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

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

Ms. Bettman preferred to leave the matter to the courts, but she suggested the committee take a Priority 2, Oppose position to all pending legislation. She indicated support for legislation related to the private cause of action, Senate Bill (SB) 633. Ms. Taylor concurred. Mr. Pap6 preferred to wait and not waste any staff resources. Ms. Bettman did not think the resource would be wasted if the bills were stuck in committee; at least the committee would be on record. Mr. Heuser advised a neutral position on the legislation that had been introduced. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to take a position of Priority 1, Support on SB 633. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to take a position of Priority 2, Oppose, to all Ballot Measure 37-related legislation except SB 633. Mr. Pap6 was concerned about the potential of wasting time and energy and offending legislators. Ms. Bettman interpreted the motion as directing Mr. Heuser to take a vocal position against anything but a comprehensive package. Mr. Heuser indicated that would not be a problem. The motion passed unanimously. Priority 1 Bills The committee had no questions about Priority 1 bills. Priority 2 Bills Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman about the purpose of House Bill (HB) 2214, related to public contracting, Mr. Klein indicated the bill included technical corrections to legislation passed in 2003. It was filed pre-session by the request of the Attorney General's Office. The City Attorney's Office had reviewed the bill and had seen no problems with it. He was unsure of the effect the bill would have on the City's public contracting code. Ms. Bettman suggested the bill be changed to a lower priority. Mr. Heuser did not object, noting he was aware of no opposition to the bill. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the priority of HB 2214 to Priority 3. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Bettman referred to HB 2220, related to collusion in bidding on public contracting, and expressed concern about the staff recommendation to take a neutral position on the bill. Mr. Jones noted that the staff recommendations differed. Only minor changes would be required to City practices. He deferred to the committee's position on the bill. Mr. Heuser reported that no hearing was scheduled on the bill. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of liB 2220 from Neu- tral to Support. The motion passed unanimously. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor regarding HB 2533, which imposed a "beverage cost recovery fee" on malt beverages, Mr. Hill indicated the fee in question was a wholesale tax. Ms. Taylor preferred to take a position in opposition to the bill as she interpreted the fee as a sales tax on a poor person's drink. Mr. MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 17, 2005 Page 2