Item 2C: Ratification of IGR Minutes

Home Browse Search

Support position on the bill. SB 719A Ms. Wilson explained that this was an amended version of a bill that would create a revolving loan fund to provide no interest financing for infrastructure projects in urban growth boundary expansion areas. She noted that the staff recommendation on the previous bill had been upheld by the full City Council. She said this bill added detail regarding the administration of funds. Ms. Taylor believed that the City should oppose the bill. Principal Planner for PDD, Steve Nystrom, commented that the changes were more procedural in nature and the principles of the bill were the same. Ms. Ortiz said her interest in pulling the bill was to ensure that no substantial structural changes had been made to it. Ms. Wilson reported that the bill was moving and was now in the Joint Ways and Means Committee. She said there was a provision in the amendments that said, if the bonds could not be issued, the funds could be taken out of residual lottery revenues that were available. She thought this was a safety net. Ms. Taylor moved to change the City’s position on SB 719A to Oppose. The motion died for lack of a second. SB 763A Ms. Wilson stated that the bill would authorize the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) to implement a system for buying and selling transferrable development credits to encourage landowners to voluntarily protect resource lands. In response to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Mr. Nystrom explained that no one presently had such a system. He said this had arisen from the Big Look Task Force and the intent was to find greater enhancement of or protection of important resource lands outside of UGBs to look for ways to make that more viable. He noted that it would require the City to negotiate with the County. He stated that staff supported it because it would provide another “tool for the tool kit.” Ms. Ortiz had pulled the bill and indicated that she supported the staff recommendation. SB 915A Ms. Wilson stated that the bill would require a municipality that administered a building inspection program under the state building code to assess violation of the program as a civil penalty. She said originally there had been some concern that this bill would impact and impinge on home rule and could prohibit the City from enforcing its own ordinance. She related that those provisions had all been taken out of the bill and it now just required notification and assessment as a civil penalty. Ms. Taylor asked if this was not still some interference with home rule. Mark Whitmill, Assistant Building Official for PDD, stated that it could potentially limit the ability to enforce a building code violation, but it did not effectively change how the PDD did business. He related that in his 15 years working in this capacity there had never been an occasion when this type of action was MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations May 27, 2009 Page 4