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

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman quoted extensively from Rep. Holvey’s letter regarding the minimal impact to public agencies because those agencies already administered many similar requirements and a similar bill last session was given minimal fiscal impact to the State. Ms. Piercy asked if minimal impact to the State meant minimal impact to local jurisdictions. Ms. Wilson explained that the financial impact analysis related to the State and it would be up to individual local governments to conduct their own financial impact analysis. Mr. Gallup cautioned that lack of compliance with the bill’s requirement could potentially jeopardize federal funds, which could be withdrawn if the City was not in compliance with State requirements. Ms. Piercy suggested that if the bill was of significant interest to a local legislator it could be a good idea to get some of the questions answered before taking a position. Ms. Bettman withdrew her motion. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to Monitor the bill as a Priority 2. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Ms. Bettman asked Ms. Wilson to report back on the bill at the next meeting. HB 2723 Ms. Bettman said she could not determine whether the bill’s intent was to grandfather in past problems or create a new class of lots that could be created outside of the current land use laws. Mr. Nystrom said there was already a provision in the current law that allowed owners of lots that may not have been formed through a legal land division process to come forward and try to legalize those lots. He said the provision existed to try to deal with the “victim” side of the issue, such as an owner that unknow- ingly bought a lot that they thought was a buildable lot, only to discover later it was not. He said the current law was very basic and had some gaps in it; the bill was likely intended to fill those gaps, specifically to prevent someone from taking advantage of the current law by assuring that the owner was an unknowing victim and not party to a purposeful business transaction. He said there had been very few instances of owners trying to legalize lots over the past several years and he had recommended supporting the bill at a Priority 3. Ms. Bettman said it sounded like the bill was giving local jurisdictions authority to grant legal status to illegal lots. She was also concerned that it would provide some incentives to people to create illegal lots as there would be a process to legalize them. Mr. Nystrom replied that local jurisdictions already had that authority under the current statute and the process existed; the bill would clarify the existing law. Ms. Bettman disagreed with Mr. Nystrom’s interpretation of the bill. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Neutral. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2539 and HB 2540 Ms. Wilson indicated that Ms. Bettman wished to drop the bills. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 16, 2007 Page 4