HOUSE COMMITTEE ON LAND USE AND REGULATORY FAIRNESS

 

 

April 26, 2001                                                                                                      Hearing Room 357

3:30 p.m.                                                                                                                         Tapes 9 –10

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:         Rep. Max Williams, Chair

Rep. Kurt Schrader, Vice-Chair

Rep. Chris Beck

Rep. Betsy Close

Rep. Kathy Lowe

Rep. Karen Minnis

Rep. Susan Morgan

 

 

STAFF PRESENT:                 Virginia Gustafson Lucker, Counsel

Jane Bodenweiser, Committee Assistant

 

 

MEASURE/ISSUES HEARD:           Land Use Regulatory Compensation Concepts

 

 

 

These minutes are in compliance with Senate and House Rules.  Only text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker’s exact words.  For complete contents, please refer to the tapes.

 

TAPE/#

Speaker

Comments

TAPE 9, A

004

Chair Williams

Calls the meeting to order at 3:40 p.m.

 

007

Chair Williams

Introduces the Land Use Regulatory Compensation Concepts (EXHIBIT A).  Explains the concepts in component pieces. Says today’s discussion will focus on concepts that could be applied in a prospective way on regulatory takings in a statewide process.  Says the second component will address people who have been impacted by regulation (the retroactive component), the third component will be the constitutional issues, and fourth, the revenue sources.

058

Vice Chair  Schrader

Explains that the committee is looking at two aspects of the land issue: identifying state lands that might be used for transfer development rights or for value for compensation use, and identifying ownerships prior to 1973. 

106

Chair Williams

Comments on the intent of the meeting.

126

Counsel Lucker

Explains this is a prospective piece to be applied primarily in urban areas.  Gives a sectional analysis of the concept paper.

187

Rep. Minnis

Asks for an example of a reinterpretation of an existing land use requirement.

193

Counsel Lucker

Gives an example of a setback requirement.

202

Rep. Minnis

Wonders what happens when a taxpayer has been paying taxes on property to the center of a river and it is changed because of navigability.

206

Counsel Lucker

Says that that is a good example of reinterpretation.

218

Rep. Beck

Asks about an enhancement of property value.

224

Counsel Lucker

Replies that that is why it is so important to look at an appraisal which shows the entire value including all regulations that increase as well as decrease the value.

229

Counsel Lucker

Continues with overview.

277

Chair Williams

Explains what is considered a nuisance and that it is not covered in Measure 7.

287

Counsel  Lucker

Continues with overview of state liability for any compensation claim.

331

Rep. Beck

Asks for clarification of the compensation threshold.

336

Chair Williams

Explains the three types of compensations outlined in the concept paper.

382

Rep. Morgan

Says that it would be helpful to have a presentation made that would detail these concepts in real life scenarios.

397

Counsel Lucker

Discusses the percentages and how they would apply to cash as well as non-cash compensations.

416

Vice Chair  Schrader

Comments that it is important, through ongoing discussion and input, to derive at what is equitable and fair.

432

Chair Williams

Says that it is possible and may be helpful to outline some real life examples for a future meeting.

TAPE 10, A

012

Counsel Lucker

Continues with overview of types of compensation, and the claims process.

055

Vice Chair Schrader

Explains his understanding that the Attorney General tried to apply retro-activity to Measure 7 and that this concept would take it out.

067

Rep. Minnis

Asks if all the retroactive problems will not be addressed in this legislation.

071

Vice Chair Schrader

Responds that for this portion of the legislation only, the retroactive issue will not be addressed.

096

Counsel Lucker

Continues overview of the “Receipt of Claim” section that addresses liability for payment.

124

Vice Chair Schrader

Discusses his understanding of the hearing process.

138

Counsel Lucker

Explains the appeals process, judicial review, and the effective date of this legislation.

183

Vice Chair Schrader

Comments on a hearing process.

192

Rep. Beck

Talks about the appraisal process and the importance of having credible licensed appraisers.

222

Chair Williams

Wonders if the definition of the appraiser in this concept paper is enough.

228

Rep. Beck

Says that perhaps there should be allowance for a published list, but is concerned that the process needs to be non-adversarial.

246

Chair Williams

Stresses that value is going to be the final product.

280

Rep. Beck

Explains that there is always going to be a certain amount of adversarial confrontation over an appraisal.

299

Rep. Morgan

Says she feels the points laid out in this paper regarding appraisals are very good and straightforward.

323

Rep. Beck

Says that he wants to make sure, if people are going to be compensated, that the taxpayers actually get something for that expenditure, and states that that issue is not addressed in this paper.

358

Chair Williams

Responds that he believes the premise of Measure 7 was that the property owner would be compensated for loss of value by a limitation on its use, not necessarily a land swap or transfer of a development right.

393

Rep. Beck

Expresses his belief that the public needs to get something for their money.

423

Rep. Morgan

Believes the proponents of measure 7 were looking at the issue of regulation with regard to devaluation of their property.

TAPE 9, B

025

Vice Chair Schrader

Asks if first and second regulations should apply.

034

Chair Williams

Explains that there may be a second set of restrictions placed on a property that would further devalue the property and would therefore justify a second compensation.

057

Rep. Beck

Gives an example for discussion.  Explains that if the state is going to pay someone for his or her property the government should take an interest in that property.

097

Rep. Morgan

Says there is compensation to the taxpayers by increased taxes.

132

Chair Williams

Says these meetings are necessary to be able to exchange information and hopes to have regular weekly meetings from now on.  Says the rural retroactive piece should be ready for consideration next week.

165

Vice Chair Schrader

Expresses his desire to have committee members as well as the public start marking up the draft and providing input.

197

 

Rep. Beck

States that he has a hard time discussing a threshold of compensation before knowing what figure we’re needing.

220

Chair Williams

Replies that funding is a discussion for a later time.

240

Chair Williams

Adjourns the meeting at 4:55 p.m.

 

Submitted By,                                                                           Reviewed By,

 

 

 

Jane Bodenweiser,                                                                    Virginia Gustafson Lucker,

Committee Assistant                                                                 Counsel

 

EXHIBIT SUMMARY

 

A – Land Use Regulatory Compensation Concepts, submitted by staff, 10 pp