Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sb35 Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House debate centers on restoring language to Senate Bill 35 to protect tax‑increment review for Midvale Superfund site
Summary
Representatives debated an amendment to Senate Bill 35 to reinstate three lines deleted in House committee that would restore tax‑increment committee review for redevelopment on Superfund sites, with proponents citing unintended consequences for educational housing and local taxing entities in Midvale.
Representative Mascaro moved to uncircle Senate Bill 35 and proposed restoring three lines deleted by the House committee that would reinstate language affecting redevelopment agencies (RDAs) and tax‑increment review for Superfund sites. Mascaro said the deletions went "far beyond" what she expected, and that the changes could have unintended consequences for housing redevelopment and other code sections affecting redevelopment projects in Midvale, including the old slag/smelter site at 7800 South.
Opponents and supporters debated the practical effect of deleting lines in a bill. Representative Curtis and House counsel clarified that removing language from a bill does not erase existing code in the blue code book; rather, it determines whether this bill would change that code. Curtis explained the bill's committee amendment preserves a specific exemption allowing RDAs greater than 100 acres for Superfund sites while ensuring taxing entities participate through a tax‑increment committee.
Curtis argued the committee amendment was intended to require tax‑increment committee review when RDAs affect tax dollars flowing to other entities such as school districts and counties. Mascaro and others remained concerned that by striking a section wholesale the committee had swept out language that interacts with provisions on educational housing and other project‑area rules.
Multiple members said they wanted more time to be certain the language produced no unintended results; Representative Harper moved to 'circle' (postpone) the bill for clarification. Floor discussion included requests to consult the code book and representatives acknowledged differing interpretations among those unfamiliar with technical bill drafting procedures.
Proponents of the committee amendment, including the committee chair and other supporters, said the changes were narrowly tailored to make redevelopment of Superfund sites feasible for Midvale by adjusting blight standards and project‑area limits. They emphasized that the measure would not affect non‑Superfund redevelopment projects and cited the special needs of sites listed on the National Priorities List.
The House proceeded to open voting on the item after debate; the transcript excerpt does not include a final roll-call tally for Senate Bill 35.
