Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/04/2001 01:10 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 82 - FARM OPERATIONS:DISCLOSURE/NUISANCES Number 2330 CHAIR ROKEBERG announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 82, "An Act relating to agricultural facilities and operations as private nuisances; and to disclosures in transfers of real property located within one mile of an agricultural facility or an agricultural operation." Number 2339 PETER FELLMAN, Staff to Representative John Harris, Alaska State Legislature, testified on behalf of the sponsor of HB 82, Representative Harris. He explained that HB 82 clarifies existing statute; offers protection against nuisance lawsuits in Alaska; allows for disclosure, which has stood up to the court's test in New York; and requires that a soil conservation plan, which shows that farms are operated in both a productive and environmentally safe manner, be on file with the local soil and water conservation district (SWCD). He added that by coupling the disclosure provisions with the soil conservation plan, HB 82 will offer protection from nuisance lawsuits. He noted that the Alaska Association of Realtors (AAR) has endorsed [HB 82], although he did not have anything in writing to that effect. Mr. Fellman added that in working with the ARR, [the sponsor had changed] HB 82 so that disclosure, which falls under "Megan's Law" relating to convicted sexual offenders, will be required by the purchaser. [Mr. Fellman was referring to a proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 82, Version P, 22-LS0348\P, Kurtz, 3/23/01, which had not yet been offered as a work draft.] REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that the realtors to whom she had spoken to expressed satisfaction with the language currently in HB 82. CHAIR ROKEBERG said that inasmuch as he had drafted AS 34.70.050, he was very interested in the language that was to be inserted [by Version P of HB 82]. He added that he had concerns about the litany of items that had to be on a disclosure statement, including odors, fumes, dust, smoke, burning, vibrations, insects, rodents, operations of machinery including aircraft, and other inconveniences. He said he thought that if those items were listed in statute, then they would also have to be recited on the [disclosure] statement. MR. FELLMAN clarified that under Version P (page 3, line 24), it is the person who is purchasing the property - the transferee - who is responsible for determining whether an agricultural facility/operation is in the vicinity. The disclosure statement must simply notify the purchaser of this responsibility and outline where such information is available. TAPE 01-55, SIDE B Number 2473 CHAIR ROKEBERG acknowledged that he now understood that the disclosure [provision] applied to the purchaser, and also why [that provision] fell under Megan's Law. Number 2450 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 82, version 22-LS0348\P, Kurtz, 3/23/01, as a work draft. There being no objection, Version P was before the committee. MR. FELLMAN again clarified that Version P places the liability on the purchaser to find out what the circumstances are as they relate to any agricultural facilities/operations being in the vicinity of property that he/she intends to purchase. CHAIR ROKEBERG again noted that he understood [the disclosure provision] to mean that if any of the aforementioned items relating to an agricultural facility/operation existed in the vicinity, it was up to the buyer to find them. Chair Rokeberg referred to the term "one mile" in the title. He asked if that was to be the definition of "vicinity", or if it was a mistake. MR. FELLMAN explained that in a prior draft of the proposed CS, "one mile" was used as a part of the description pertaining to disclosure. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked if the title needed to be amended, or if the standard of the vicinity of the property had been changed from one mile. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that she did not think [the standard had been changed]. CHAIR ROKEBERG asked if there was a definition [included in Version P] that he was unaware of. He asked why there had to be a one-mile standard if the burden was on the buyer. The buyer could object; whether [the agricultural facility's/operation's conditions] were within 100 yards or 5 miles, it would still be [his or her] own problem. He clarified that he was referring to Section 5 regarding the applicability of the uncodified law. He added that while [the use of the term] "one mile" did establish a standard, he did not think it was necessary. MR. FELLMAN acknowledged that the standard of one mile was to be used when the burden of disclosure was on the seller. CHAIR ROKEBERG said he would prefer to take out Section 5, and modify the title. Number 2299 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if there were any other references in Version P regarding having the soil conservation plan approved by the SWCD. MR. FELLMAN responded yes, and noted that another reference was located on page 2. CHAIR ROKEBERG remarked that the title did not seem to be consistent. He asked if [the term] "agricultural facility" was adequate to describe Section 1. MR. FELLMAN said [Version P] contained definitions of agricultural facilities and agricultural operations. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES requested clarification regarding whether the one-mile [standard] applied to [agricultural facilities/operations] located less than one mile away, more than one mile away, or just someplace around the [one-mile range]. She offered that it was possible that someone might be unhappy with [agricultural facilities/operations] that were located more than one mile away. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER commented that there had to be some limits. He noted that the term "one mile" was also used on page 4, [line 2], and, therefore, if it was used in [the body of] the bill, then it also needed to be in the title. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed that there should be some limit, depending on what that limit was. She clarified that the language on page 4 was simply applicability language relating to uncodified law, and therefore [the term] did not need to be included in the title because it was not actually in the bill. CHAIR ROKEBERG suggested leaving [the term of "one mile"] in the applicability [section], and taking it out of the title. MR. FELLMAN reminded the committee that the parameter of one mile was set when the burden of disclosure was on the seller; now that the burden of disclosure is on the buyer, that one-mile parameter is no longer applicable. He added that regardless of whether the agricultural facility/operation is 15 feet or 2 miles away, it is the buyer's choice whether to continue with the real estate transaction. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that it would be better to remove the one-mile [parameter] because the responsibility of identifying any existing [agricultural facility/operation] is on the purchaser. Number 2137 CHAIR ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, as follows: Page 1, line 2 Delete: "within one mile" Insert: "in the vicinity" REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she thought that Amendment 1 should also apply to [Section 5, page 4, line 2]. Number 2115 CHAIR ROKEBERG expressed his willingness to include that suggestion, and restated his motion to adopt Amendment 1, as follows: Page 1, line 2 Delete: "within one mile" Insert: "in the vicinity" Page 4, line 2 Delete: "within one mile" Insert: "in the vicinity" There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 2088 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report CSHB 82, version 22- LS0348\P, Kurtz, 3/23/01, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 82(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|