Highlighted Legislation
Some legislative highlights are below. Be sure to click the link at the bottom of this section to review all active legislation.
Last week’s monthly Legislative Session was our first with all five members appearing in person since COVID closures began 20 months ago. Below are some highlights.
Tree Clearing/Forest Conservation (CB64). This Administration bill expands the scope of existing forest conservation law and regulates tree removal on individual properties as small as one acre. I strongly oppose this bill. I view it as an infringement on private property rights, and do not believe the trees on your private property are a public asset to be regulated by the government. Seeing the potential for three council members to support and pass this bill, I’ve filed an amendment that would exempt properties under one acre in the planned service area and six acres outside of the planned service area (generally the rural west). This bill was tabled but will be discussed in our October work session and possibly voted on in November. I may file an alternative bill that would accomplish the basic goal without extending the regulations to homeowners.
Commercial Solar – Payment in Lieu of Taxes/PILOT (CR140, 141, 142 and 143). These resolutions that would create tax reductions for solar developers were tabled and will be considered again in November. I am generally not supportive of these because many of the projects are on farmland or preservations parcels. The preservation status, which has been funded by taxpayers, already reduces the cost of the property for the solar developers.
Body Worn Cameras (SAO1). I voted yes on this, which released funds the Council previously put in contingency reserve to the general fund. The money will be used to fund the body worn camera program. This program will be a valuable tool for law enforcement in both prosecution and training. It will also help educate the public on the true nature of law enforcement and HCPD’s high level of professionalism.
Housing – Waiver of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) and a Payment in Lieu of Taxes/PILOT (CR 144 and 145). These resolutions, for the owners of the Roslyn Rise subsidized housing project in Columbia, were tabled. The existing project is over 50 years old and the owner wants to redevelop the property. Even with the PILOT in place, the tax revenue to the county will increase due to the redevelopment, so there is general support for the PILOT. However, the schools that service that project fail the APFO utilization test, which closes the school area to new development. The waiver being requested is only available for affordable housing projects (not for all other market rate development). I am not a fan of this waiver and generally believe if a school area is closed for some development it should be closed for all, but I remain willing to consider the request due to the special circumstances. We hope to receive additional data from the school system so it can be discussed in our October work session, possibly allowing a vote in November.
In addition to the tabled legislation, this month will also feature discussions on other forest conservation bills and a change in how the Zoning Board hears cases.
