SB 278-TAKING PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN  MS. KIM OGNISTY, Staff to Senator John Torgerson, sponsor of SB 278, said SB 278 was concerned with eminent domain and declaration to taking proceedings. She said the bill would introduce a reasonable and diligent effort clause that attempted to place the condemnor of the land and the private landholder in an equal negotiating position. She said the bill did not try to remove the authority of the State to take land by eminent domain or complicate existing proceedings. She said current law did not require the State to engage in a good-faith effort to negotiate with private property owners and the State was free to make an unreasonable offer or no offer at all. She said striving to initiate communication from a more equitable bargaining position would promote more productive negotiations, facilitate dialogue over reasonable concerns and encourage suggestions from all parties involved. She said similar statutes had been adopted in at least 23 other states. She said the intent of SB 278 was to reduce litigation by encouraging more cases to be settled up front, promoting expediency in government actions. She said Senator Torgerson yielded to the wisdom of the Chairman regarding any amendments. SENATOR THERRIAULT asked for the source of the proposed amendment in the bill packet. MS. OGNISTY said Sealaska suggested the amendment. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Mr. Rick Kauzlarich to provide testimony. MR. RICK KAUZLARICH, State Right-of-Way Chief, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOTPF), said he had worked for DOTPF for over 22 years as a right-of-way agent. He said DOTPF acted in good faith to purchase property before proceeding into condemnation. He said SB 278 would introduce additional steps into an already complicated process. He said DOTPF followed a strict set of guidelines when acquiring property. He said the guidelines were based on Article 1, Section 18 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska, which said, "Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation." He said that mirrored the Constitution of the United States of America. He said DOTPF also followed Title 3 of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act (URARPA) of 1970, which required that real property must be appraised before initiation of negotiations. He said DOTPF required documentation in each acquisition file that the owner of the property or the owner's representative was given opportunity to accompany the appraiser during the inspection of the property. If the appraiser was unable to contact the owner or the owner refused to sign a form acknowledging that opportunity that was documented in the file as well. MR. KAUZLARICH said the 1987 amendment to URARPA and DOTPF defined an appraisal as, "A written statement independently and impartially prepared by a qualified appraiser setting forth an opinion of defined value of an adequately described property as of a specific date supported by presentation and analysis of relevant market information." He said DOTPF's staff was required to conduct an appraisal review and establish an amount for just compensation for each parcel to be acquired before an offer was made to purchase property. This was called a reviewer's determination. He said the determination could be no less than the market value as outlined in the approved appraisal. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said he understood that a property could be condemned and the owner could pay for an appraisal to be brought to DOTPF. He asked if Mr. Kauzlarich was talking about DOTPF contracting with someone to appraise the land and that person giving the appraisal to DOTPF for review. MR. KAUZLARICH said DOTPF contracted with a fee appraiser or a staff member to do an appraisal that went through a review process. A negotiator then contacted the property owner. He said the property owner could also submit an appraisal for consideration. That appraisal was reviewed and could become part of the negotiations. He said the federal government would reimburse all costs associated with the acquisition if an agreement were reached between DOTPF and the property owner. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if the owner's appraisal would be paid for. MR. KAUZLARICH said the appraisal would be paid for if it was a legitimate cost in the negotiations. SENATOR COWDERY asked what types of resistance DOTPF received from property owners. He also asked how many times the property owner's appraisal was included in negotiations. MR. KAUZLARICH said condemnation appraising was a very specific and involved process. He said a bank appraiser who did home appraisals might not have the expertise necessary to do a condemnation appraisal. He said condemnation appraisal involved looking at the value of the part to be acquired as part of the whole. He said some appraisers didn't understand that concept. He said many times the property owners' appraisals didn't fall within DOTPF's published guidelines. He said the review appraisers worked with the appraisal and the negotiator and points in that appraisal that were pertinent were considered. He didn't think there had ever been a case where the negotiator rejected an appraisal outright. He noted that the negotiator was concerned with doing what was fair for the property owner in accordance with the Constitution of the State of Alaska. SENATOR COWDERY said there was a downturn in property values during the 1980s. He asked how DOTPF dealt with appraisals that were less than the mortgage. MR. KAUZLARICH said a lot of single-family homes were acquired for the Eagle River Highland Bridge project. He said a lot of the appraisals were less than the mortgages. He said DOTPF worked with the Federal Highway Administration and the banks and was able to buy the properties and put the people into homes as good as or better than their previous homes without losing any money. He said DOTPF recognized those situations and worked with property owners to resolve them. He said property owners could submit appraisals to DOTPF for consideration. He said in cases where the property owner's submittal didn't adequately reflect the value of the part acquired the review appraiser could outline the shortcomings of the appraisal for the negotiator and the property owner. He said the appraisal had to meet the same requirements as DOTPF's appraisal in order to be reimbursed by the federal government. Otherwise the costs would come out of State monies. He said right-of-way acquisition was critical in the timeline of a project. He said part of the timeline for a project accounted for contracting the necessary appraisal reports. He said SB 278 had the potential to delay projects while DOTPF waited for the property owners' appraisals. He said the property owner could already have their expert review DOTPF's appraisal and come back to DOTPF with any questions or problems with the appraisal as well as submitting their own appraisal. He said SB 278 would introduce additional steps to the process rather than enhancing and streamlining the process. He believed it had the potential to increase costs to DOTPF in additional appraisal expenditures and costs associated with the review and administration of processing the property owners' appraisals. He said DOTPF staff was aware that all reasonable costs incurred by the property owner should be considered in a settlement. SENATOR COWDERY asked if the appraisers were licensed. He asked if those licenses had to be renewed. MR. KAUZLARICH said there were two levels of appraisal licensing. The first was residential licensing. The second was commercial licensing. He said condemnation appraisal would be included in commercial licensing. He said the licenses went through periodic review and continuing education was required to maintain licenses. He said DOTPF only contracted with licensed appraisers. SENATOR COWDERY said Mr. Kauzlarich mentioned he had done appraisal work for the State. He asked if he was licensed. MR. KAUZLARICH said he was not. He said at the time he was doing appraisal work, there was no license. SENATOR COWDERY asked if review appraisers were picked randomly or if the same few were used. MR. KAUZLARICH said there were two review appraisers on staff. He said there were situations where it was necessary to hire an independent appraiser to do a review or an analysis of an appraisal that had been submitted to DOTPF. SENATOR COWDERY said he had worked with the Municipality of Anchorage and there were arbitrators hired by the Municipality. He said there was some concern that the same arbitrators were hired over and over again and were conscious of who paid them and might not be completely fair. MR. KAUZLARICH said the appraisers used by DOTPF were independent. He said the review appraisers and the independent appraisers didn't always agree. SENATOR THERRIAULT said there were two different types of acquisitions. He said DOTPF could be putting in a new road and need to acquire a strip of houses. He thought most of the time DOTPF was widening the right-of-way and taking a strip of land from each property. He wondered how much of the negotiations involved taking a strip of land and what taking that strip of land would do to the rest of the property. He said constituents had contacted him during some big projects in the North Pole area. He found DOTPF to be very reasonable. He said in one instance an elderly couple was concerned because the driveway in front of their house would no longer be usable. He said there was a driveway behind the house that the couple couldn't use because they couldn't negotiate the steps. He said DOTPF purchased the entire property and resold it. MR. KAUZLARICH said that was one of the reasons he was concerned with SB 278. He said the majority of the approximately 500 takings each year were strip-takings. He said the appraiser had to determine whether the taking would damage the rest of the property or make it unusable for the owner. He said DOTPF would offer to purchase the property in that situation. He didn't think that most bank appraisers understood how to determine that sort of loss in value and that was why a condemnation appraiser was so important. He said the property owner might not want the project to go forth. He saw SB 278 as a way for these people to stop or delay projects. He said property values could increase if a project was delayed long enough. He said that made the cost of the entire project increase. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked Mr. Bill Satterburg to provide testimony over the telephone. Mr. Satterburg was unavailable to testify but had sent notes regarding SB 278. He asked Mr. Bill Cummings to provide testimony. MR. BILL CUMMINGS, Assistant Attorney General, Transportation Section, DOL, said the State went through the steps Mr. Kauzlarich outlined whether the project came from State or federal monies. He said the federal government paid for the majority of condemnation cases. He said the procedures laid out in SB 278 would be inconsistent with AS 34.60.120, which set out a very thorough acquisition policy for federally funded land acquisitions. He said SB 278 would add a lot of things that would have to be proved in court proceedings. He said the State would have to prove they had been diligent and reasonable in their negotiations. The State already had to prove they had the authority to take the land and the necessity to use the land in a public project and the taking had been done in a manner consistent with the greatest public good and the least private injury. SB 278 would add another step in that litigation process by requiring the State to prove that the manner in which they treated the property owner was fair. If they hadn't done a reasonable and diligent effort in their negotiations the taking would be denied and they would have to start all over again. MR. CUMMINGS said SB 278 didn't have an appreciation for the process the State followed as mandated under AS 34.60.120. He said having a licensed appraiser come in and do an appraisal wouldn't necessarily fix the situation because that appraisal could be unacceptable. He said there was a case in Ketchikan in which a licensed appraiser did an appraisal of a piece of property for DOTPF. The negotiations using that appraisal weren't successful. DOTPF had another appraiser with designation from the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers appraise the property and that appraisal value was higher. He said the property owner had a licensed appraiser appraise the property but that appraiser used a legally incorrect method to come up with an estimate of just compensation and that appraisal was thrown out. The property owner then got a second appraisal. He said they went to court and the jury didn't believe either appraisal but the award was closer to DOTPF's number than the property owner's number. He said appraisers were always going to differ on numbers. In that case four different licensed appraisers came up with four different numbers. He said it could take up to six months for the court to rule on a motion. He said it might not take six months to rule on whether DOTPF had been reasonable and diligent but it would cause a delay nonetheless. He noted that time was money. He then addressed the following proposed amendment in the bill packet labeled 22-LS139\A.1: A M E N D M E N T OFFERED IN THE SENATE TO: SB 278 Page 1, line 14, following "negotiation": Insert "as provided in (b) and (c) of this section" Page 1, line 14, through page 2, line 5: Delete "; for purposes of this paragraph, "reasonable and  diligent effort" includes inviting the property owner to secure  an appraisal from a real estate appraiser certified under  AS 08.87, and either offering to purchase the property for its  full appraised value as determined by the property owner's  appraiser plus the cost of the appraisal, or explaining to the  property owner why full appraised value is not being offered" Page 2, following line 5: Insert a new bill section to read:  "* Sec. 2. AS 09.55.270 is amended by adding new subsections to read: (b) Before taking property, a condemnor shall invite the property owner to, within a reasonable period of time set by the condemnor, (1) obtain an appraisal from a real estate appraiser certified under AS 08.87 and offer to sell the property to the condemnor for the appraised value plus the cost of appraisal; or (2) offer any alternative means of satisfying the public purpose for which the property is sought. (c) If a property owner offers to sell the property under (b)(1) of this section within the reasonable period of time set by the condemnor, the condemnor must either accept the offer, or reject the offer and provide a reasonable explanation of the reasons for the rejection along with a reasonable counter offer. If a condemnor invites the property owner to make an offer to sell the property as described in (b) of this section and the property owner fails to respond within a reasonable period of time, or if the property owner rejects a reasonable counter offer made under this subsection, the property owner may commence eminent domain proceedings under AS 09.55.290." Renumber the following bill section accordingly. Page 2, lines 23 - 24 Delete "made a reasonable and diligent effort to acquire the  property by negotiation" Insert "complied with AS 09.55.270(b) and (c)" Page 2, line 30, through page 3, line 2: Delete all material and insert: "(2) the plaintiff was required to make a reasonable and  diligent effort to acquire the property by negotiation under  AS 09.55.270(b) and (c) and the plaintiff failed to comply with  AS 09.55.270(b) and (c)." MR. CUMMINGS said the amendment would remove some of the more burdensome language but the replacement language wasn't much better. He said subsection (c) in Sec. 2 would require the State to accept a counter-offer or come up with another reasonable counter-offer. He said those changes would make it a gentler condemnation code but would increase the amount of possible litigation. He said litigation on whether the State had been reasonable could go on for days. He said modern pre-trial discovery allowed for the disclosure of documents going back to the beginning of time and depositions of everyone. He said that would use a lot of valuable resources. He thought SB 278 addressed a problem that didn't exist. He said the State had a very fair and reasonable process under the guidance of AS 34.60.120. He thought the public was well served by existing laws. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said Mr. Satterburg suggested a provision requiring DOTPF to prepay condemnation costs and fees. MR. CUMMINGS said that was a bizarre suggestion. He said that suggestion came from a case Mr. Satterburg lost in Supreme Court in which he wanted to do a drilling program on some gravel land he thought held gold. DOTPF would have paid for gold-bearing land if he had found gold. He said Mr. Satterburg filed a petition for review that was turned down and he had been trying to get that provision into law every time he saw a chance. TAPE 02-14, SIDE A    3:40 p.m. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked what a property owner had to do to protect their interests against a condemnation. MR. CUMMINGS said the property owner had a number of responsibilities and assumptions made about their abilities. He said the property owner could say there were other things that could have been done rather than take their land. He said the State had to consider viable options during the process leading up to the filing of the condemnation. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if the property owner had to hire an expert to do that. MR. CUMMINGS said that was correct. He said the property owner would be reimbursed for reasonable costs if they were right. They would have to bear the costs if they were wrong. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said the property owner would only be reimbursed for a percentage of the costs. MR. CUMMINGS said Civil Rule 72 provided for reimbursement of actual and reasonable costs for expenses that were reasonably necessary to prove the property owner's case including appraisers, engineering experts, lawyers and paralegals. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said the state would have to pay for gold-bearing land if a property owner were willing to go out and spend $75,000 to $100,000 to get their land drilled to determine whether or not it was gold-bearing land and did find gold. He asked if the State would also have to pay for the drilling and attorney's fees. MR. CUMMINGS said that depended on the nature of the drilling program. They would be reimbursed for at least the prorated portion of those drilling costs that were in the area affected by the taking. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said Mr. Satterburg also suggested that the decision to appeal a master's decision should be left solely to the property owner. He said if a master's award had been given, the State should pay it and not appeal the award. He asked if existing law allowed both parties to appeal a master's award. MR. CUMMINGS said the State had 10 days to appeal while the property owner had 15 days to appeal. He said the State not being able to appeal would stand everything on its head. He said there could be situations in which the master did a bad job. He gave an example in which a master had gone off on a tangent and a awarded approximately $200,000, which was a lot more than the State thought the taking was worth. The State appealed and the case went to a jury trial and the jury agreed with the State. He said each side should have the ability to appeal because the ultimate arbiter was the jury, which was the voice of the community and the people. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR thought the State had to deposit the value of the land into the registry of the court. MR. CUMMINGS said that was correct. He said that despoit would be available to the claimants of interest such as the property owner, the city for the prorated portion of taxes and the mortgage holder. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if that money could be withdrawn if there was an appeal. MR. CUMMINGS said it could always be withdrawn. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if the property owner could withdraw that money and still bring suit for a higher value. MR. CUMMINGS said yes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if the State was required to make a deposit for the master's award. MR. CUMMINGS said the State was not required to do so if they appealed the master's award. He said the property owner would be entitled interest from the time the case was filed on the extra amount of compensation if the master's award was appealed and a higher amount was awarded. He said that was an inducement to get as much money on deposit as possible. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if the property owner was only entitled interest if the decision wasn't appealed to the Superior Court. MR. CUMMINGS said the interest was charged on the amount that was greater than the amount of the deposit from the date the State filed until compensation was finally rendered. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said the State could go through the process and deposit $100,000. Then the case could go to a master. He said the master could say the property was worth $125,000. He asked if the State would have to deposit another $25,000. MR. CUMMINGS said no. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said the State could then appeal within 10 days. He said the case could then go to Superior Court for a jury trial. MR. CUMMINGS said that was correct. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said the jury could award $200,000. He asked if the State had the right to appeal that decision. MR. CUMMINGS said yes. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said his point was that it could take a long time for the final decision to be made on the value. He said the State would owe interest from the date the master's award was appealed. MR. CUMMINGS said the interest would be owed from the date the deposit was made, not from the date the master's award was appealed. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said the interest was accrued on the money that was awarded above and beyond the amount made in the deposit. MR. CUMMINGS said that was correct. He said condemnation cases were major interferences with peoples' lives and the State didn't really want to condemn property if it wasn't necessary. He said the State tried to resolve issues without extensive proceedings. He said only exceptional cases went to jury trial. He said comments and concerns like Mr. Satterburg's were very broad and went far beyond what SB 278 was trying to do to the eminent domain code. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if Mr. Cummings had any further testimony to provide. He did not. MR. RON WOLFE, Corporate Forester, Sealaska Corporation, said SB 278 would require the State to make a reasonable and diligent effort to negotiate the purchase of real property from a private property owner before condemning the property. He said Sealaska had gone through the land acquisition process twice when the State required Sealaska land for an airport expansion and a highway realignment and upgrade. He said Sealaska and the State were able to negotiate equitable land exchanges in a manner that prevented a hostile eminent domain process. He said the process was awkward both times because the State had no requirement to negotiate with the property owner and the rules for negotiation were not clear. MR. WOLFE said SB 278 would correct the situation. He said the bill would require fair and equitable treatment while carrying out the eminent domain process. He said the result would be that the property owner would feel they had been treated fairly and openly by the State and would be less likely to bring forth litigation. He said the court would also be less likely to find that a property owner was not treated fairly. He said Sealaska thought these changes would be positive for the State as well as property owners. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if there were any questions for Mr. Wolfe. There were none. MR. JON TILLINGHAST, independent legal counsel, Sealaska Corporation, said at least 23 other states had adopted laws similar to SB 278. He said the bill was based on a provision of the model eminent domain code by the Commission on Model State Laws, which was put together by state legislators to reflect their judgment on the best public policy in issues like eminent domain. He said the scholars on eminent domain such as the author of Nichols on Eminent Domain felt the provisions deterred litigation. He said SB 278 would give the property owner a bargaining chip to use at the table because the State would have a legal requirement to be reasonable with them. He said this would make the property owner join the process as more of an equal rather than a victim. He said AS 34.60.120 was basically a re-codification of federal policy, which required the State to make every reasonable effort to acquire property by negotiation before condemning it when using federal monies. He said SB 278 would make that requirement enforceable because the property owner could use that as a defense to the condemnation. He then addressed the proposed amendment. He said most states with similar eminent domain laws didn't define what the State had to do to be reasonable and diligent in trying to negotiate a purchase. He said early in the drafting of SB 278, an example of what might entail reasonable and diligent effort was suggested and placed in the bill as a safe harbor. This was not intended to be the only way the State could be reasonable and diligent, but one of the many things the State could do. He said the problem with using an example was that people would begin to focus on the example. He said they struggled to come up with a better example. He said they had come to the conclusion that the majority of states had done the right thing by not providing an example. Sealaska suggested the committee do the same thing. MR. TILLINGHAST proposed a different amendment to end paragraph (4) on page 1 at line 14 with the word "negotiation" and deleting the text after that up through and including line 5 on page 2. He said SB 278 would then read virtually identical to the model eminent domain code. 3:58 p.m. MR. TILLINGHAST said the proposed amendment (marked 22- LS1399\A.1) would remove the existing example from SB 278 and insert a new example. He was concerned that this example would have the same problems. He said the example in the proposed amendment was probably better than the example in the existing bill. He said the example in the proposed amendment was worded in such a way that it would no longer be an example but something the State would be required to do in every case. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if the language regarding incapacity cleared up difficulties that had been encountered. MR. TILLINGHAST said that clause, which would release the State from the requirement to negotiate with a property owner if they couldn't be found or were not legally capable of negotiating, was similar to almost all other states' eminent domain code. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if there were any further questions for Mr. Tillinghast. There were none. He asked if there was anyone else who wished to testify on SB 278. There was nobody. He moved Amendment 1 to place a period after the word "negotiation" on page 1 line 14 and delete the following language through line 5 on page 2. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR shared Mr. Cummings' and Mr. Tillinghast's concerns about placing an example in statute because the example would become a mandated opportunity for litigation. He asked if Mr. Cummings wished to provide further testimony. MR. CUMMINGS said the difficulty with putting SB 278 in statute was that there would still be litigation whether or not the State was reasonable and diligent in its negotiations. He said SB 278 would simply provide a mechanism to delay projects, which would cost the State money. He said it wouldn't result in changing the way the State did business. MR. CUMMINGS thought many people wanted the State to be in the business of trading land. He said SB 278 wouldn't compel the State to trade land with property owners. He said DOTPF already had the ability to purchase land for the purposes of exchange. He said there would need to be provisions regarding what would trigger a land trade or how land trades should work if the State were going to do more land trades. He said the main argument for SB 278 was that it would give property owners a way to defend themselves. He said the process DOTPF used was imminently fair. He felt SB 278 would only delay projects. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if it was correct that 23 other states had similar statutes. MR. CUMMINGS said he wouldn't be surprised. He said most states' eminent domain codes weren't as liberal as Alaska's because of the way interest was paid and costs and fees were reimbursed. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked what percentage of property takings each year ended up in some form of litigation. MR. CUMMINGS said between 2% and 5%. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR said 95% to 98% of the time DOTPF and the property owner were able to come to some sort of reasonable agreement. MR. CUMMINGS said that was correct. He said the biggest problem the State faced was the lack of time available to pull everything together. SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if SB 278 would change the process in which DOTPF appraised the land and went to the property owners with proposals. MR. CUMMINGS said the State would still appraise everything and make offers to the property owners. He said the State hired someone who was competent to do the work and had familiarity with the engineering principles involved. He said the appraiser needed to be able to predict the impact of the project on the physical features of the property. The State then invited the property owner to make a counter offer. SENATOR THERRIAULT said perhaps there were situations that he was not aware of but he felt that the existing process worked well for the most part. He wondered what would be modified in the process if SB 278 passed that would cause automatic delay. MR. CUMMINGS said SB 278 would allow people to answer a condemnation complaint by saying they didn't think the State was reasonable and diligent in its negotiations. He said they could already question the authority and necessity for the taking and whether it was accomplished consistent with the greatest public good and the least private injury. He said these things were only tangentially related to the process and could delay projects. He said all of those things would have to be proved before construction got started. He said the State currently condemned the property and did a quick-take. He said if the property owner was entitled to extra money, that would be resolved after construction had been started. He said SB 278 would require everything to be settled before construction was started. SENATOR COWDERY asked what happened when a property owner had agreed to a strip taking and later discovered that their driveway was at a 16% grade. MR. CUMMINGS said that depended on how the change in grade occurred. The State would give them more money if the change was not part of the original design when they signed the agreement. However, the property owner would be stuck with it if the change had been explained during the negotiations. SENATOR COWDERY thought most property owners weren't aware of what a 16% grade meant in their driveway until after they saw it because they weren't engineers. MR. CUMMINGS said the State brought the right-of-way plans and design plans with them when they negotiated a settlement. He said right-of-way plans showed each taking in the project and the property owner's taking. The design plans showed the grade of the centerlines and what the slopes would be like. SENATOR COWDERY asked if they showed the grade of the driveway before and after the project. MR. CUMMINGS said they did. SENATOR COWDERY said he didn't think so. MR. KAUZLARICH said Senator Cowdery had mentioned working with the Municipality of Anchorage on some projects. He said DOTPF participated in a project in Anchorage by overseeing the relocation efforts and the review appraisal efforts. He said the Municipality of Anchorage employees were perhaps not as sophisticated as DOTPF employees in doing the negotiations and there were some communication problems. He said the property owner was presented with a set of cross- sections that showed the existing grade of the land as well as the resultant grade. He said the right-of-way agent and the property owner discussed what would happen to the property. SENATOR COWDERY asked how many property owners would recognize and understand what a change of grade would do to their property. MR. KAUZLARICH said not very many. He said part of the right-of- way agent's job was to ensure that the property owner understood. He said if the property owner came back after the fact and said they had no idea this would happen to their property, DOTPF would take another look at it. CHAIRMAN TAYLOR asked if there was anybody else who wished to testify on SB 278. There was nobody. SENATOR COWDERY moved CSSB 278(JUD) out of committee with attached fiscal note and individual recommendations. There being no objection, CSSB 278(JUD) moved out of committee with attached fiscal note and individual recommendations.