Item 6: Ratification of IGR Minutes and Direction on Legislative Policy

Home Browse Search

Ms. Young reported that nothing had been brought forth regarding how much more recyclable material could be recovered. She believed removing all of the paper products from garbage would reduce the volume of garbage by less than one percent. Ms. Wilson clarified that the purpose of the bill was to allow the trash to be compacted because the charge for trash from a dumpster was per container and not by weight. She said the bill would permit people to get into the containers and jump up and down on the trash and this would create room for more trash in a multi- unit trash container. She stated that the person who asked Sen. Prozanski to introduce the bill had a business that employed people to do this. Mr. Pryor changed his vote to support adoption of a ‘Priority 2 Monitor’ position and the mo- tion then passed with unanimous support, 3:0. Ms. Bettman moved to adopt the staff recommendation for priorities and recommendations for all bills that were not pulled for discussion and recommendation of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations for the remainder of the bills. (note from recorder: Motion was made, but never received a second, nor was it voted on.) Ms. Taylor averred that the motion did not mean the CCIGR supported everything that staff recommended. Ms. Wilson reminded the CCIGR that they had yet to review HB2469. HB2469 Mr. Weinman had commented in the staff recommendation that the bill had merit but as it did not have an effect on the City he questioned allocating the City’s lobbying resources to it. Ms. Bettman thought the bill sounded “really good” and provided more defined assistance to families. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to change the position on the bill to a ‘Priority 3 Support.’ The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Ms. Wilson confirmed with the CCIGR that the members had received documents she had sent to the City Council meeting. She recalled that the CCIGR had adopted a position of wanting to hold the City harmless in one bill (note from recorder: bill number not given). She reported that two amendments had been introduced and the bill had gone to committee on the previous day for reconsideration for failure to give proper notice; the chair had been unwilling to discuss the amendments and had moved the bill to the House Committee on Ways and Means. She said both of the “dash” amendments would hold the City harmless, but one hurt the counties and one did not. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Wilson related that a deal had been made when the original preemption had been included in the law to take away a local entity’s ability to enforce “this tax” if the local entity received part of the tax. She said the State wanted to renege on that deal and divert funds somewhere else. She stated that the compromise was that the funds would continue to go to cities and counties or the funds would continue to go to the cities but not the counties and the funds would still be available to the State to defer towards the alcohol treatment program. Ms. Bettman commented that the City was not lobbying for the County. Mr. Pryor responded that he was not interested in hurting the County. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental February 13, 2007 Page 11 Relations