Item 3: Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions

Home Browse Search

framework to allocate the grants with. She indicated her support for the bill. Ms. Taylor thought the organization that administered the grants was “superfluous.” Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt a Priority 3 Monitor stance on the bill. The motion passed, 2:1; Mayor Piercy voting in opposition. Ms. Bettman wanted to see where the money would come from. She thought it would be appropriate for the PSCC to create a list of criteria by which grants were spent, but she would rather get money for EPD than for the PSCC. Ms. Bettman asked Ms. Phelps if she could provide her with a short list of “something positive” the PSCC had accomplished. Ms. Phelps replied that the PSCC had conducted a project over the last couple of years that was a comparison of the effectiveness of different law enforcement programs. She said it had been one of the most helpful ways to compare all of the different components in the law enforcement system. She related that another project the PSCC had undertaken was a comprehensive study that the local police commission had been involved with on Failure to Appear cases and the costs to local jurisdictions on those kinds of inter-jurisdictional problems. Ms. Taylor averred that the PSCC employed some people who would not have jobs without it. Ms. Wilson stated that although Rep. Nathanson might want to directly provide funds to EPD she could not do that as the funding from the General Fund had to go through some sort of vehicle, in this case the PSCC. She felt Rep. Nathanson was trying to get money to the local communities and this was one way to provide funds to the local governments. Ms. Taylor said she was on the PSCC briefly and she was not convinced it was a worthwhile organization. Ms. Bettman did not believe the PSCC was a “well-balanced” body. She felt the bill would give the PSCC authority to make budget decisions, to receive money on behalf of jurisdictions, and to make decisions on how that money was to be spent without parameters around it in terms of what it would be spent on. HB 2992 In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Wilson stated that HB 2992 had gone to a hearing earlier in the day. Ms. Bettman asked if this meant that the staff position had been advocated without having been reviewed. Ms. Wilson replied that it had not been advocated. Mr. Jones added that staff was holding a letter indicating the staff position pending the disposition of the CCIGR. Ms. Wilson explained that the bill would allow the division of a parcel of land into two pieces if one of the pieces would be sold to a government entity that would use it as a park. Ms. Bettman surmised that the other piece could be developed. She felt that if the other piece was wetlands, forest land, or farm land the owner of the property could circumvent requirements by selling one piece as park land and then develop the other piece. Ms. Wilson responded that she did not believe this was so. She understood, from discussions with Mr. Wold, that previous development restrictions would still apply to the remaining portion of the lot. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 5, 2007 Page 14