Item 3E: Ratification of IGR Actions

Home Browse Search

Ms. Ortiz supported the Neutral position recommended by staff as she thought it was another reason for officers to engage in “fishing” expeditions. She thought enforcement would be challenging. Mr. Poling agreed. He agreed as to the public health aspect of the issue. He thought smoking was a choice individuals made, even if not a wise choice. Ms. Taylor was not generally in favor of having more laws but thought that such a bill would prevent some people from smoking in a car with a child in it. Ms. Taylor moved to support the bill. The motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to retain a Neutral position on the bill. The mo- tion did not pass, 2:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. Senate Bill 39 Ms. Wilson noted the staff recommendation that the City take a position of Priority 1, Monitor, on Senate Bill (SB) 39, which dedicate cigarette tax revenues to certain rural health safety net programs and services. Mr. Hill said that he recommended that the City monitor the bill because it might be tempting for the legislature to make adjustments in the allocation of tobacco revenues. The committee indicated acceptance of the staff recommendation. SB 192 Mr. Hill explained that the bill provided for a new property tax exemption for commercial and residential historic properties that met certain requirements and would result in a reduction of tax revenue coming to the City’ the State did not reimburse the City for such exemptions. He pointed out the existing program, which provided for exemptions for 15 years. He said the cumulative impact of such exemptions was a concern. Ms. Taylor wanted to support the bill because she thought there was a value to protecting historic properties, which were disappearing. She preferred a Support, Priority 2 position. Mr. Poling concurred with the staff position. He interpreted the bill as providing a permanent tax exemption because it could be renewed every 15 years. Ms. Ortiz agreed with the staff position. She said the bill also raised the issue of local control for her. Ms. Taylor pointed out that the exemption would not be automatic and certain requirements must be met. Mr. Hill agreed, but noted that the decision to grant the exemption would be a State decision, not a local decision. Responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Wilson said the bill was not scheduled for a hearing but was part of a larger legislative package with its origin in the 2007 session. She reminded the committee that one of City’s legislative priorities was for the State to reexamine all its property tax exemptions. Ms. Ortiz supported monitoring the bill’s progress but could not support the bill itself. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the position of the bill to Monitor, Priority 2. The motion did not pass, 2:1; Mr. Poling voting no. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations January 28, 2009 Page 3