Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bettman, who had brought the bill up for discussion, was satisfied by the explanation. <br /> <br />? <br /> SB 48 – Relating to corporate tax revenues in excess of estimates. <br />Recommended Priority 2 Support <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman averred that the bill would create revenue that the City did not have access to presently as it <br />was donating the funding strictly to a capital account for education, which meant it could only be used for <br />infrastructure. She wished to support it with an amendment that indicated that funds should be available for <br />preservation and maintenance of infrastructure. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor noted that it may not be legal under Ballot Measure 47 to use the money for maintenance and <br />preservation. <br /> <br />Mr. Hill thought, given the source of the money, that it could be allowed to be used for capital preservation <br />and maintenance. He offered to look into it. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman moved to change it to Priority 1 Support with the amendment that the money be <br />used for maintenance and preservation. There was no second but both Ms. Taylor and Mr. <br />Pryor supported the motion. <br /> <br />? <br /> SB 43 – Relating to property taxes. <br />Recommended Priority 3 Drop <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked for clarification of the language. Mr. Hill explained that it was staff’s perception that <br />the bill only applied to delinquent property taxes. He suggested that the CCIGR postpone action until staff <br />could confirm this. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman, seconded Ms. Taylor, moved to direct staff to monitor SB 43. The motion passed <br />unanimously, 3:0. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor noted that it was past 1:10 p.m. Ms. Bettman said the CCIGR would address one more bill and <br />she apologized to staff who had attended the meeting at the CCIGR’s request and had not been called to the <br />table due to time constraints. <br /> <br />? <br /> SB 117 – Relating to telephone solicitations. <br />Recommended Priority 3 Neutral <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked why the City did not wish to support SB 117. Ms. Berrian replied that the bill looked like <br />it was “housekeeping” in nature. She said unless a bill overtly affected the City she would not encourage <br />taking a position on it. She related that she had suggested a neutral approach to “keep it in the hopper” so it <br />would not fall out of sight. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman agreed that the bill did not directly affect the City and that the City should not apply much in <br />the way of resources to it. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked Ms. Wilson to highlight the bills that the council had pulled and to expand the <br />information provided by staff on the bills in order to streamline the process. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental January 23, 2007 Page 10 <br /> Relations <br />