Item 2C: Ratify IGR Comm.Action - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

HB 3476 Ms. Walston termed the bill a fallback to SB 1000, which was related to civil unions. She believed taking a strong stand on the bill in question could erode the strong stand the committee previously took on SB 1000. Ms. Taylor objected that it did not seem right to oppose the bill. Mr. Heuser recommended the committee take a neutral position on the legislation and put the City's weight behind SB 1000. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Monitor, with the intent of supporting the strongest bill possible. The motion passed unanimously. SB 0412A Responding to a question from Mr. Papd about the bill, which would establish a procedure by which a special taxing district such as a school district may be excluded from participation in an urban renewal plan, Ms. Cutsogeorge clarified that such districts could request to be removed from the district but the affected cities must approve the request. The bill's stipulation that a change to the duration of a plan was a major amendment to the plan was a change to existing law. Ms. Cutsogeorge did not see anything in the bill that would harm the City. The committee made no changes to the staff recommendation to monitor the bill. SB 0548A Ms. Bettman asked if the bill, which modified the crime of interfering with a police officer, would apply to a protestor who merely lied down; could that individual be charged with interfering with an officer? Mr. Cushman said no, because there was an exception in the bill related to passive resistance. The committee made no changes to the staff recommendation. SB 0688A Mr. Lidz termed the bill, which would authorize land owners to obtain vested rights to development approval as part of a site-specific development plan, a ~do nothing" bill. It extended the permissible duration for a City-approved development agreement from 7 to 15 years. Ms. Bettman moved to change the status of the bill to Oppose. Ms. Bettman thought 15 years was a long time, and regulations could change over that time. Mr. Heuser indicated the bill passed unanimously in the Senate. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Yeiter indicated the bill did not stop a development plan from being changed with the mutual consent of the developer and local jurisdiction, nor did it preclude the City from entering into agreements of a shorter time frame. Ms. Taylor seconded the motion. Ms. Bettman asked why staff recommended the committee monitor the bill. Mr. Lidz indicated that was due to the bill's broad relating clause. MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations May 26, 2005 Page 7