Item 2C: Ratification of IGR Committee Minutes of January 30, 2007

Home Browse Search

would be processed by the County. Mr. Pryor asked how much work would be entailed if the City assumed responsibility. Mr. Yeiter indicated that currently, the City only had an advisory role in the process, and boundary commission staff did the bulk of the work, which involved considerable follow-up related to the legalities of the changes involved. The bill did not provide compensation to the City for assuming responsibility for annexation. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Lidz confirmed that the boundary commission was a State agency. In the absence of the commission, the City would process its own annexations. Regarding SB 335, Mr. Yeiter said the bill would amend land supply requirements in ways that added uncertainty to City requirements by stipulating an “up to 20-year supply.” Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Priority 1, Oppose. The motion passed, 2:1; Mr. Pryor voting no. Regarding SB 308, Mr. Yeiter said the bill changed the definition of owner whose sole ownership interest in the territory to be annexed was an interest in a public right-of-way. He was unsure who the bill would affect. Ms. Bettman believed the relating clause regarding annexation without election was sufficient reason to monitor the bill. Mr. Pryor requested more information on the bill. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Monitor. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. In reference to SB 311, Mr. Yeiter said the bill gave the County the ability to drop a land use application that was not deemed complete. The City already had that ability now. He noted the staff recommendation for a neutral position on the bill, or the bill could be dropped. There was no objection to the Neutral recommendation. In regard to HB 2049, Mr. Yeiter reported that the bill would break up LCDC into five regional commis- sions and reformed the statewide commission to be comprised of the chairs of the five regional commissions. Each commission would be able to adopt their own rules for their own regions Ms. Bettman wanted to change the status of the bill to Priority 1, Oppose, as she perceived a home rule issue related to the bill. Mr. Yeiter said staff had discussed the benefits of having a more localized commission. He acknowledged the possibility of confusion arising from different regions having different rules. Ms. Bettman said the board would be appointed by the governor and they would be allowed to adopt and amend land use rules. She thought such a process would be expensive, and such a board would be able to override jurisdictions’ processes and planning. Speaking to the issue of home rule, Mr. Pryor said the bill did not change local planning; rather, it changed State planning by taking an existing State body and breaking into smaller bodies with greater local control. Ms. Taylor concurred. Ms. Bettman argued that the proposed body could override local planning efforts. Mr. Pryor pointed out that the State could do that already. Mr. Yeiter concurred, noting the fact of the Land Conservation and Development Commission. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental January 30, 2007 Page 6 Relations