Item 3: Ratification of Unanimous IGR Actions and Action on Non-Unanimous IGR Actions

Home Browse Search

JANUARY 26, 2011: SB 0186: This bill would require that a person seeking to appeal a land use decision or a limited land use decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals must own or have ownership interest in, real property within (blank ) miles of the real property affected by decision. Staff Recommendation: Neutral (By Jerry Lidz and Steve Nystrom) IGR Committee Vote: Priority 3, Support (2/1, Clark, Poling/Taylor, No) (See page 23 of the January 26, IGR Bill Report for staff comments). HB 2181: This bill would modify the attorney fee provisions related to review of decision of local government before the Land Use Board of Appeals. Staff Recommendation: Priority 2, Oppose (By Jerry Lidz and Steve Nystrom) IGR Committee Vote: Priority 2, Support (2/1, Clark, Poling/Taylor, No) (See page 7 of the January 26, IGR Bill Report for staff comments). HB 2182: This bill would modify the basis for petitioning the Land Use Board of Appeals for review of a land use decision or limited land use decision. Staff Recommendation: Neutral (By Steve Nystrom) IGR Committee Vote: Priority 3, Support (2/1 Clark, Poling/Taylor, No) (See pages 7-8 of the January 26, IGR Bill Report for staff comments). FEBRUARY 2, 2011: SB 0542: This bill would expand the definition of “tourism-related facility” to include roads that serve tourist destinations for the purposes of transient lodging t axes. Staff Recommendation: Priority 2 Support / Neutral (By Larry Hill and Mike Magee) IGR Committee Vote: Priority 3, Oppose (2/1, Clark, Poling / Taylor, No) (See page 33 of the January 26 Bill Report for staff comments – held over until February 2). HB 2231: This bill would increase the cigarette tax. Staff Recommendation: Priority 1 Support (By Larry Hill) IGR Committee Vote: Monitor (2/1, Clark, Poling / Taylor, No) (See page 6 of the February 2, IGR Bill Report for staff comments). HB 2352: This bill would require cities that reduce available prime industrial land within their urban growth boundaries to replace land or mitigate impacts so that development capacity to satisfy needs for prime industrial land is not reduced or compromised. \\Cesrv500\cc support\CMO\2011 Council Agendas\M110228\S1102283.doc