Date: 03/14/2006

Final
SUMMARY for HCR06-1001

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON STATE, VETERANS, & MILITARY AFFAIRS

Votes: View--> Action Taken:
Moved amendment L.003 (Attachment H) and severed t
Moved prepared amendment L.003. The motion was wi
Moved prepared amendment L.004 (Attachment J). Th
Moved prepared amendment L.005 (Attachment I) as a
Moved prepared amendment L.006 (Attachment F). Th
Moved prepared amendment L.007 (Attachment G). Th
Moved severed portion A (lines 1 and 2) of prepare
Moved severed portion B of prepared amendment L.00
Moved to refer House Concurrent Resolution 06-1001		TIE
TIE
PASS
FAIL
Pass Without Objection
FAIL
Pass Without Objection
Pass Without Objection
PASS


04:19 PM

Representative White presented an overview of House Concurrent Resolution 06-1001, concerning submitting to the registered electors of the state of Colorado an amendment to Section 15 of Article II of the Constitution of the State of Colorado, concering the taking of private property. Representative White explained a situation where a property holding of his was condemned by a governmental entity through the use of eminent domain.


04:24 PM

The following people testified regarding House Concurrent Resolution 06-1001:


04:24 PM -- Ms. Erin Goff, representing the Colorado Municipal League, testified in opposition to House Concurrent Resolution 06-1001. Ms. Goff explained that the sort of condemnation that resulted in the United States Supreme Court case Kelo vs. New Londonis not applicable to Colorado. Ms. Goff further explained her organization's objection to the inclusion of the standard of "clear and convincing evidence" in the resolution, as well as the resolution's definition of "public use." Ms. Mary Carter, representing the City of Sheridan, and Mr. Jim Windholz, representing various municipalities including Sheridan, joined Ms. Goff in testifying in opposition to the resolution. Ms. Carter explained a situation in her city where a determination of urban blight is being used to condemn and improve a dump site. Ms. Carter detailed problems associated with this property and the benefits accrued to the property owners by this condemnation activity. Mr. Windholz explained restrictions placed on the use of a determination of urban blight by recent legislation. Mr. Windholz also detailed the use of eminent domain in a number of municipalities. Mr. Windholz responded to a question regarding the ability to utilize eminent domain in the City of Sheridan situation if the changes offered by the concurrent resolution were enacted.

04:43 PM -- Representative White clarified that he it is not his intent to do away with urban renewal, and that the City of Sheridan issue could be remedied under the provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 06-1001. Mr. Jack Fox, representing himself and the Colorado Association of Realtors (CAR), testified regarding the resolution. Mr. Fox explained that CAR's position is currently neutral. Mr. Fox explained CAR's view of eminent domain in general. Mr. Fox voiced support for forthcoming amendment L.003, and explained that he felt that a definition of urban blight does not need to be enshrined in the Colorado Constitution. Mr. Fox urged the legislature to be careful with any constitutional amendment language forwarded to the electorate. Discussion ensued regarding the City of Sheridan condemnation situation.


04:51 PM -- Mr. Kent Singer, representing the Colorado Rural Electric Association and the Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, testified in opposition to the concurrent resolution. Mr Singer stated that his organization's position on the resolution is neutral overall, but the organization opposes language in the resolution establishing a "clear and convincing evidence" standard, and the fact that such a standard would potentially place electric utilities under the restrictions of the resolution. Mr. Singer responded to a question regarding the exemption of public utilities from this standard. Discussion ensued regarding relocation of this language by amendment.


04:55 PM -- Mr. Tom Ragonetti, representing Colorado Concern, testified in favor of House Concurrent Resolution 06-1001, as well as a forthcoming amendment. Mr. Ragonetti voiced objection to the new benchmark for condemnation established by the Kelocase. Mr. Ragonetti discussed recent trends in urban development and the use of eminent domain in furthering these trends.


05:00 PM -- Ms. Marsha Looper, representing Colorado Citizens for Property Rights, testified in favor of the concurrent resolution. Ms. Looper explained the impact of the Kelodecision on private property ownership, and discussed the nature of private property ownership in general. Ms. Looper urged the committee to support the resolution in order to protect private property rights. Ms. Looper responded to a question regarding her organization's position regarding property condemnation for utility easements.


05:04 PM -- Ms. Jessica Peck Corry, representing Colorado Citizens for Property Rights, testified in favor of House Concurrent Resolution 06-1001. Ms. Corry explained that the City of Sheridan situation would not be affected by the resolution, and detailed the use of eminent domain in Colorado. She described the issues involved in eminent domain in terms of civil rights. Representative Coleman commented on Ms. Corry's testimony and spoke to the circumstances around urban renewal efforts in Sheridan.

05:11 PM

Representative Weissmann discussed the judiciary's prerogative to interpret "public good." Representative White responded to Representative Weissmann's comments. Ms. Corry continued to respond to questions from committee members, specifically regarding the circumstances in Sheridan. Representative Coleman and Ms. Corry continued to discuss urban renewal in Sheridan.


05:16 PM -- Ms. Kathy Faulth, representing "Colorado," testified in favor of the resolution. Ms. Faulth recited accounts forwarded to her by others who have lost properties through eminent domain proceedings. Ms. Faulth responded to a question regarding a City of Lakewood ordinance.


05:23 PM -- Ms. Cindy Bulinski, representing herself, testified in favor of House Concurrent Resolution 06-1001. Ms. Bulinski explained her experiences with eminent domain proceedings and referenced an eminent domain proceeding in the City of Northglenn.


05:25 PM -- Mr. Duane Hayes, representing himself, testified in favor of House Concurrent Resolution 06-1001. Mr. Hayes expressed concern over the potential for a Front Range toll road, or "Superslab," that may impact his land holdings. Discussion ensued regarding the size and impact of this potential project. Mr. Hayes clarified his position on the use of eminent domain to build toll roads in general.


05:34 PM -- Ms. Pat Tutor, representing herself, testified in favor of the concurrent resolution. Ms. Tutor recounted her own experience with a condemnation of her property through the use of eminent domain. Ms. Tutor responded to a question regarding harrassment she experienced during the condemnation process.


05:37 PM -- Mr. Troy Bredenkamp, representing the Colorado Farm Bureau, testified in favor of the concurrent resolution. Mr. Bredenkamp discussed the impact of eminent domain and the Kelodecision on the farming community. Mr. Bredenkamp also provided background on the Kelodecision.


05:42 PM -- Mr. Bob Moody, representing the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties, Commercial Developers, and Owners, testified in favor of House Concurrent Resolution 06-1001. Mr. Moody recognized the positive benefits of urban renewal in certain instances, and recognized that Colorado law prohibits a Kelo-style property taking. Mr. Moody stated that his organization is pro-property rights.


05:46 PM -- Mr. Clark Absher, representing himself, testified in favor of the concurrent resolution. Mr. Absher discussed a citizen initiative similar to the concurrent resolution, and the overwhelming public support for such measures. Mr. Absher explained that he prefers that a legislature-referred concurrent resolution reach the ballot to address the eminent domain issue, but would prefer a citizen initiative if the concurrent resolution were unduly amended.


05:50 PM -- Mr. Clyde Joenger, representing himself, testified in favor of House Concurrent Resolution 06-1001. Mr. Joenger explained the infrastructure surrounding his property and the fact that the lack of municipality-provided infrastructure may contribute to an urban blight designation. Mr. Joenger further explained the economic burdens facing the owners of properties in areas with such zoning.


05:54 PM -- Mr. Tony Gagliardi, representing the National Federation of Independent Business, recited a statement authored by his organization in favor of the concurrent resolution. The statement contained a hypothetical eminent domain proceeding involving the transfer of private property by a municipality to a private party.


05:58 PM -- Ms. Carolyn Myers, representing herself, testified in favor of the concurrent resolution. Ms. Myers noted nationwide legislation passed in response to the Kelodecision, and spoke in favor of private property ownership.


06:00 PM -- Mr. Charles Shaw, representing himself, testified in favor of House Concurrent Resolution 06-1001. Mr. Shaw noted that his property is in a county where private developers hoped to place a toll road, and spoke in opposition to the eminent domain process as it is now utilized. Mr. Shaw spoke in favor of market processes determining the disposition of property.


06:03 PM -- Mr. Carl Filler, representing himself and his family, testified in favor of the concurrent resolution. Mr. Filler spoke of the human impact of eminent domain.


06:06 PM -- Ms. Debra Sherman, representing herself, testified in favor of House Concurrent Resolution 06-1001. Ms. Sherman discussed the use of eminent domain to transfer private property to other private entities. Ms. Sherman also discussed the use of eminent domain to build toll roads.


06:11 PM -- Mr. Tom Graham, representing Colorado Citizens for Property Rights, testified in favor of the concurrent resolution. Mr. Graham provided some historic background regarding the use of eminent domain and his experiences as a property developer regarding more recent use of eminent domain.


06:14 PM -- Ms. Cheryl Hutter, representing herself, testified in favor of House Concurrent Resolution 06-1001. Ms. Hutter discussed recent eminent domain proceedings in Aurora and a Central Denver neighborhood.


06:18 PM -- Mr. Richard Randall, representing the Colorado Libertarian Party, testified in favor of the concurrent resolution. Mr. Randall discussed the impact of the Kelodecision on property rights.


06:19 PM -- Mr. Richard Maurer, representing himself, testified in favor of House Concurrent Resolution 06-1001. Mr. Maurer discussed the potential for the use of eminent domain to condemn property he owns for road projects.


06:21 PM -- Mr. Jack Randall, representing Littleton Preparatory School, testified in favor of the concurrent resolution. Mr. Randall discussed the potential for the use of eminent domain to condemn the school.


06:23 PM -- Mr. Bob Hoban, representing a number of clients concerned about eminent domain, testified in favor of the concurrent resolution. Mr. Hoban explained the process by which his law firm drafted the concurrent resolution. Mr. Hoban explained the impact of the Kelodecision on eminent domain use, and the use of the resolution to counter the decision. Mr. Hoban clarified how the concurrent resolution, if enacted, would fix the eminent domain process, but not eliminate it. Mr. Hoban further detailed the definition of "public use" under the resolution, especially with regard to public utilities. Mr. Hoban also discussed the "clear and convincing evidence" standard expressed in the resolution.


06:34 PM

Mr. Hoban responded to a question regarding amendments to the concurrent resolution concerning the "clear and convincing evidence" standard. Representative White clarified that a forthcoming amendment relocates this standard to another portion of the resolution.


06:36 PM

Representative T. Carroll moved prepared amendment L.006 (Attachment F) and explained the amendment. Representative White expressed his support for the amendment. A discussion ensued regarding the necessity of the amendment in light of the constitutional provision cited in the amendment.
BILL:HCR 1001
TIME: 06:37:24 PM
MOVED:Carroll T.
MOTION:Moved prepared amendment L.006 (Attachment F). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:Coleman
VOTE
Cadman
Carroll T.
Coleman
Crane
Gallegos
Liston
Lundberg
Schultheis
Todd
Ragsdale
Weissmann
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


Representative T. Carroll moved prepared amendment L.007 (Attachment G) and explained the amendment. Representative T. Carroll explained the ramifications of not passing the amendment. Representative White expressed his position on the amendment. Representative Cadman expressed his reservations regarding the amendment.
BILL:HCR 1001
TIME: 06:39:58 PM
MOVED:Carroll T.
MOTION:Moved prepared amendment L.007 (Attachment G). The motion failed on a 5-6 roll call vote.
SECONDED:Coleman
VOTE
Cadman
No
Carroll T.
Yes
Coleman
No
Crane
No
Gallegos
Yes
Liston
Yes
Lundberg
No
Schultheis
No
Todd
Yes
Ragsdale
Yes
Weissmann
No
Not Final YES: 5 NO: 6 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL


Representative Weissmann moved lines 1 and 2 of prepared amendment L.003 (Attachment H) as severed portion A and explained his reason for doing so. Representative White expressed his objection to forthcoming prepared amendment L.005 (Attachment I), which he assumed would be offered as a substitute amendment for severed portion L.003B. Representative Cadman then moved amendment L.003 in its entirety and requested that Representative Weissmann withdraw his previous motion for the sake of clarity. Both motions were subsequently withdrawn, and Representative Cadman moved amendment L.003. Representative Weissmann then severed the amendment between lines 2 and 3, and moved the first severed portion (A).
BILL:HCR 1001
TIME: 06:45:03 PM
MOVED:Weissmann
MOTION:Moved amendment L.003 (Attachment H) and severed the amendment. Moved severed portion A (lines 1 and 2) of prepared amendment L.003. The motion was withdrawn.
SECONDED:Carroll T.
VOTE
Cadman
Carroll T.
Coleman
Crane
Gallegos
Liston
Lundberg
Schultheis
Todd
Ragsdale
Weissmann
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: TIE

BILL:HCR 1001
TIME: 06:47:49 PM
MOVED:Cadman
MOTION:Moved prepared amendment L.003. The motion was withdrawn.
SECONDED:Coleman
VOTE
Cadman
Carroll T.
Coleman
Crane
Gallegos
Liston
Lundberg
Schultheis
Todd
Ragsdale
Weissmann
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: TIE


BILL:HCR 1001
TIME: 06:48:45 PM
MOVED:Weissmann
MOTION:Moved severed portion A (lines 1 and 2) of prepared amendment L.003. The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:
VOTE
Cadman
Carroll T.
Coleman
Crane
Gallegos
Liston
Lundberg
Schultheis
Todd
Ragsdale
Weissmann
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


Representative Weissmann moved prepared amendment L.005 as a substitute for severed portion B of prepared amendment L.003, and explained his reason for doing so. Representative Weissmann discussed the legislative process as it pertains to crafting a workable concurrent resolution addressing eminent domain issues. A discussion ensued regarding the inclusion of language concerning slum or blighted areas in the concurrent resolution.
BILL:HCR 1001
TIME: 06:49:10 PM
MOVED:Weissmann
MOTION:Moved prepared amendment L.005 (Attachment I) as a substitute motion to L.003 severed section B. The motion failed on a 4-7 roll call vote.
SECONDED:Carroll T.
VOTE
Cadman
No
Carroll T.
Yes
Coleman
No
Crane
No
Gallegos
Yes
Liston
No
Lundberg
No
Schultheis
No
Todd
No
Ragsdale
Yes
Weissmann
Yes
Not Final YES: 4 NO: 7 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL

BILL:HCR 1001
TIME: 07:03:14 PM
MOVED:Cadman
MOTION:Moved severed portion B of prepared amendment L.003. The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:Coleman
VOTE
Cadman
Carroll T.
Coleman
Crane
Gallegos
Liston
Lundberg
Schultheis
Todd
Ragsdale
Weissmann
Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


Representative White explained the source of prepared amendment L.004 (Attachment J) and expressed his support for the amendment.
BILL:HCR 1001
TIME: 07:03:43 PM
MOVED:Cadman
MOTION:Moved prepared amendment L.004 (Attachment J). The motion passed on a 6-5 roll call vote.
SECONDED:Liston
VOTE
Cadman
No
Carroll T.
Yes
Coleman
No
Crane
Yes
Gallegos
Yes
Liston
Yes
Lundberg
Yes
Schultheis
No
Todd
Yes
Ragsdale
No
Weissmann
No
Not Final YES: 6 NO: 5 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS



07:05 PM

Representative White provided closing comments in support of House Concurrent Resolution 06-1001. Representative Weissmann discussed the legislative process, the need to reach a balance on the eminent domain issue, and the potential for the success of House Concurrent Resolution 06-1001.
BILL:HCR 06-1001
TIME: 07:05:41 PM
MOVED:Coleman
MOTION:Moved to refer House Concurrent Resolution 06-1001, as amended, to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation. The motion passed on an 11-0 roll call vote.
SECONDED:Gallegos
VOTE
Cadman
Yes
Carroll T.
Yes
Coleman
Yes
Crane
Yes
Gallegos
Yes
Liston
Yes
Lundberg
Yes
Schultheis
Yes
Todd
Yes
Ragsdale
Yes
Weissmann
Yes
Final YES: 11 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS