax credit's expanded availability. Ms. Bettman suggested the CCIGR support the bill with amendments calling for documentation that the person applying for the credit is the caretaker of the child. Ms. Taylor expressed concern about the proposed amendment as she believed that some people would have a difficult time proving they had custody of a child even if they had full responsibility for the child. Mr. Pap6 agreed. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill Priority 2, Support. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Bettman indicated her opposition to HB 2438, which modified the rule-making authority of the Land Conservation and Development Commission as she believed it would increase the exceptions to State land use rules. The current staff recommendation was to monitor the bill. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 2, Oppose. Ms. Brooks reported that the bill passed the House of Representatives the previous day by a vote of 58:2. In response to a request for more information about the bill from Mr. Pap6, Ms. Klemp indicated the bill came from a committee. Mr. Lidz said there was a growing consensus in the legislature that the State's current rules were fairly rigid, and flexibility to apply them with some discretion was a good idea. Ms. Bettman disagreed that the State's land use rules were too rigid. She believed the rules were pretty MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 24, 2005 Page 5