Item 2C: Ratif. of IGR Actions - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Taylor questioned whether a change in the priority would help; she did not anticipate the staff would do much to actively oppose the bill, but she believed it was a matter of principle. Mr. Pap6 asked if the bill had been amended. Mr. Heuser indicated amendments would be offered to the bill the next day. Ms. Bettman said the council was on record as opposing special districts and it was not willing to support them at this time. The amendment made the bill better but still did not do anything about the underlying issue. Mr. Pap6 recalled a council vote on Ms. Bettman's motion on special districts had been a tie, with the mayor breaking the tie. He offered to bring the item up again to the City Council if the bill was amended. Members agreed. Mr. Heuser left the meeting. Priority 1 Bills Mr. Pap6 referred to Senate Bill (SB) 2709, related to the federal Forest Legacy Program, and asked if special lobbying effort was needed. Ms. Brooks indicated that the Senate version of the bill had passed and had been referred to the relevant House committee. Staff was expanding its lobbying efforts to include other parties, such as the small wood lots association. If the Senate version did not move, the City would start moving the House bill. At that time, staff would request additional lobbying assistance. Priority 2 Bills Mr. Pap6 asked why the City was taking a position on HB 2705, which related to sewer systems in rural areas, and why staff would oppose rural sewer systems, which he believed were better for protecting the environment than drain fields and septic tanks. Ms. Muir responded the City had a policy against diminishing the effectiveness of urban growth boundaries and sprawl. The bill did not indicate that the houses in the cluster being served needed to be close together, and it seemed to be a way to allow for more intense development outside UGBs. Mr. Pap6 pointed out that current land use plans and laws would still remain in effect if the bill were passed. Ms. Muir acknowledged that, but said that it was easier to get exceptions to those land use laws if there was built systems in place and existing patterns of development. She believed it weakened existing restrictions in State law that prevented rural land from being developed. Mr. Pap6 asked about the benefits of such systems as opposed to drain fields and septic tanks. Ms. Muir said she discussed the issue with Peter Ruffler of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC), who believed the bill could provide people with the ability to expand systems that should not be expanded. Mr. Jones believed that the City had a capacity planning issue with the proposed legislation. Mr. Pap6 said that the bill did not discuss connections to the MWMC. It would allow a cluster of houses that would be allowed to install sewer systems. Ms. Muir said the bill also mentioned an alternative sewage disposal system, which she interpreted the bill as allowing such connections to existing sewer systems. Mr. Pap6 pointed out that could not occur without the approval of the MWMC. MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 31, 2005 Page 3