Audubon Legislative Report #1

AUDUBON LEGISLATIVE REPORT

January 18, 2000

Jo Evans

The legislature has been in session for a week now and the bills are pouring in, 312 to date. This report identifies some legislation of particular importance and notes some important issues which we expect to see shortly. By Jan 31 the majority of the legislation should be introduced. After that date, only bills granted "late bill status" by the leadership will be allowed. (Of course last year that was over 500 bills)

The Audubon legislative committee met and reviewed the legislation and set initial priorities. Priority bills are marked with an *.

WILDLIFE

*HB1012 enterprise status for DOW

(Stengel, Dyer)

Position: Support

Rep Stengel remains committed to carrying legislation designating DOW an enterprise under TABOR. The Wildlife Interim agreed. The Governor's office has not yet taken a position on the legislation. The bill contains the language we requested last year affirming that the DOW enterprise would retain all existing statutory authority and responsibilities and that the enterprise would therefore be able to spend dollars for all its programs, not merely those which generated the revenue.

Our position should remain unchanged. With the amendments we crafted last year, we're OK with the bill. Without them, it's simply commodity management, orphans all other programs, and we would oppose.

Interim committee vote:

Yes: Reps Larson, Plant, Stengel, and Sens Dennis, Dyer

No: Sen Chlouber

HB1012 has been assigned to the House Finance Committee, and we have posted an action alert on COGEN and activated the phone tree for finance committee members.

HB1054 Release of Destructive Rodents

(Webster)

Position: Oppose

Requires the state of Colorado, its agencies, and political subdivisions to obtain the approval of the board of county commissioners before releasing destructive rodent pests within a county. (Prairie dogs)

HB1162 Control of Predatory Animals

(Spradley, Dyer)

Position: Oppose

Establishes that the predatory animal fund shall receive dollars annually from the general fund, $500,000 this year. Disbursements from the fund shall include "new predatory control programs" as well as existing predatory control programs.

SB6 Habitat Partnership Program

(Dennis, Larson)

Position: Support

SB6 modifies the duties of the habitat partnership program to include assisting DOW in mitigating game damage claims relating to fence and forage issues. The program will be funded from wildlife cash in the amount of 5% of the net sales of big game licenses used in the partnership area during the previous year. The bill also expedites reimbursement of HPP committees activities.

TAKINGS

*HB1092 Protection of property rights against regulatory impairment

(Johnson)

Position: OPPOSE

We have seen over 20 takings bills in Colorado over the last 10 years, but never one quite as onerous and explicit as HB1092. Basically, all regulation which affects real property would be subject to compensation.

The bill stipulates that whenever any regulatory action by the state or any of its political subdivisions "inordinately burdens, restricts or limits" the use of real property, even if such action would not amount to a taking under either the state or federal constitutions, the property owner is entitled to relief. Relief may be compensation for any market value loss, or "otherwise". For local governments, transferrable development rights may be part of the relief, as well as modification of the regulatory requirements affecting density, intensity, or developmental use of the subject property.

The relief shall be separate and distinct from any relief provided an aggrieved land owner under existing takings law.

"Action" means anything which affects the property, and specifically includes action on permits or applications for permits. Existing uses which may be affected include foreseeable uses compatible with adjacent land uses.

The act expressly applies to any state board, commission, council, department, or agency including an institution of higher education, as well as any political subdivision of the state (eg local governments)

The rather lengthy list of things expressly defined as potentially subject to compensation include any property improvements as well as water and mineral rights.

In addition to the usual exactions language, the bill expressly applies to "the issuance of any ordinance, rule, regulatory requirement, resolution, policy guideline or similar measure," "enforcement actions", extraterritorial municipal actions which are not "identical" for the entire extraterritorial area.

Claims for relief are to be filed within 1 year and should be accompanied by a valid appraisal. The governmental entity has 15 days to publicly report the claim, 180 days to respond to the claim and may offer the property owner a varied menu of possible relief measures. Ten days after the 180 day time period, each governmental entity that provided notice shall issue a written "ripeness" decision (meaning now the action is final and the claimant may seek compensation) The ripeness decision constitutes the final prerequisite to judicial review.

If the district court finds that an inordinate burden has occurred it shall enter judgement in favor of the owner. Prevailing property owners are entitled to attorney fees, appraisal fees, and action costs.

This is the most sweeping and debilitating takings bill I have ever read. It has been assigned to the House Local Government Committee.

*SB38 Fair Share Reimbursement

(McElhany, Rippy)

Position: Oppose

SB38 states that if a subdivider makes an improvement to his land as required by county land use regulations, and the improvement benefits neighboring landowners, the subdivider may be entitled to "fair share" reimbursement from the neighboring landowner. Such reimbursement, less any reimbursement by the county, shall be paid to the subdivider by the owner of property which benefits from the improvements when that property is developed.

WATER

SB2 Extension of the Special Water Committee

(Perlmutter, Paschall)

Positon: Support, BUT…

SB2 extends the sunset date for the special water committee from July, 2001 to July, 2003. The special water committee was created to study the need for augmentation to mitigate the impacts of wells in the Denver basin on the South Platte. By extending the committee, SB2 also postpones the date by which augmentation must replace out of priority depletions until 2006.

*SB66 increased protections for water quality in CHERRY CREEK reservoir

(Gordon, Clapp)

Position: Support

Adjusts the powers and duties of the Cherry Creek Basin Water Quality Authority and changes the membership of the authority.

Background

Local environmental activists concur with Greenwood Village that while the Authority was created to protect and preserve the water quality of Cherry Creek Reservoir, it has actually used public funds to pursue contrary objectives. While the Authority has constructed some beneficial controls, it has spent more money in trying to relax water quality standards.

The Division of Wildlife joined a long line of opponents to the authority's proposal to increase the reservoir phosphorus level, fearing a severe impact on aquatic species in the reservoir. This past September, the battle was won before the water quality control commission. Now several environmental groups and local recreation activists have joined with the city of Greenwood village in seeking statutory reforms of the authority itself. The result is SB66.

*HB1111 incentives to conserve water

(Madden)

Position: Support

HB1111 authorizes the state engineer to issue conserved water certificates upon proof that a water right holder's existing water use practises are reasonably efficient and that the implementation of a water conservation project will result through increased efficiencies in conserved water.

The bill also creates a tax credit for a proportionate share of the reasonable expense of the water conservation project for agricultural water rights holders who submit a conserved water certificate to the Department of Revenue.

Applicants for changes of water rights who intend to rely on a conserved water certificate as a part of their water rights application must submit a state issued conserved water certificate.

WATER BILLS ANTICIPATED BUT NOT YET INTRODUCED:

*Comprehensive water legislation including transbasin diversion issues (Evans)

Legislation creating a standing water committee

*Legislation creating a pilot program for water banking (Hoppe)

Changes to the makeup of the CWCB (Andrews)

*CWCB legislation restricting recreational flows

GROWTH

There will be a number of growth bills introduced this session. The first in is Rep. Plant's bill on behalf of the environmental community. Others with draft legislation circulating but not yet introduced include:

*Developers Bill: Stengel, Perlmutter

Position: Oppose

Forum Bill: Perlmutter, Stengel

Rep Smith has also said that he will return with legislation somewhat similar to the bill he carried last year which was positive but very limited in enforceable elements.

This year, CML (Colorado Municipal League) has circulated a set of principles but has so far declined to actually offer their own legislation. Instead they will comment from a local government perspective on all bills introduced .

*HB1165 Comprehensive Land Use Planning

(Plant)

Position: Support

HB1165 requires all local government to adopt enforceable and comprehensive plans. It is the only bill which is truly environmentally comprehensive. Local governments must plan for preservation of wildlife habitat and migration corridors, protection of sensitive areas including riparian areas and wetlands, lakes, streams, rivers, establishment of buffer zones between developed areas, preservation of agricultural lands, and a specific environmental quality element which includes locally determined goals and objectives designed to preserve and protect the environment. The bill also has a specific water resources element which addresses the location and yield of an adequate supply of water for present and future population needs, the infrastructure to deliver the water and how the plans will protect water quality and promote the efficient use of water.

HOW these components are addressed is up to the local government with the input of local citizens, but they must consider these things and plan for them. What a great idea!

Development classification: urban growth boundary for urban level development and rural lands. Development in rural lands is limited to traditional agricultural uses. Local governments may also designate up to 10% of its rural lands as rural development areas which includes clustered development with an average density of 1 unit per 10 acres and 75% of the development is preserved as open space in furtherance of environmental goals. Rural areas may also permit commercial development of less than 10,000 square feet, and public facilities necessary for the public health, safety or welfare including schools and other educational facilities.

The bill also calls for a transportation plan, an affordable housing plan, and an essential community services plan that demonstrates the community's desired pattern for the general location character and extent of public and semi public buildings, land and facilities for a 25 year growth period.

The comprehensive plan shall be reviewed at least every five years and can be amended every two. In rare and unique situations where the local government finds that a proposed amendment would benefit the public welfare, health, or safety, the plan may be amended by a unanimous vote of the governing body.

Regional planning is mandatory for the DRCOG region with specific public input provisions. Smaller regions are encouraged to adopt regional plans and funding is made available for local planning. Municipalities with 1000 residents or less, counties with 10,000 residents or less are given priority in receiving planning grants. Smaller regions who wish to develop regional plans may also apply for grants.

Planning disputes between local governments must try to mediate their differences before going to court. The governments may try to resolve their difference in any manner they choose or they may request that the state Office of Smart Growth coordinate a mediated solution. If the mediation process is unsuccessful, the governments may appeal to the district court. The court review shall be de novo.

The provisions of the act do not apply to the lawful exercise of 1041 authority.

CONSERVATION EASEMENTS

HB1082 Protection of Conservation Easements

(Romanoff, Dyer)

Position: Support

Specifies that the county execution of tax deed to the purchaser of a tax lien shall not affect the existence of any conservation easement claimed or existing prior to the execution of the deed. HB1082 passed the finance committee 10-1 and is now on the floor. Rep. Cloer voted no because he felt that conservation easements should be for a specified time period, not in perpetuity.

HB1090 Increase Tax Credit For Perpetual Conservation Easements

(Spradley, Owen)

Position: Support

Increases the maximum available income tax credit for donation of a conservation easement to $500,000 and includes in the credit 50% of the transaction costs. Allows individuals to claim an unlimited number of credits.

Anticipated but not yet introduced:

Term Easements (OPPOSE)

INITIATIVE PROCESS

HB1121 Concerning Countywide Ballot Issues

(Hodge)

Position: Support

Grants county electors initiative and referendum powers with respect to countywide issues

SB25 Fiscal Impact Statements for Initiatives

Dyer(Littleton)

Position: FYI

SB25 adds to the requirement from last year that initiated and referred measures with "significant" fiscal impacts include a fiscal impact statement in the blue book which is mailed to voters. SB25 broadens the requirement to include all initiated or referred measures.

HB1198 Requirements for Petition Circulators

(Dean)

Position: Oppose

Prohibits paid petition circulators unless they live in the area where the petition is being circulated. Requires volunteer circulators to live in the area where the petition is circulated. All circulators, volunteer or paid, must be eligible to vote in the area where the petition is circulated.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

*HB1087 Concerning Environmental Justice

(Sanchez)

Position: Support

Environmental justice is defined as the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to environmental laws and policies. HB1087 incorporates environmental justice principles into the statute that create the Department of Public Health and the Environment and calls upon the department to develop a model mission statement for boards, divisions, and offices within the department.

Will be heard Thursday, Jan 25, in House State Affairs.

GOCO

Anticipated but not yet introduced:

*GOCO BONDING AUTHORITY

Position: Support

The Governor's Commission on Saving Open Spaces, Farms and Ranches recommends legislation to place a referendum on the state ballot that gives GOCO the authority to incur multi-year fiscal obligation bonds. The measure would also extend lottery.

ESTABLISH A GOCO CONSERVATION LOAN FUND

The Governor's Commission on Saving Open Spaces, Farms and Ranches also recommends that the legislature establish at GOCO a 10 year conservation loan fund that would provide short term low interest loans to preserve opens spaces, farms and ranches. The money would be available to individual farmers as well as land trusts, and state and local governments. Since GOCO can not allocate dollars directly to individuals, any private individual seeking the loan would have to work through an eligible recipient.

Funding was originally suggested to be part of the surplus, but the commission ultimately rejected using surplus dollars and suggests that the Governor direct OSPB to identify potential revenue sources such as excess cash funds. The commission believes that loan fund should be capitalized with a minimum of $20 million over a period of several years. ("Excess" funds are those previously allocated but not yet expended for the purpose of the allocation, and zealously guarded by the original intended recipient as well as hungrily eyed by all others in need of extra dollars)

STAY TUNED

We expect another 300 bills within the next 2 weeks. Bill ALERTS will continue to be posted on CO-GENERAL. You can sign on this listserv at no cost. Simply:

1. Senda a message to LISTSERV@LIST.AUDUBON.ORG

2. Leave the subject line blank

3. In the body of the message type SUBSCRIBE CO-GENERAL

2001 BILLS OF POTENTIAL INTEREST

House

1012 DESIGNATE DOW AN ENTERPRISE

1013 WILDLIFE LICENSE FEES DECREASE AUTHORITY

1018 WASTE TIRE RECYCLING PROGRAM

1024 FIGHT WHIRLING DISEASE

1032 DURATION OF POLLUTION DISCHARGE PERMIT

1054 COUNTY PEST CONTROL

1063 DRAINAGE AUTHORITIES

1068 UNIFORM DORMANT MINERALS ACT

1074 STATE ACCEPTANCE FT LYON PROPERTY

1077 NOTICE OF WATER RIGHT APPLICATION

1082 PROTECTION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS

1087 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

1090 OPEN SPACE EASEMENT TAX CREDIT

1091 CLEAN SCREEN PROGRAM

1092 PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION

1106 CATHODE RAY TUBE DISPOSAL RECYCLING

1111 INCENTIVES FOR CONSERVED WATER

1121 COUNTYWIDE BALLOT ISSUES

1132 SPECIAL DISTRICT ANNEXATION POWERS

1139 REGIONAL PLANNING BOARD

1159 Revenue sharing

1191 matching grants COMMUNITY mediation

1195 Utility siting

1198 Petition Circulators

Senate

2 EXTEND SPECIAL WATER COMMITTEE

6 HABITAT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

9 FUNDING FOR STATE highways

25 fiscal impact statements

38 FAIRSHARE REIMBURSEMENT IMPROVEMENTS COSTS

44 SAN LUIS CONFINED AQUIFER STUDY

64 WILDLIFE DAMAGE TO PRIVATE PROPERTY

66 CHERRY CREEK RESERVOIR WATER QUALITY PROTECTION

85 INITIATIVE PROCESS CHANGES

86 COUNTY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR TRAILS

94 GAS TAX REVENUE FOR HOT LANE CONTRACTS

97 REGIONAL PLANNING FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT

AUDUBON LEGISLATIVE REPORT #2

March 17, 2001

Jo Evans, Jen Boulton

Audubon priority bills are marked with an *.

Bills previously reported are simply updated with action noted.

WILDLIFE Updates

*HB1012 Enterprise Status For Dow

(Stengel, Dyer)

Position: Support

Status: passed the House

HB1012 passed the House and Senate Ag committee without amendment and will be heard next on the Senate floor..

SB6 Habitat Partnership Program

(Dennis, Larson)

Position: Support

Status: Senate Appropriations

SB6 passed the Senate Ag committee, and was assigned to the Senate Appropriations committee.

HB1054 Release of Destructive Rodents

(Webster)

Position: Oppose

Status: DEAD

Required the state of Colorado, its agencies, and political subdivisions to obtain the approval of the board of county commissioners before releasing destructive rodent pests within a county. (Prairie dogs)

The sponsor withdrew HB1054, but introduced HB1350 as a substitute.

NEW WILDLIFE BILLS

*HB1350 RODENT PEST CONTROL

(Webster, Hillman)

Position: Oppose

Status: Senate Judiciary

While the latest legislative entry into wildlife management is arguably less onerous than HB1054, it remains problematic.

Last year, the legislature passed SB111, requiring county commissioners to approve relocation across county lines. HB1350 makes the commissioners a prairie dog police force.

If an adjacent landowner feels that relocated prairie dogs are a nuisance, the county must notify the landowner housing the prairie dogs, and require abatement of the nuisance (abatement is not defined). If the landowner does not abate the nuisance, the county will do so and bill the landowner. If the landowner does not pay the bill, the county will place a lien on the property and attach it to his property tax bill.

One has to wonder why county commissioners would want to be in the prairie dog police business, but more fundamentally, why the legislature continues to feel it necessary to inject itself into wildlife management issues.

The Division of Wildlife already has strict regulations governing prairie dog relocations. It is already illegal to simply dump prairie dogs. A permit is required for any relocation. To obtain a permit, a species management plan must be approved, including provisions for both release site preparation and escape controls.

Prairie dogs are important to the larger ecosystem. Other species are dependent on prairie dogs from raptors and burrowing owls, to kit foxes and ferrets. While it is true that prairie dogs can be a problem for agricultural producers, it is also true that the alarming decline in numbers of black tailed prairie dogs has prompted consideration of listing the species as endangered.

HB1162 Control of Predatory Animals

(Spradley, Dyer)

Position: Oppose

Status: House Appropriations

HB1162 passed the House Ag committee, and is awaiting a hearing in Appropriations.

HB1233 PREDATOR MANAGEMENT STUDY

(Johnson)

Position: Oppose

Status: House Appropriations

HB1233 appropriates $365,000 from wildlife cash for the DOW to conduct the first year of a predator management study. The entire study is estimated to take 8-10 years, and will cost $2.6 - $3 million.

The plan involves two areas on the West slope. During the first phase, the DOW will attempt to eliminate coyotes from one area. It will observe mule deer populations in both areas for two years. The areas will then be given three years for both species to "normalize". Finally, DOW will reverse the process.

There is no provision in the plan to determine baseline populations of mule deer in either study area. There are no control mechanisms for confounding variables such as habitat loss or disease. There are no scientifically valid ways to determine if a deer carcass was killed by a coyote or scavenged.

HB1249 Division of Wildlife Total Licensing Project

(Rippy, Phillips)

Position: FYI

Status: Senate Ag

HB1249 Authorizes the Division of Wildlife to contract with out of state vendors for the sale of Colorado licenses. The bill also sets up the commission structure for out of state vendors.

HB1249 has passed the House and is assigned to the Senate Ag committee

TAKINGS Updates

*HB1092 Protection Of Property Rights Against Regulatory Impairment

(Johnson)

Position: OPPOSE

Status: DEAD

We are pleased to report that the House Local Government killed the bill on Monday, Feb 5.

Voting against takings: Kester, Mace, Plant, Ragsdale, Veiga, Webster, Weddig, and Scott

Voting for takings: Hoppe, Decker, and Swenson

WATER Updates

SB2 Extension of the Special Water Committee

(Perlmutter, Paschall)

Position: Support

Status: House Ag

The special water committee was created to study the need for augmentation to mitigate the impacts of wells in the Denver basin on the South Platte. By extending the committee, SB2 also postpones the date by which augmentation must replace out of priority depletions until 2006. While Audubon supports the study, implementation has been postponed previously. We urge that the study be completed as soon as possible and not continue to be postponed.

SB2 has passed the Senate. It has been assigned to the House Ag committee.

*SB66 Increased Protections For Water Quality In Cherry Creek Reservoir

(Gordon, Clapp)

Position: Support

Status: House Floor

SB66 has passed the Senate and the House Ag Committee. It will be heard on the floor of the House March 16..

The Cherry Creek Basin Water Quality Authority was created to protect and maintain the water quality in Cherry Creek Reservoir. Unfortunately, the Authority has spent more time and money attempting to relax the standards than to enforce them.

SB66 requires the Authority to spend a minimum of 60% of its annual budget on construction and maintenance of Pollution Control Devices, and prohibits the Authority from spending its revenues to further relax the water quality standards in Cherry Creek Reservoir. Further, the authority must submit a plan for water quality maintenance to the Water Quality Control Commission within one year.

*HB1111 Incentives To Conserve Water

(Madden)

Position: Support

Status: DEAD

HB1111 attempted to provide incentives for increased agricultural water efficiency measures. It failed on a 7-4 vote.

Voting yes: Hodge, Jameson, Plant, and Tochtrop

Voting no: Alexander, Johnson, Miller, Rippy, Snook, Webster, and Hoppe.

NEW TAKINGS BILLS

*SB161 WATER BANKS

(Evans, Young)

Position: Working

Status: Senate Appropriations

As introduced SB161 called for 3 water studies and also provided for the creation of 5 water banks. Conceptually and philosophically we support the concept of water banking, but we had significant concerns with aspects of the water banks as suggested in 161. The Ag Committee struck the entire banking section from the bill. SB161 became a water studies bill.

Audubon has concerns with the first study, strongly opposes the second study and enthusiastically supports the third study. We have taken amendments to Senator Evans. So far he has not decided to accept them.

The first study, to be done by the state, looks at future demand, both consumptive and instream, sources to meet the demand and constraints on future water development. There are volumes of water supply studies in existence. The state will actually be reviewing existing data. We don't see a harm to reviewing the information, but don't see much need to do so. The more significant problem with this first study is that there are no constraints on "demand" Is it what a water user would simply like to have? There need to be criteria to temper "demand" What growth projections is a potential transbasin diverter using? What efficiencies are in place to reduce demand?

The second study is all about how to do water development, regardless of impacts or constraints. A consultant, hired by the state, would look at means to address impediments to water development, recommend changes to state law to facilitate development, identify potential projects, including state sponsored water projects and state funding for projects.

We flatly oppose this portion of the bill.

The third study would be done by the state engineer and looks specifically at interruptible supply plans. The state engineer is to define interruptible supply, identify constraints on its use, and identify a pilot project.

Background (For those of you now asking "What is interruptible supply?")

A water user interrupts his use so that it may be used, temporarily, by someone else. For example, the water that Farmer Jones uses to irrigate his crops may be far more valuable than the crops. Thirsty City needs more water, particularly during an unexpected heat wave. Thirsty City could enter into a financial agreement with Farmer Jones to use some of his water when they really need it. Jones would interrupt his use and temporarily supply the water to the city. Jones keeps farming. The city does not need to build storage.

There are problems, of course, in implementing such a program, for both the farmer(s) and the city. A study on how and where interruptible could work is an exciting idea.

SB126 REPRESENTATION ON THE CWCB

(Andrews)

Position: Oppose

Status: DEAD

SB126 would have biased the Colorado Water Conservation makeup. The board would have had 15 voting members. Of the fifteen, 5 would have been from the west slope and 10 would have been from the east slope.

HB1240 WATER RESOURCES LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE

(Hoppe)

Position: Oppose

Status: House Floor

HB1240 creates a standing water committee. The committee would be composed of 4 senators and 7 representatives. The membership is weighted toward the front range (only 4 members need reside on the Western Slope). The committee would review ALL water issues, and could recommend between 3 and 11 bills to the legislature each year.

Establishing interim water committees when needed with a legislative direction regarding the scope of the committee's purview is a more appropriate. There have been interim water committees in 8 of the last 9 years. As a former legislator noted: It is simply an opportunity for endless mischief.

HB1246 WASTEWATER CONSTRUCTION GRANTS

(Hoppe, Dennis)

Position: FYI

Status: Senate Ag

HB1246 allows counties to obtain grants for construction of wastewater facilities on behalf of small communities (under 5000) within their jurisdiction. HB1246 has passed the House.

GROWTH Updates

3 comprehensive planning bills have been introduced. The Environmental Marker bill (HB1165), The Developers bill (HB1225) and the Colorado Forum bill (SB148)

The Enviros’ Bill:

*HB1165 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLANNING

(Plant)

Position: Support

Status: Dead

Rep. Plant bill introduced HB1165 on behalf of the environmental community. It represented how we believed that the state should deal with growth. It failed by only 1 vote.

HB1165 required all local government to adopt enforceable and comprehensive plans, and was environmentally explicit. It provided for urban growth boundary between urban level development and rural lands. Development in rural lands was limited to traditional agricultural uses or clustered development with 75% of the development preserved as open space in furtherance of environmental goals. It repealed the 35 acre rule. The provisions of the act expressly did not apply to the lawful exercise of 1041 authority.

HB1165 died on a 5-6 vote:

Voting yes

Plant, Ragsdale, Swenson, Veiga, Weddig

Voting no:

Decker, Hoppe, Kester, Mace, Scott, Webster

The Developers’ Bill, amended in local government committee but still a bad bill:

*HB1225 GROWTH MANAGEMENT

(Stengel, Perlmutter)

Position: OPPOSE

Status: House Appropriations

As introduced, HB1225 was clearly a developers' bill of rights. The House Local Government Committee amended out some, but not all, of the more egregious portions of the bill, and added some elements from Rep Plant's bill, HB1165.

HB1225 required mandatory plans, but only for limited elements. Open space and environmental issues were not even required to be addressed in the plans. Local Government added the environmental planning elements from HB1165, a change for the better. However, whenever a local government designates an area for open space buffers or conservation, it must compensate property owners. 1225 also now limits the ability of local governments to expand environmental regulations beyond state and federal requirements

The bill still includes a Land Market Monitoring system requiring local governments to monitor the supply of land available for development and amend their land use regulations to "demonstrably increase the likelihood" that there will be sufficient land available for development. In fact, local government plans must include 15-25% more land for development than their population projections would indicate is needed to accommodate 20 years of growth. Impact fees are limited to a takings standard. Growth boundaries and urban service areas, while ostensibly required, are drawn in invisible ink. They may be changed at any time a developer seeks to build something outside the line.

Within USA's, there was a very strong and onerous "presumption of buildability." Site-specific conditions were not allowed. Basically development simply had to be approved. This language was removed, site-specific conditions are affirmatively allowed, and 1041 powers, previously trumped by 1225, are now protected. This change is critically important, so much so that we need to share the committee vote on this particular amendment, successfully offered by Rep. Tom Plant:

Voting for the environment and to remove the presumption of buildability:

Mace, Plant, Ragsdale, Swenson, Veiga, Weddig

Voting no: Decker, Hoppe, Kester, Scott, Webster

The “Forum Bill,” amended in committee but still needs work:

*SB148 GROWTH MANAGEMENT

(Perlmutter, Stengel)

Position: no position yet

Status: Senate Appropriations

The Forum took the Developers bill (discussed above) as an initial template and amended it. SB148 is the result. There are some things about SB148 that we like very much; some things not so much; and some things which we do not like at all.

We support requiring enforceable comprehensive planning and the mandatory inclusion of environmental elements in the comprehensive plans. We support the inclusion of well defined urban service areas, rural areas, and urban growth boundaries as important tools that along with clustering should be a part of comprehensive planning. SB148 does all of this.

We can not, and do not, support the presumption of buildability. We also do not support the restrictions on moratoria, restricting local environmental regulations to only those required by state or federal law, and the inclusion of a land market monitoring system which requires local governments to inventory lands available for development and adjust their regulations as needed.

The sponsor's committee amendment (20 new pages to be read with the existing 70 page bill) improved the bill in some ways but made it worse in others.

Committee Improvements:

In committee, the sponsor tightened up the growth boundaries, addressed the 1041 concerns, removed the overt takings language, tweaked the presumption language a little, clarified the impact fee language (status quo cities, improved for counties), allows schools to receive impact fees for capital construction, added an appropriate direction that local governments consider water efficiency, and improved clustering development by adding the language from Rep. Plant's bill.

Committee Problems:

Unfortunately the committee amendment also added an entire oil and gas section which is regrettably not supportable, limited the ability of local governments to expand environmental regulations beyond state and federal requirements, and added utility siting issues to the mix.

What is a "Presumption of buildability?" It varies according to the bill we discuss, but in concept it means that development which follows the rules should be allowed to be built. The rub is, what rules?

It is appropriate to require that local government plans must be comprehensive, addressing specific e