Legislature(1995 - 1996)

02/16/1996 01:07 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                              
                       February 16, 1996                                       
                           1:07 p.m.                                           
 MEMBERS PRESENT                                                               
 Representative Brian Porter, Chairman                                         
 Representative Joe Green, Vice Chairman                                       
 Representative Con Bunde                                                      
 Representative Bettye Davis                                                   
 Representative Al Vezey                                                       
 Representative Cynthia Toohey                                                 
 Representative David Finkelstein                                              
 MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                
 All members present                                                           
 COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                            
 HOUSE BILL NO. 154                                                            
 "An Act requiring the Department of Law to provide guidelines                 
 regarding unconstitutional state and municipal takings of private             
 real property; relating to the taxation of private real property              
 taken unconstitutionally by state or municipal action; establishing           
 a time limit for bringing an action for an unconstitutional state             
 or municipal taking of private real property; and providing for an            
 effective date."                                                              
      - HEARD AND HELD                                                         
 HOUSE BILL NO. 316                                                            
 "An Act relating to civil liability for false claims and improper             
 allegations or defenses in civil practice; and providing for an               
 effective date."                                                              
      - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                
 PREVIOUS ACTION                                                               
 BILL:  HB 154                                                               
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOHRING, Rokeberg, Kott, Kelly,                 
 Vezey, Martin, Barnes, Ogan, G.Davis, James, Mulder, Foster                   
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG            ACTION                                         
 02/03/95       237    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/03/95       237    (H)   CRA, JUD, FIN                                     
 02/16/95              (H)   CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124                       
 02/16/95              (H)   MINUTE(CRA)                                       
 02/21/95              (H)   CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124                       
 02/21/95              (H)   MINUTE(CRA)                                       
 03/01/95       550    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): ROKEBERG                            
 03/09/95              (H)   CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124                       
 03/09/95              (H)   MINUTE(CRA)                                       
 03/16/95              (H)   CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124                       
 03/16/95              (H)   MINUTE(CRA)                                       
 03/24/95       919    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): KOTT                                
 03/25/95              (H)   CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124                       
 03/25/95              (H)   MINUTE(CRA)                                       
 04/20/95              (H)   CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124                       
 04/20/95              (H)   MINUTE(CRA)                                       
 04/21/95      1421    (H)   CRA RPT  CS(CRA) NT 1DP 1DNP 2NR 1AM              
 04/21/95      1421    (H)   DP: VEZEY                                         
 04/21/95      1422    (H)   DNP: ELTON                                        
 04/21/95      1422    (H)   NR: AUSTERMAN, IVAN                               
 04/21/95      1422    (H)   AM: KOTT                                          
 04/21/95      1422    (H)   INDETERMINATE FISCAL NOTE (LAW)                   
 04/21/95      1422    (H)   2 FISCAL NOTES (CRA, DNR)                         
 04/21/95      1422    (H)   REFERRED TO JUDICIARY                             
 11/21/95              (H)   JUD AT 10:00 AM JUNEAU LIO                        
 01/08/96      2382    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): KELLY, VEZEY, MARTIN                
 01/09/96      2396    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): BARNES                              
 01/10/96      2404    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): OGAN, G.DAVIS                       
 01/11/96      2418    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): JAMES, MULDER                       
 01/19/96              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 01/19/96              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 01/31/96      2586    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): FOSTER                              
 02/02/96              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 02/02/96              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 02/16/96              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 WITNESS REGISTER                                                              
 REPRESENTATIVE VIC KOHRING                                                    
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 State Capitol, Room 428                                                       
 Juneau, AK  99801                                                             
 Telephone: (907) 465-2186                                                     
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Sponsor of HB 154                                        
 PEGGY LaGRONE, Legislative Staff                                              
   to Representative Kohring                                                   
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 Capitol Building, Room 428                                                    
 Juneau, AK  99801                                                             
 Telephone: (907) 465-2186                                                     
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 154                                      
 TOM PITMAN, Municipal Assessor                                                
 Municipality of Anchorage                                                     
 632 West 6th Avenue                                                           
 Anchorage, Alaska  99501                                                      
 Telephone:  (907) 343-6779                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 154                                      
 STEVE VAN SANT, State Assessor                                                
 Division of Municipal and Regional Assistance                                 
 Department of Community and Regional Affairs                                  
 333 West 4th Avenue, Suite 319                                                
 Anchorage, Alaska  99501                                                      
 Telephone:  (907) 269-4500                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 154                                      
 PAT CARLSON, Assessor                                                         
 City of Kodiak                                                                
 1417 Ismailov Street                                                          
 Kodiak, Alaska  99615                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 486-9353                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 154                                      
 SARA HANNAN, Executive Director                                               
 Alaska Environmental Lobby                                                    
 P.O. Box 22151                                                                
 Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 463-3366                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HB 154                                 
 JIM VOTEBERG, Assistant City Manager                                          
 City of Ketchikan                                                             
 334 Tongass Avenue                                                            
 Ketchikan, Alaska  99901                                                      
 Telephone:  (907) 225-3111                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 154                                      
 CHARLES McKEE                                                                 
 P.O. Box 24305                                                                
 Anchorage, Alaska  99524                                                      
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 154                                      
 JON ISAACS, Member                                                            
 Alaska Chapter, American Planning Association;                                
 Member, Alaska Municipal League                                               
 308 G Street, Number 313                                                      
 Anchorage, Alaska  99501                                                      
 Telephone:  (907) 274-9719                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 154                                      
 PAM LaBOLLE, President                                                        
 Alaska State Chamber of Congress                                              
 217 Second Street, Number 201                                                 
 Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 586-2323                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 154                           
 ANN RESCH, Departmental Attorney                                              
 Municipality of Anchorage                                                     
 632 West Sixth Avenue                                                         
 Anchorage, Alaska  99501                                                      
 Telephone:  (907) 343-4545                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 154                                      
 LISA BLACHER                                                                  
 536 Park Street, Apartment E                                                  
 Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 463-3715                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against Hb 154                                 
 JANICE ADAIR, Director                                                        
 Division of Environmental Health                                              
 Department of Environmental Conservation                                      
 555 Cordova Street                                                            
 Anchorage, Alaska  99501                                                      
 Telephone:  (907) 269-7644                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 154                                      
 GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison                                              
 Office of the Commissioner                                                    
 Department of Fish and Game                                                   
 P.O. Box 25526                                                                
 Juneau, Alaska  99811-5526                                                    
 Telephone:  (907) 465-6143                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 154                                      
 TERRY DUSZYNSKI, Member                                                       
 Alaska Homebuilders Association                                               
 1464 Birchwood Drive                                                          
 Fairbanks, Alaska  99709                                                      
 Telephone:  (907) 479-3324                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 154                                      
 ACTION NARRATIVE                                                              
 TAPE 96-21, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER called the House Judiciary committee meeting            
 to order at 1:07 p.m.  Members present at the call to order were              
 Representatives Porter, Bunde, Toohey, and Vezey.                             
 HB 154 - REGULATORY TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY                              
 CHAIRMAN PORTER announced the agenda was a continuation of the                
 hearing on HB 154 "An Act requiring the Department of Law to                  
 provide guidelines regarding unconstitutional state and municipal             
 takings of private real property; relating to the taxation of                 
 private real property taken unconstitutionally by state or                    
 municipal action; establishing a time limit for bringing an action            
 for an unconstitutional state or municipal taking of private real             
 property; and providing for an effective date."  He said an                   
 additional committee substitute was available, work draft 9-                  
 LSO602\H.  He added that HB 154 would not be moved from the                   
 committee today.  He then asked the sponsor of the work draft to              
 come forward and testify on the new committee substitute.                     
 Number 199                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE VIC KOHRING, sponsor of HB 154, gave an overview of            
 the bill.  He said HB 154 was filed in response to concerns of                
 private property owners who, through regulations, have had their              
 property taken from them or have had restrictions placed on them as           
 to the use of their property reducing its economic value.  The                
 intent of HB 154 is to require that the property owner is                     
 compensated by the government if government restrictions and                  
 regulations diminish the economic value of their property.                    
 Representative Bettye Davis and Representative Joe Green arrived at           
 1:11 p.m.                                                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING said this is the fourth House Judiciary                
 Committee hearing on HB 154, including two meetings held in the               
 interim.  He referred to a letter dated January 26, 1996, available           
 in the committee packet, from Craig Tillery.  He said responses to            
 each concern have been incorporated, as much as possible, into CSHB           
 154.  He said these changes include removing the language regarding           
 compensation, as it was viewed to be unconstitutional.  Language              
 referring to the economic analysis was also removed, as it was seen           
 to be cost prohibitive and require a fiscal note.                             
 REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING said language was included in HB 154                   
 incorporating a threshold amount of 20 percent of economic loss               
 before property owners could file a claim, to avoid proliferation             
 of litigation.                                                                
 Number 430                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING said HB 154 changed the interest rate from             
 the London Interbank Rate to the Twelfth Federal Reserve District             
 Rate.  This rate is used when a claim is awarded as a result of a             
 taking and interest would be compounded from the time the economic            
 loss occurred on top of that award.                                           
 Number 469                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING said a correction to avoid double                      
 compensation on access was also incorporated.  This correction                
 would avoid situations where a plaintiff could receive monetary               
 compensation for loss and also require the government to provide              
 access to their property.                                                     
 Number 508                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING said wording was added to make it clear that           
 HB 154 is not retroactive, only cases filed after the time that HB            
 154 became law, if that were to happen, would be applicable.                  
 Number 560                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS requested that the Alaska Municipal               
 League letter be addressed.                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING remarked that this letter is dated February            
 16, 1996, and he had not seen it.  He deferred the question to his            
 staff person, Peggy LaGrone.                                                  
 Number 597                                                                    
 PEGGY LaGRONE, Legislative Staff to Representative Kohring, said              
 she had not had time to review this letter.                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN referred to the letter from Craig            
 Tillery, and asked for a copy of the verbal responses in regards to           
 Mr. Tillery's concerns, prepared by Representative Kohring.                   
 Number 797                                                                    
 TOM PITMAN, Municipal Assessor, Municipality of Anchorage,                    
 testified via teleconference from Anchorage.  He said he just                 
 received a copy of the work draft version of HB 154.  He expressed            
 concern over issues concerning evaluation and timing.  He said                
 under HB 154, a property owner has up to five years to claim his              
 property has lost value to which a value adjustment must be                   
 incorporated within that loss.  He listed the difficulties with               
 this time frame such as the fact that in Anchorage they do mass               
 appraisals and those direct records are kept for three years, not             
 five.  He said a property owner could claim state property loss,              
 under the current system, to could make a valuation on the loss of            
 that property over the course of five years.  He cited an example             
 where a driveway is broken as a result of roadway construction,               
 under HB 154 he might not make that claim for five years and be               
 able to access the property damage over the course of those five              
 MR. PITMAN said the evaluation procedure of HB 154 causes                     
 additional problems.  He said under HB 154, a property owner can              
 chose their appraiser, or even act as their own appraiser.  Mr.               
 Pitman said the municipalities and the state must go along with               
 this appraisal, under HB 154, and most likely that appraisal would            
 be done based on the worst case scenario, not to mention the                  
 difficulty estimating the value of certain things which have no               
 appreciable value.  He said the definition of takings in HB 154 can           
 include anything.                                                             
 Number 830                                                                    
 STEVE VAN SANT, State Assessor, Division of Municipal and Regional            
 Assistance, Department of Community and Regional Affairs,                     
 testified via teleconference from Anchorage.  He referred to                  
 Section 29.45 regarding the appeal process for property owners.  He           
 said HB 154 creates a different standard which circumvents the                
 existing appeal process.  The current process is that the owner               
 goes before a Board of Equalization and then on to the superior               
 court if they were not satisfied with a decision.  He said the                
 provisions of HB 154 create a different category of taxpayers                 
 whereby their appraisal is made by an independent appraiser and               
 needs to be taken by the county under an average of value for                 
 property taxation.  He said this will cause problems for the                  
 community accessor due to Section 29.45.                                      
 Number 920                                                                    
 PAT CARLSON, Assessor, Kodiak Island Borough, and president of the            
 Alaska Association of Accessors, testified via teleconference from            
 Kodiak.  He mentioned that Representative Kohring, when discussing            
 the committee substitute, did not refer to the changes in Title 29.           
 This section has nothing to do with takings legislation, it makes             
 the municipal assessment the determination of the average from a              
 private accessors and the court assessment determination.   He                
 reiterated the difference in accessing, plus the difficulty of                
 factoring in the five year time period.  He said 34.51.98(b) should           
 be deleted.                                                                   
 MR. CARLSON said he is in philosophical agreement with reimbursing            
 property owners for delays in the use of their property due to                
 bureaucratic delays or partial takings and said it is good public             
 policy to compensate people for those losses.                                 
 Number 1058                                                                   
 SARA HANNAN, Executive Director, Alaska Environmental Lobby (AEL),            
 was next to testify.  She said AEL was a coalition of 20 Alaskan              
 environmental groups with a collective membership spread throughout           
 the state in virtually every election district.  She was advised by           
 lawyers that she works with to support HB 154, as more                        
 environmental victories are found in courtrooms than in front of              
 policy making bodies.  She said, in a gesture of good policy                  
 making, she was not going to support HB 154 and she was going to              
 address the issue from her former perspective as a high school                
 civics teacher.                                                               
 MS. HANNAN said the United States Constitution as well as the                 
 Alaska State Constitution guarantees government responsibilities,             
 one of those responsibilities is that the government cannot take              
 property without compensation.  She said 200 years of judicial                
 proceedings leave some confusing outcomes and have left people                
 unhappy with the judicial outcome of their contested claim to                 
 government.  She said these outcomes do not mean that the law has             
 failed, or that the government is taking property without                     
 compensation.  She said, every single case of property ownership              
 that has a government takings threat against it, probably has some            
 very specific facts associated with it which need to be considered,           
 especially when you are talking about changing a broad policy.                
 MS. HANNAN said examples that she has followed, that have been                
 given in description of HB 154 in the last year, have included                
 cases that have gone to the Alaska Supreme Court where people have            
 been concerned about the municipal regulations that would require             
 set backs from the river front.  She said those are valid concerns,           
 but the state legislature is probably not the place to remedy them.           
 Number 1204                                                                   
 MS. HANNAN said, if the state's administrative procedures act is              
 not efficiently dealing with appeals by citizens who are dealing              
 with government agencies, let's give them more money to do their              
 job and make their job more efficient, to make sure the laws are              
 carried out.  She said Alaska is a state that has social conflict.            
 The state has collectively decided that municipal governments                 
 probably have the right and should take the responsibility to                 
 regulate where liquor stores are located, if and when that liquor             
 should operate.  Under HB 154, a municipal government would no                
 longer be able to afford to go dry.  Any city, in this state, that            
 wanted to put out of business a liquor store could not afford to do           
 so.  She added that if that liquor store wasn't there, but a                  
 property owner said he was thinking of getting a permit to start              
 operating next year, then it would be considered a takings under HB           
 154.  She referred to Representative Kohring's memo of April 20,              
 1995, in response to who determines the highest and best value of             
 the land, Representative Kohring responded, that it should be the             
 property owner.  He said the most profitable use of property is the           
 best decided by the person who owns it."  Ms. Hannan said if your             
 liquor store was not there and your municipality decided to go dry,           
 she said you still have a right to claim that someday you were                
 going to open up a liquor store and get rich.  She said these types           
 of government actions, as dictated by state policy, take away                 
 control from local governments.                                               
 Number 1284                                                                   
 MS. HANNAN discussed the issue of retroactivity by saying that no             
 law is retroactive.  She said HB 154 would change municipal and               
 state directions as to what is in the best interest of the state.             
 She said potential situations can not be answered.  These                     
 situations are complex and probably need a variety of deliberative            
 discussions, some of which need to be done within the legal                   
 community, within the judicial branch and with the policy makers.             
 Number 1319                                                                   
 MS. HANNAN said HB 154 is bad policy and added that she didn't                
 think the state of Alaska has a real problem with takings.  The               
 state supreme court only had one case brought forth, since                    
 statehood, on takings and the person who brought forth the case               
 Number 1338                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE wanted clarification that, her testimony             
 said, HB 154 would prohibit any planning and zoning.                          
 Number 1347                                                                   
 MS. HANNAN said HB 154 does not prohibit planning and zoning, but             
 requires that the agency demonstrate a high burden of public health           
 and safety.  She said, currently, if the municipality of Anchorage            
 decided to regulate health and safety in one way and zone for it,             
 there is no burden to go and prove a legal responsibility.  HB 154            
 establishes a burden higher than the current burden that is imposed           
 now, which also creates additional cost burdens.                              
 Number 1383                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked whether she felt a high burden of proof            
 was needed to prevent arbitrary decisions.                                    
 Number 1390                                                                   
 MS. HANNAN said that if the municipal government is making                    
 arbitrary and capricious decisions, then those people should be               
 booted out of office.  She said you can't legislate good judgement,           
 but the money used to operate local governments come from the                 
 state.  She said if the state is squandering this money, by                   
 building layer and layer of bureaucracy, then the state is not                
 doing its job to make clear, just and efficient laws.  She said, in           
 most cases, what appears to be arbitrary decisions is just a                  
 bureaucrat trying to carry out a policy decision that was made by             
 a policy body.  She said if the policy is wrong, then the problem             
 should come back to the policy body.                                          
 Number 1458                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY clarified that Ms. Hannan only knew of one            
 case regarding takings to go before the state supreme court.  He              
 said, "I have been at the supreme court twice regarding takings."             
 He said he knew of hundreds of cases.  He asked her to identify               
 which case she was referring to.                                              
 MS. HANNAN said the only case the Department of Law (DOL) could               
 tell her about was State of Alaska versus Steve Noye.                         
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said there are several cases per year                    
 regarding takings and these cases have a broad scope of what they             
 cover.  He cited a case in Fairbanks which has been in court for 15           
 years regarding the North Star Borough's zoning.                              
 Number 1505                                                                   
 MS. HANNAN said it was shameful that a court case could remain                
 unresolved for 15 years and added that there is a big symptom that            
 something is wrong in the judicial branch and suggested that                  
 perhaps the state doesn't have the money to deal with the solution.           
 She said she didn't believe HB 154 was a remedy for this problem.             
 Number 1519                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN PORTER clarified that the takings provision of the state             
 constitution has been interpreted to mean 95 percent.  He then                
 mentioned that HB 154 changes this amount to 20 percent of the                
 value and asked Ms. Hannan if she had another number or if she felt           
 there should not be any change to current law.                                
 Number 1552                                                                   
 MS. HANNAN said she was not an attorney and was hesitant to throw             
 out a number because of the judicial precedent for what kinds of              
 numbers evoke resolution.  She suggested that in a system where you           
 are provided a right to have a jury of your peers and you can                 
 convince 12 Alaskans that the government has done you wrong and you           
 deserve a monetary compensation, then you are due that                        
 compensation.  She said the constitutional provision is for the               
 land itself, not the house or your business interest.  She added              
 that when you try and legislate for those things that are not the             
 property itself but items on the property, then specifics from each           
 case must be identified.  She did not venture to guess what                   
 precedents have already been set in Alaska court for when we do or            
 do not compensate.  She said Alaskans have demonstrated fairness to           
 the average person and if there have been rulings against citizens            
 in taking cases, then there must have been individual facts per               
 case that have set up the judicial precedents.  She said HB 154               
 does not address the 35 years of judicial precedent.                          
 Number 1642                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked if the committee is moving in the              
 right direction with the new committee substitute.                            
 Number 1671                                                                   
 MS. HANNAN responded that she didn't believe HB 154 could be                  
 "tweaked" enough.  She said HB 154 adds another pile of red tape,             
 another layer of bureaucracy and 20 years of litigation.  She did             
 not see that HB 154 would provide any remedy for someone who has              
 been suing the state of Alaska for 15 years.  She said none of the            
 constituents of AEL want to see government capriciously take                  
 property.  The constituents want efficient government in this                 
 state.  She said HB 154 offers layers of bureaucracy and delayed              
 resolution to problems.  If the problem is that the state is not              
 compensating people who are losing property, the state must make              
 sure that the money is there to pay them through the legislature              
 appropriations of money.                                                      
 Number 1765                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if Ms. Hannan said the state does not              
 compensate people for improvements to real property.                          
 Number 1745                                                                   
 MS. HANNAN said, if she did, she misspoke in the legal context.               
 She cited the classic example of condemning your property to put in           
 a highway, in this case the government must compensate you for the            
 house and the property.  She said the government might not                    
 compensate you for a rose hedge, which for you was considered a               
 valuable loss.                                                                
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he hoped Ms. Hannan's testimony would not           
 be taken too seriously because it does not represent the legal                
 case.  He then thanked Ms. Hannan for her testimony.                          
 Number 1775                                                                   
 JIM VOTEBERG, Assistant City Manager, City of Ketchikan, testified            
 via teleconference from Ketchikan.  He said he just received a copy           
 of the work draft for HB 154, and because of this, his comments               
 would be focused on the original draft.  He read from a statement,            
 "although the city of Ketchikan has not fully evaluated the effects           
 of HB 154, a preliminary review brings to the attention the                   
 following concerns; the proposed legislation would require that all           
 ordinances which impose a restraint on private property have the              
 least possible effect on the property which is necessary to                   
 accomplish public ordinance.  The term restraint on private                   
 property is broadly defined as including any action or restriction            
 that limits the use of the private property.  This language would             
 appear to severely limit the ability of government to adopt zoning            
 and building codes without compensating property owners for the               
 proposed diminished value.                                                    
 The ordinance would also limit lease powers to only those                     
 situations where action must be taken to respond to real and                  
 substantial threat of (indiscernible) to the extent necessary.  Any           
 action which would impose a restraint on private property must be             
 accompanied by a full analysis of total of (indiscernible) effect             
 or the ordinance and of the economic effect of all alternatives.              
 Private property is a broadly defined as even motor vehicles                  
 (indiscernible) for example, the city of Ketchikan park                       
 requirement."  He said HB 154 seems to be a reaction to                       
 environmental regulation and the effect this regulation has on                
 property owners.  He said these are federal regulation that                   
 directly or indirectly go through the state agencies that mandate             
 these laws.  He added that HB 154 would be ineffectual remedy for             
 these regulations.                                                            
 MR. VOTEBERG said the city of Ketchikan, while understanding the              
 frustrations resulting in the seemingly endless amount of                     
 environmental legislation, is not convinced that HB 154 will                  
 provide regulatory relief.  The city of Ketchikan encourages this             
 committee to make the appropriate changes to meet the goal of HB              
 Number 1915                                                                   
 CHARLES McKEE testified via teleconference from Anchorage.  He                
 asked the committee to look on page 3, the provisions regarding               
 health and safety.  He said he investigated these provisions in               
 regards to his investigation of the state due to an injury he                 
 received from commercial fishing.  He said he is still waiting for            
 compensation and he felt he shouldn't have to deal with dubious               
 characters in order to achieve small increments of money in order             
 to continue to prove his case.                                                
 Number 2095                                                                   
 JON ISAACS, Member, Alaska Chapter, American Planning Association;            
 and member, Alaska Municipal League, testified via teleconference             
 from Anchorage.  He said in the past his organization has worked              
 with the legislature to develop legislation.  His organization                
 agrees wholeheartedly with the intent of HB 154 in regards to the             
 taking of property by both state and local governments.  He said,             
 despite the good intentions of HB 154, it misses the intended                 
 target.  He said he just received the committee substitute and said           
 that there is a broad based definition of government action under             
 consideration which includes building codes, the statute of                   
 limitations to file a claim, (indiscernible) uncertainty to local             
 government, plus additional community concerns about                          
 (indiscernible) loss of value.  He felt HB 154 will have a great              
 cost to property owners who (indiscernible) more frequently.  The             
 municipality will have more unspecified claims in regards to HB               
 154.  Citizens will have greater concerns of how the community will           
 be developed.  He concluded that good legislation can be developed            
 if all parties work in cooperation to develop language.                       
 Number 2159                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said the information Mr. Isaacs sent is located in            
 the committee packet and said the sponsor is aware of his offer to            
 Number 2231                                                                   
 PAM LaBOLLE, President, Alaska State Chamber of Congress (ASCC),              
 was next to testify.  She said her organization represents 70,000             
 employees out of 700 member businesses as well as 6,000 members of            
 business members of local chambers.  She said a mission of her                
 organization is to create a climate in Alaska that is conducive to            
 a strong, private sector economy.  She read from a statement:                 
 "I am here today to speak in support of HB 154.  Reform of the                
 present regulatory system is one of the highest priorities of the             
 ASCC.  Our resolution on this matter asks the legislature and the             
 administration to create a regulatory and economic environment                
 supportive of business development that encourages businesses to              
 locate and grow in Alaska.                                                    
 "There are now 9,507 pages of regulations in the Alaska                       
 Administrative Code book.  I noted yesterday, by the way, in                  
 Senator Stevens comments that in 1995 alone the federal executive             
 branch issued 67,500 pages of regulations at the federal level.               
 They nearly all restrict, prescribe, dictate, assign, or impose the           
 will of government on the public.  I believe we all recognize the             
 need for rules and guidelines to help the public and its government           
 agencies achieve the intended purpose of a law.  However, I am not            
 aware of any law that has been passed by this state's legislative             
 body, past or present, that, in its intent, gave the state the                
 right to deprive property owners of their property without just               
 compensation.  Can you imagine what the headlines might have been             
 ...`Alaskan's required by law to donate property needed by local or           
 state government,' and I hope we never will see a law passed like             
 "However, regulations are more subtle than that, and there aren't             
 enough watchdog groups in existence to have closely monitored the             
 development of the tens of thousands of regulations contained in              
 that 9,507 pages if the Alaska Administrative Code Book.  As a                
 result, over the years government has encroached a little bit here,           
 prescribed a little bit there, until the agencies of our government           
 have come to accept it as their established right to take whatever            
 they need from an individual, `for the good of the people'...or the           
 flora, or the fauna, or the fish or fowl.                                     
 "In all this testimony, I have not heard anyone dispute the fact              
 that this is happening.  All I have heard is that the government              
 needs to take or diminish the value of private property from time             
 to time, for any one of a variety of reasons, and if they were                
 required to compensate the owners for their loss, the costs would             
 be astronomical.  Doesn't that mean that the costs to the                     
 individuals who are not being compensated are also astronomical?              
 "To condone the taking of private property through regulatory                 
 action, without compensation for the experienced loss, is to                  
 discourage business development and economic growth and will                  
 discourage businesses to locate and grow in Alaska.  Regulatory               
 restrictions can keep a business from managing the resources they             
 paid good and fair money to acquire.  When restrictions are                   
 considered to be necessary, the regulators should be required to              
 weigh the loss to the property owners against the need for the                
 restriction, and then be willing to pay for what they are taking.             
 Before the owner acquired the property, he had to consider if it              
 was affordable, and gather the needed money to pay for it.  How               
 then, is it fair that government can take part of it, or reduce its           
 value, without considering if they can afford to pay for it .  If             
 the owner had to borrow money to purchase the property, his lender            
 still has to be paid.  And the owner will be expected to pay taxes            
 on the property he owns, but cannot use.                                      
 "Faced with government costs we already know we can't afford, it's            
 hard to consider an action that could result in higher costs still.           
 But no one is saying that this law should be retroactive, or that             
 the government must pay for what it has already taken.  What we are           
 saying is that the taking of property without compensation goes               
 against our constitutional rights, and it must stop.  From this               
 point forward, governments must have this thought as their highest            
 consideration.  If they can't afford it, they shouldn't take it."             
 Number 2419                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS asked for a clear cut example of where                
 property was taken, from Ms. LaBolle's representative base of                 
 70,000 people, and where they were not compensated for their loss.            
 Number 2437                                                                   
 MS. LaBOLLE said she did not have any examples with her, but cited            
 examples given during hearings on HB 154 this summer.  She said               
 some examples included restrictions on the use of property.  She              
 said there are subtle examples of takings and listed an example               
 regarding the inclusion of a buffer zone restricting timber                   
 TAPE 96-21, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS asked if HB 154 will reduce the amount of             
 regulations and if enforcement and cost would fall back to the                
 MS. LaBOLLE didn't think HB 154 would take away regulations, and              
 added that every time laws are passed, more regulations are                   
 installed.  She said, just because it has been wrong in the past,             
 it doesn't mean that the future should compound those wrongs.                 
 REPRESENTATIVE B. DAVIS said she doesn't want any government agency           
 to continue the wrongs, but she didn't want it to impact the                  
 municipalities.  She advocated for a bill that would be enforceable           
 and not cost the state a lot of money.  She asked for some examples           
 to be sent to her in writing regarding those takings.                         
 MS. LaBOLLE said no one wants to increase the cost to state                   
 government, but the costs to individuals must be addressed.  She              
 said HB 154 states that agencies have to work through a process               
 before they take property.  She said her organization finds nothing           
 unreasonable about asking the government to proceed in a rational             
 manner and look for other options besides taking property.                    
 Number 097                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY referred to various examples of takings                  
 including the Wetlands Act, zoning cases, and he again cited the              
 Fairbanks case.  He said the Fairbanks case involved a piece of               
 property that the city was going to condemn, but before they did,             
 they rezoned the area, so the condemned building had minimal value.           
 Number 134                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said the essence of HB 154 was that agencies             
 and municipalities would chose to avoid takings so they wouldn't              
 have to pay.  He said HB 154 encourages government to conduct                 
 themselves in a manner that is less expensive to both government              
 and private individuals.                                                      
 Number 157                                                                    
 MS. LaBOLLE said this issue is critical to the ASCC.                          
 Number 164                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if HB 154 would encourage speculation.             
 Number 177                                                                    
 MS. LaBOLLE said she didn't think property owners would seek profit           
 by working against governmental agencies.                                     
 Number 192                                                                    
 ANN RESCH, Deputy Municipal Attorney, Municipality of Anchorage,              
 testified via teleconference from Anchorage.  She said, as opposed            
 to the first draft of HB 154, she does not condemn all sections of            
 the committee substitute.  She said she is opposed to the section             
 regarding the law of takings and the too broad reference to                   
 government actions. She said she was happy that a threshold was               
 incorporated into HB 154, but felt that 20 percent was too low.               
 She said that among appraisers a 10 percent, of fair market value,            
 fell within the margin of error.                                              
 Number 265                                                                    
 MS. RESCH said that typical replanning and zoning actions could               
 constitute takings.                                                           
 Number 280                                                                    
 MS. RESCH said she was pleased that HB 154 assessment did not                 
 include damage prior to the passing of HB 154.  She expressed                 
 concern over the taking definition in its inclusion of the word,              
 "temporary" as this might lead to an increase in litigation.  She             
 said there might be litigation as a result of every aspect of this            
 bill.  She remarked on that a reduction from ten years to five                
 years for statutory limitations was a positive inclusion within HB            
 Number 343                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN clarified that Ms. Resch had been                  
 working on condemnation cases in Anchorage for eight years.  He               
 then asked how many of those cases were dealt with internally and             
 how many of them went through the court process.                              
 Number 378                                                                    
 MS. RESCH said these cases are rarely settled out of court and in             
 court a third of the existing cases are settled.  She said,                   
 settlement in terms of dollar amounts, before they got to her,                
 would be unusual.  She added that there might be a settlement                 
 provision in the regulatory process where both planners and the               
 applicant work something out.                                                 
 Number 408                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE referred to her comment that 20 percent would            
 be too low of a threshold and asked if she had a recommended                  
 Number 423                                                                    
 MS. RESCH suggested a systematic approach to the amount, determined           
 by the different amounts set by appraisals, seen in condemnation              
 cases.  She said the Department of Law (DOL) could review their               
 files to see what kind of disparity is seen.  She cited the example           
 where the state went to trial and the state offered $11,000, the              
 litigant wanted $1 million, and the result was $15,000.  She added            
 that 10 percent is seen to be a natural variation (indiscernible              
 due to overlapping voices) common in appraisers.  She asked what              
 this 20 percent variation would mean in practice and said she would           
 have to look more at it to have an idea of a percentage.                      
 Number 486                                                                    
 LISA BLACHER was next to testify.  She said she was a resident and            
 a property owner in Southeast Alaska.  She said that HB 154 could             
 offer her the opportunity to make millions of dollars, but despite            
 that fact, she does not support HB 154.  She viewed ownership of              
 property as a right and a responsibility.  She said there are                 
 safeguards in place that help everyone and she wants to ensure that           
 those are kept in place.  She thinks there are provisions in place            
 that protect private property from government suppression.  She               
 said if that system is not working properly there are steps that              
 can be implemented to make the system work better.  She said if               
 opportunities are given to challenge any government action, there             
 will be a process gridlock, monetary costs to the state and                   
 development of problems in areas of health and safety within the              
 Number 560                                                                    
 MS. BLACHER said a similar legislation regarding private property             
 rights initiative was passed in the state of Washington, later                
 repealed by Referendum 48 this past fall.  She said the University            
 of Washington Institute for Public Policy made a detailed economic            
 analysis of the costs of this legislation.  This study determined             
 that the costs for assessment would be millions of dollars and                
 compensation would result in expenditures of $11 billion per year.            
 MS. BLACHER said HB 154 will bankrupt the state of Alaska and                 
 result in litigation.  She referred to the original takings case to           
 which the sponsor built HB 154 in response to.  She said Steve Noye           
 was not able to build the number of subdivisions he wanted because            
 the sewage disposal was not adequate with the Department of                   
 Environmental Conservation (DEC).  His subdivision would have                 
 discharged untreated sewage into the Katchamak Bay.  She questioned           
 a bill which used this example as the reason for its submission.              
 MS. BLACHER said she discussed HB 154 with a lawyer who told her              
 that she and her neighbors could stand to make millions from this             
 legislation.  She didn't think HB 154 was wise or prudent and she             
 was against it.                                                               
 Number 654                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked how she felt HB 154 could result in                
 millions of dollars in regards to her property.                               
 MS. BLACHER cited examples such as building a hotel or a garbage              
 incinerator where she is prevented from doing so by regulation, HB            
 154 would allow her to sue.                                                   
 Number 688                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY said that most of the regulations she           
 cited were examples of regulations in place before the property was           
 MS. BLACHER said this was true, but pointed out that if regulations           
 came up for reauthorization they were fair game.                              
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY said she was not addressing that, but the use           
 of the property as you buy it.                                                
 Number 726                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said Ms. Blacher is referring to existing                
 conditions that are applicable under HB 154.  He asked from her to            
 state, from this day forward, what was she anticipating the                   
 government would do for her to make her a millionaire.                        
 MS. BLACHER said, it is what she is not allowed to do in existing             
 regulations, that under HB 154, that she will sue.  She said Mr.              
 Noye is not allowed to build 15 subdivisions under existing                   
 regulations and that is why HB 154 was developed.                             
 Number 765                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said it is his perceived intent of HB 154 that it             
 would not afford anyone the opportunity to sue in regards to                  
 existing regulations.                                                         
 Number 780                                                                    
 MS. BLACHER said HB 154 is complicated and encouraged the committee           
 to look at the University of Washington study to help understand              
 the complexities.                                                             
 Number 799                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said the Washington legislation was similar to the            
 first draft of HB 154 and that the bill has been revised and will             
 probably be revised further.                                                  
 Number 827                                                                    
 JANICE ADAIR, Director, Division of Environmental Health,                     
 Department of Environmental Conservation, was next to testify.  She           
 said the focus of HB 154 is off.  She added that the 9,000 plus               
 pages of regulations mentioned are all based in statute and the               
 result of bills passed by the legislature.  She said when those               
 bills were submitted they did so to correct a wrong, a perceived              
 wrong or to forestall some wrong from happening.                              
 Number 865                                                                    
 MS. ADAIR referred to a statute that requires obtaining a solid               
 waste permit before those wastes are disposed of and said that                
 although HB 154 does not relate to regulations currently on the               
 books it does not restrict questioning the permit actions that are            
 taken, based on regulations.  She said if someone wanted to put a             
 solid waste permit in Turnagain, and DEC denied the permit, she               
 asked which property has been devalued.  She said these regulations           
 were incorporated to prevent individual action which would harm the           
 Number 904                                                                    
 MS. ADAIR said if DEC denied a permit for an incinerator in south             
 Anchorage it might harm the person wishing to develop it, but if a            
 permit was issued then it would harm the other property owners in             
 that area.  She said it is difficult to make governmental action              
 decisions with the intention of protecting the health, welfare and            
 property values of adjoining pieces of property.  She said the                
 fiscal notes prepared by DEC are not monetary amounts that come to            
 the agency, but money that goes around the economy.  She said money           
 is given by those individuals developing property to someone who is           
 developing that plan is an economic circle.                                   
 Number 965                                                                    
 MS. ADAIR said the inspection and maintenance requirements in                 
 Anchorage and Fairbanks do not result in money to the agency, but             
 rather it is money that goes out to the garages and sent to the               
 municipality in order to have those tests done.  She said the state           
 regulations help drive an economic circle.                                    
 Number 980                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked what happens in a situation whereby the                 
 interests of two people, or more, are opposed to each other.                  
 Number 1005                                                                   
 MS. ADAIR said this situation would result in a court case on a               
 consistent basis.  She said, in reality, HB 154 hurts economic                
 development in the state of Alaska because of the difficulties                
 involved in issuing permits.                                                  
 Number 1019                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked about the hesitation to issue a permit.            
 Number 1033                                                                   
 MS. ADAIR said the safe, bureaucratic approach of not issuing a               
 permit would result in a court case, because whoever wanted that              
 permit would feel devalued under HB 154.                                      
 Number 1044                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN PORTER cited examples where there would be two sides with            
 equal feelings of devaluation.                                                
 Number 1069                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if these situations were in places that           
 were un-zoned.                                                                
 Number 1076                                                                   
 MS. ADAIR said she is not aware of how zoning laws are impacted by            
 HB 154.  She said there are not that many communities within the              
 state with good zoning laws.  She added that many times DEC is                
 asked to be the zoning entity and although an attempt is made to              
 avoid this, in many cases it is the defacto result.                           
 Number 1113                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked in regards to the regulations that           
 are and are not covered in Section 7 of HB 154, whether some of the           
 regulations are changeable.  He added that regulations are modified           
 as technology within the industry changes.                                    
 Number 1205                                                                   
 MS. ADAIR agreed that the regulations are modified as new                     
 information is obtained.                                                      
 Number 1216                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN remarked that regulations are going to             
 be applied to people and that Section 7 does not solve the problem.           
 Number 1229                                                                   
 GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,                 
 Department of Fish and Game (DF&G), was next to testify.  He said             
 his department testified previously on HB 154 and he was going to             
 attempt to avoid repeating what had already been said.  He said the           
 state constitution reserves fish and wildlife for the common use of           
 the people whether it occurs on private land, state or federal                
 land.  He said it is from that constitutional mandate, that the               
 regulations and statutes were formed, giving the DF&G authority.              
 He said these resources are important in terms of economics as well           
 as in other respects.                                                         
 Number 1297                                                                   
 MR. BRUCE said HB 154 causes concern to DF&G in regards to page               
 four, Section 34.50.160, because it states that DF&G cannot require           
 an owner of private property to provide or pay for studies, maps,             
 et cetera used in the governmental entity's decisions to adopt a              
 regulation or ordinance relating to private property.  He mentioned           
 that one of the statutes passed, in Title 16, 16.05.870 requires              
 that anyone conducting an activity in a fish stream to provide                
 plans and work with the department to show that the activity is not           
 detrimental to the fish.  He said DF&G undergoes a review and a               
 permitting process under that authority and said that only a                  
 fraction of 1 percent are disapproved out of 600 or so permit                 
 applications.  He said this process is conducted in a satisfactory            
 fashion through the use of maps, proposals, et cetera provided by             
 the permit applicants so that it can be used by DF&G to make the              
 permitting decision.  He said under HB 154, DF&G would have to                
 develop their own studies and plans which is not practical.  He               
 said HB 154 would create continued friction with applicants with              
 whom the DF&G has had a good, working relation.                               
 Number 1481                                                                   
 TERRY DUSZYNSKI, Member, Alaska Homebuilders Association, testified           
 via teleconference from Fairbanks.  He said he supports the concept           
 of HB 154.  He said the attitude of his organization is that                  
 someone purchases land that afterwards is subject to regulation,              
 causing a devaluation of that land, should certainly be compensated           
 by the government.  He said he hoped that HB 154 would protect                
 against this loss.                                                            
 Number 1556                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a hypothetical scenario by which a gold             
 deposit is found and asked that it be viewed it from the side of              
 the owner who might not get to tap this resource and from the point           
 of view of the property owners who complain because of the heavy              
 ore trucks.                                                                   
 Number 1616                                                                   
 MR. DUSZYNSKI said when the gold deposit was identified would                 
 determine the value of property.   If the gold deposit was                    
 discovered after the property was bought, then the property might             
 not be devalued if he doesn't get the permit.                                 
 Number 1694                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN created a different scenario where a gravel              
 quarry is zoned for an area near homes and a motor speedway is then           
 built on top of it, he then asked about the conflict of desires in            
 this situation.                                                               
 Number 1754                                                                   
 MR. DUSZYNSKI said it depends on a variety of factors.                        
 Number 1829                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said Mr. Duszynski's response to                   
 Representative Bunde's question was reasonable, but added that                
 there is nothing in HB 154 which states whether or not they had a             
 permit issued.  He said it can be based on what the owner's                   
 intention is in regards to this property.  He also raised the issue           
 of zoning, saying that most of the state is not zoned.  He said               
 every year, different parts of the state decide that they want to             
 be zoned and find out with all these conflict of interest issues              
 that the municipality cannot zone and effectively address those               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER closed the hearing to testimony from the public.              
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said he was confused as to what Section            
 7 applied to, and added that HB 154 revolves around governmental              
 actions as defined on page six.  The definition of takings are                
 actions taken by government.  He asked how Section 7 ties into that           
 definition.  He said there are some separate provisions that relate           
 to considerations taken in principle for government action and                
 other things, he thought that those appear restricted by Section 7,           
 but it didn't appear that Section 7 had any restriction on the                
 compensation required for takings and what governmental action                
 Number 2030                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY made a motion to adopt CSHB 154, version 9-             
 LS0602\H as the working document.  Hearing no objections CSHB 154             
 was the working document before the House Standing Judiciary                  
 Number 2082                                                                   
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said it would be helpful if the definition,                   
 referred to by Representative Finkelstein, reflected more of what             
 his understanding was of the definition.  He said he understood               
 that the definition of governmental action is an unanticipated                
 prohibition or limitation implemented.  He referred to an example             
 of fisheries.                                                                 
 Number 2180                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said the hypothetical examples that were                 
 raised were extraneous.  He said, the property rights raised, cited           
 examples which would cause noise and air pollution and said those             
 are not property rights issues.  He said those are permitting                 
 Number 2283                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if an appraiser were to produce a            
 valuation stating that they have a property loss of 20 percent or             
 more under 109.b, because of an increase in heavy ore trucks,                 
 whether or not that loss would be compensated.                                
 Number 2340                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said there are certain expectations that you             
 should account for in your property if you live near a major                  
 thoroughfare and he didn't see how an increase in trucks would be             
 compensated under HB 154.  He said if public agencies decide to               
 increase their capacity, they might have to take property to expand           
 which might result in a taking.  He said, he didn't understand how            
 the use of the adjacent property would affect your property                   
 negatively as it was there previously.                                        
 Number 2450                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said his example regarded neighborhood             
 streets not major thoroughfares.                                              
 TAPE 96-22, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said that because you don't own the property,            
 those regulations, if they change, are not a taking of your                   
 property.  He said the state of Alaska has a history of not denying           
 people access to their property, but added that the state could               
 deny people access to their property for industrial purposes.  He             
 said a person wishing to develop their property has to come up with           
 a way of gaining that access through work with a public agency to             
 create a facility or acquiring additional property rights to                  
 develop their own facility.  He said, in the past, the ability to             
 construct a thoroughfare was easily done.                                     
 Number 138                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said that someone is going to have a               
 claim if they can show that they moved into a residential street              
 where no industry was going on, find a property appraiser who says            
 that property owner has lost more than 20 percent of property value           
 because of the gravel pit.                                                    
 Number 202                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said there didn't appear to be anything in HB 154             
 which would guarantee compensation.                                           
 Number 221                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN cited an example where there was as much as a            
 30 percent difference in appraisals in homes, unaffected by                   
 externalties.  He said this difference creates an area of concern             
 for him within HB 154.                                                        
 Number 333                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked the sponsor of HB 154 to try and address the            
 issues raised in the meeting today.  He said, at some time the                
 issue of the philosophy of HB 154 versus the litigation concern               
 would arise.                                                                  
 Number 409                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said an issue he wished to address is the competing           
 interest concern.  He said if someone wanted to develop a piece of            
 property and there were no regulations prohibiting it, except for             
 neighboring property owner's concerns, you create the potential for           
 litigation.  He said HB 154 would be held over and addressed at an            
 upcoming House Judiciary Committee meeting.                                   
 There being no further business to come before the House Standing             
 Judiciary Committee, Chairman Porter adjourned the meeting at 2:47            

Document Name Date/Time Subjects