Item 3: Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions

Home Browse Search

kind. Ms. Bettman suggested that the CCIGR defer the discussion of the bill until this information had been determined. The committee was amendable to deferring its discussion of HB 3313. HB 2628 In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Risdal stated that the City did not have too many mercury vapor light fixtures left. She said the main issue that the Public Works Department had with the bill had to do with public safety. Ms. Bettman surmised that the bill tried to reduce the use of the mercury vapor lights. She felt a reduction in mercury overall would be a “good thing.” She asked if the City could support the bill and lobby for keeping a safer type of light on in a park after 11 p.m. Ms. Risdal replied that one of the amendments suggested by Mr. Jones was to exclude jogging paths and off-street bicycle paths. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the stance to Priority 2 Support with the following amendments, as recommended by staff: 1. Section 2, Subsection 2: Amend (d) so that fixtures on bicycle paths and jogging paths would be exempted from the requirement to be equipped with an automatic shutoff device that would prevent operation of the fixture between 11:00 p.m. and sunrise. 2. Section 2, Subsection 3: Amend (a), (Excluding) lighting fixtures on property owned or operated by the United States, to include State, County and City owned properties. 3. Amend (b), lighting needed for the safe operation of navigation of aircraft or ships, to include onstreet and offstreet bicycle paths, pedestrian paths, and jogging trails. Ms. Wilson noted that the bill was not moving. Ms. Bettman asked Ms. Wilson if she would recommend opposing the bill unless it was amended. Ms. Wilson indicated that she would. Ms. Bettman moved to adopt a Priority 2 Oppose stance with the aforementioned amend- ments. Mr. Pryor asked if it was known whether private businesses and residences used the mercury vapor light fixtures. Mr. Cushman responded that this was part of the problem with the bill; it was just not very clear. Ms. Bettman asserted that everyone knew that mercury impacted humans and that the disposal of the light fixtures had been inadequate. Mr. Pryor averred that a mercury light disposal bill might solve the problem more efficiently. Mr. Cushman stated that the main concern was not so much with the mercury vapor light as it was with some of the other provisions of the bill such as the shielding and the wattage. He said the bill almost combined provisions regarding light pollution with provisions regarding mercury vapor lamps. Ms. Taylor asked why the City would be opposed to preventing light pollution. Mr. Cushman replied that MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 12, 2007 Page 6