Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ms. Wilson explained that ‘drop’ meant that the City would not even consider the bill because it would not <br />have an effect on the City either positive or negative and ‘neutral’ meant that although a bill may have an <br />effect the City did not have a position on it either way. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor said if ‘neutral’ meant the City would not spend resources on it he would support taking a neutral <br />stance. Ms. Wilson responded that the difference for her was that when she was watching the bills move <br />through, she would not pay attention to those that were dropped but she would pay some attention to a bill <br />the City had taken a neutral stance on because such bills could change as they moved through the process. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to drop the bill. The motion passed unanimously, <br />3:0. <br /> <br />? <br /> HB 2147 – Relating to denial of driving privileges of persons under 21 years of age and <br />? <br /> HB 2149 – Relating to penalties for violations of laws governing alcoholic beverages. <br />Recommended Priority 3 Support for both <br /> <br />Ms. Mauch explained that juvenile court could cause a drivers license suspension through the Department of <br />Motor Vehicles (DMV) but the Municipal Court was not able to do so. She said the passage of HB 2147 <br />would provide the Municipal Court with that ability. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked what kinds of offenses could be penalized in this way. Ms. Mauch replied that for the <br />Municipal Court license suspensions could be a penalty for alcohol or marijuana possession citations under <br />the age of 20. Ms. Taylor indicated that she did not care to pursue any further discussion of HB 2147. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked if HB 2149 included parents. Ms. Wilson replied that the bill added a provision that made <br />it so that a person who had violated the laws governing alcoholic beverages more than once could be <br />subjected at the court’s discretion to assessment to determine if that person is an alcoholic and, if so, the <br />person would be required to go into treatment. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor did not believe that a 20-year-old who had a drink should be subjected to an assessment. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor disagreed. He noted that he had worked with alcoholics and even young people could be <br />alcoholics. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said she had been with groups of “very respectable people” with which a 19-year-old or a 20- <br />year-old might have a drink and she surmised that some of the people in the room had been in a similar <br />situation. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Mauch said the bill cleaned up some language and it <br />authorized the “treatment piece” the Municipal Court struggled with. She related that the City’s court was <br />impacted by alcohol abuse in the community and they had worked a lot with deferred prosecution programs <br />for the first offense. She stressed that this would not change as the bill only referred to second and <br />consecutive offenses. She noted that if a person was under 21 and was drinking alcohol, he or she was <br />breaking the law in most environments. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman noted that the bill said the court “may order,” which gave the court discretion. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor averred that 21 was a “ridiculous” age limit. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental January 23, 2007 Page 4 <br /> Relations <br />