House Committee on State, Veterans, & Military Affairs (03/14/2006)

Final
STAFF SUMMARY OF MEETING

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON STATE, VETERANS, & MILITARY AFFAIRS

Date:	03/14/2006	ATTENDANCE

Time:	01:41 PM to 08:01 PM	Cadman	X
		Carroll T.	X
Place:	SupCt	Coleman	X
		Crane	X
This Meeting was called to order by		Gallegos	X
	Representative Weissmann	Liston	*
		Lundberg	X
This Report was prepared by		Schultheis	*
	Bo Pogue	Todd	X
		Ragsdale	X
		Weissmann	X
		X = Present, E = Excused, A = Absent, * = Present after roll call

Bills Addressed:		Action Taken:
HB06-1314 HB06-1366 SB06-154 HCR06-1001 HB06-1096 HB06-1099 HB06-1208		Amended, Referred to the Committee of the Whole Referred to Appropriations Amended, Referred to the Committee of the Whole Amended, Referred to the Committee of the Whole Amended, Referred to the Committee of the Whole Postponed Indefinitely Amended, Referred to Appropriations

01:41 PM

The committee was called to order. A quorum was present.

01:42 PM -- House Bill 06-1314

Representative Cerbo provided an overview of and commentary in support of House Bill 06-1314, concerning a prohibition against certain employer communications to an employee. Representative Cerbo explained a forthcoming amendment to place the statutory section contained in the bill in Title 24, Colorado Revised Statutes. Representative Cerbo discussed the relationship between his bill and federal labor law. Representative Cerbo responded to questions regarding employer-mandated diversity training and employer-sponsored meetings seeking to educate employees on political issues. Representative Cerbo clarified that bill pertains to mandatory employer meetings. Representative Cerbo responded to a question regarding violations of the National Labor Relations Act. A discussion ensued regarding subjects that may or may not constitute political- or religious-related matters.

01:56 PM

The following people testified regarding House Bill 06-1314:

01:58 PM -- Mr. Chuck Berry, representing the Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Berry referenced a letter to the committee from Gustav Achey of the Mountain States Employers Council opposing the bill (Attachment A). Mr. Berry explained that House Bill 06-1314 will result in a rise in litigation activity and would chill political action committee activity. Mr. Berry responded to questions regarding the bill's impact on labor union activity and political speech by employers. Mr. Berry explained a provision of the bill mandating penalties and court costs. Mr. Berry then responded to a question regarding employer placement of political information on work-related communications such as letterheads and checks. Representative Cerbo explained that an amendment would be forthcoming regarding political information on work-related communications, copies of which were distributed to the committee. Further discussion ensued regarding what subjects constitute political- or religious-related matters and the potential effect of the bill on employer behavior.

02:10 PM -- Mr. Chris Howes, representing the Colorado Retail Council, testified in opposition to House Bill 06-1314, offering that he believed that enactment of the bill would violate certain provisions of federal law. Mr. Howes responded to a question regarding violations of the National Labor Relations Act.

02:13 PM -- Mr. Tony Gagliardi, representing the National Federation of Independent Business, testified in opposition to the bill, stating that the bill is overly vague. Mr. Gagliardi responded to questions regarding the bill's impact on small businesses. Mr. Gagliardi then responded to a question regarding the impact of the bill on litigation rates.

02:18 PM -- Ms. Virginia Love, representing the Colorado Competitive Council, testified in opposition to House Bill 06-1314. Ms. Love explained the scope of the bill and the state fiscal impact of litigation that may be spawned by the bill. Ms. Love stated that she feels that the bill is both anti-small business and anti-worker. Ms. Love further stated that the bill, if enacted, would result in increased litigation.

02:23 PM -- Ms. Mary Lou Chapman, representing the Rocky Mountain Food Industry Association, testified in opposition to House Bill 06-1314, stating that it would dictate employer-employee interaction and deprive employers of rights secured under federal law. Ms. Chapman noted what she felt to be disparate treatment of employers and labor unions by the bill. Ms. Chapman responded to questions regarding the potential for litigation as a result of the bill's passage.

02:29 PM -- Mr. Lawrence Moore, representing Communication Workers of America, testified in favor of the bill, explaining instances where he has attended employer-mandated meetings pertaining to political- and religious-related subject matter. Mr. Moore explained the subject matter that would be allowed at employer-mandated meeting. Mr. Moore responded to questions regarding the relationship between religion and ethics. Mr. Moore then responded to questions regarding his tenure with the Communication Workers of America and the potential for increased litigation as a result of the passage of House Bill 06-1314. A discussion ensued regarding a provision of the bill that awards treble court damages and court costs. Representative Cerbo explained the impact of this provision on small businesses.

02:43 PM -- Mr. Steve Adams, representing the Colorado AFL-CIO, testified in favor of House Bill 06-1314, stating that the bill is limited to employer-mandated acts. Mr. Adams responded to a question regarding the nature of employer communications included in paycheck envelopes. Mr. Moore responded to further questioning regarding the level of complaint by employees alleging political or religious coercion at employer-mandated functions in Colorado.

02:49 PM -- Al Kogler, representing the Communication Workers of America, testified in favor of House Bill 06-1314. Mr. Kogler recounted instances of "captive audience" meetings he and others have attended, and specifically meetings that pertained to anti-labor union sentiment. Mr. Kogler then explained the need for the passage of the bill. Mr. Kogler responded to a question regarding the bill's relation to union organizing activities.

02:55 PM -- Mr. Carl Filler, representing himself, testified in favor of House Bill 06-1314, recounted an instance where he was pressured to vote in favor of a ballot measure by his employers during a past employment situation.

02:57 PM

Representative T. Carroll moved amendment L.001. Representative Cerbo explained the amendment and responded to questions regarding the need for the amendment.


BILL:	HB06-1314
TIME:	02:59:01 PM
MOVED:	Carroll T.
MOTION:	Moved prepared amendment L.001 (Attachment B). The motion passed on a 6-5 roll call vote.
SECONDED:	Gallegos
		VOTE
	Cadman	No
	Carroll T.	Yes
	Coleman	Yes
	Crane	No
	Gallegos	Yes
	Liston	No
	Lundberg	No
	Schultheis	No
	Todd	Yes
	Ragsdale	Yes
	Weissmann	Yes
Not Final YES: 6 NO: 5 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

Representative Cerbo explained prepared amendment L.003 (Attachment C). Representative Cerbo responded to questions regarding hypothetical situations where politically related material appears during employer-employee meetings.


BILL:	HB06-1314
TIME:	03:00:10 PM
MOVED:	Weissmann
MOTION:	Moved prepared amendment L.003 (Attachment C). 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 Schultheis moved prepared amendment L.004 (Attachment D) and explained his reason for moving the amendment. Representative Cerbo explained his opposition to the amendment.


BILL:	HB06-1314
TIME:	03:04:27 PM
MOVED:	Schultheis
MOTION:	Moved prepared amendment L.004 (Attachment D). The motion failed on a 5-6 roll call vote.
SECONDED:	Liston
		VOTE
	Cadman	Yes
	Carroll T.	No
	Coleman	No
	Crane	Yes
	Gallegos	No
	Liston	Yes
	Lundberg	Yes
	Schultheis	Yes
	Todd	No
	Ragsdale	No
	Weissmann	No
Not Final YES: 5 NO: 6 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL

03:06 PM

Representative Cerbo provided closing remarks in favor of House Bill 06-1314. Representative Cerbo stated that there are no preemption issues with regard to the bill and the National Labor Relations Act. Representative Cadman posed a hypothetical situation pertaining to the bill's restrictions. Representatives Schultheis and Liston explained their opposition to House Bill 06-1314.


BILL:	HB06-1314
TIME:	03:12:32 PM
MOVED:	Weissmann
MOTION:	Moved to refer House Bill 06-1314, as amended, to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation. The motion passed on a 6-5 roll call vote.
SECONDED:	Coleman
		VOTE
	Cadman	No
	Carroll T.	Yes
	Coleman	Yes
	Crane	No
	Gallegos	Yes
	Liston	No
	Lundberg	No
	Schultheis	No
	Todd	Yes
	Ragsdale	Yes
	Weissmann	Yes
Final YES: 6 NO: 5 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

03:13 PM -- House Bill 06-1366

Representatives Riesberg and McFadyen provided an overview of House Bill 06-1366, concerning the appointment of representatives of regional associations to the board of directors of the Colorado Tourism Office. Representative Riesberg explained the need for the bill. Representative McFadyen provided detail regarding the mission of the tourism office and how the bill would help advance the mission if enacted. Representative Riesberg responded to a question regarding the ability of people to petition the Governor to occupy a position on the Tourism Office Board of Directors. Representatives Riesberg and McFadyen responded to questions regarding the current and future composition of the Tourism Office Board of Directors and regional representation on the board.

03:23 PM

The following people testified regarding House Bill 06-1366:

03:23 PM -- Ms. Janie McCullough and Ms. Elsie Lacy, both representing the Tourism Industry Association of Colorado (TIAC), testified in opposition to House Bill 06-1366. Ms. McCullough expressed concern at assigning Tourism Office Board of Directors seats to specific groups, as opposed to the current practice of assigning seats by industry segment. Ms. McCullough responded to questions regarding the ability to achieve geographical representation on the board under current law. Ms. McCullough explained that TIAC's primary objection to the bill is that the tourism industry was not apprised of the bill's introduction and has not had the ability to fully consider the bill's effect. Ms. Lacy provided some background regarding the creation of the Colorado Tourism Office and reiterated TIAC's reason for opposing to the bill. Ms. Lacy responded to questions regarding TIAC's position on changing the composition of the Colorado Tourism Office Board of Directors. A discussion ensued regarding the participation of certain organizations on the board. Ms. Lacy explained the reason for including at-large positions on the Colorado Tourism Office Board of Directors when the office was created. Representative McFadyen explained the bill's impact on wider geographical representation.

03:42 PM -- Mr. Mike Bandera, representing Action 22, testified in favor of the bill. Mr. Bandera explained the need for mandated regional representation on the Colorado Tourism Office Board of Directors. Mr. Bandera mentioned that Club 20 did not have a position on the bill at that time but wished to participate in the process as the bill moves forward. Discussion ensued regarding mandatory affiliation with certain organizations for consideration for board membership.

03:47 PM -- Ms. Kyle Fenner, representing Action 22, testified in favor of House Bill 06-1366. Ms. Fenner stressed the need for mandatory diversity of representation on the Colorado Tourism Office board. Ms. Fenner responded to a question regarding the potential for overrepresentation by certain areas as a result of the bill's enactment. Ms. Fenner and Representative Riesberg responded to questions regarding inadequate representation on the board for certain regions.

03:53 PM -- Ms. Sara Blackhurst, representing the Greenhorn Valley Chamber of Commerce, testified in favor of House Bill 06-1366. Ms. Blackhurst explained the need to boost tourism in and representation on the Colorado Tourism Office Board of Directors for rural areas of the state. Ms. Blackhurst then explained the underrepresentation of rural areas on the board. Ms. Blackhurst then explained the tourism attractions of her community. A discussion ensued regarding the potential for enhancing representation of rural areas on the board by changing at-large representation. Discussion followed regarding representation of south central Colorado on the tourism board. Ms. Blackhurst responded to a question regarding past attempts to enhance rural representation on the Colorado Tourism Office Board of Directors. Discussion ensued regarding the proper division of representation on the board.

04:11 PM

No amendments were offered for House Bill 06-1366. Representatives Riesberg and McFadyen provided closing remarks in favor of the bill. Representative Coleman explained her reason for opposing the bill.


BILL:	HB06-1366
TIME:	04:12:07 PM
MOVED:	Weissmann
MOTION:	Moved to refer House Bill 06-1366 to the Committee on Appropriations with favorable recommendation. The motion passed on a 6-5 roll call vote.
SECONDED:	Ragsdale
		VOTE
	Cadman	Yes
	Carroll T.	Yes
	Coleman	No
	Crane	No
	Gallegos	Yes
	Liston	Yes
	Lundberg	No
	Schultheis	No
	Todd	No
	Ragsdale	Yes
	Weissmann	Yes
Final YES: 6 NO: 5 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

04:14 PM -- Senate Bill 06-154

Representative Pommer, prime sponsor, provided an overview of Senate Bill 06-154, concerning the creation of a central statutory reference for statutes that authorize the use of the power of eminent domain.

04:15 PM

Nobody was signed up to testify regarding Senate Bill 06-154, and no questions were forthcoming from the committee regarding the bill. Representative Pommer explained prepared amendment L.002 (Attachment E).


BILL:	SB06-154
TIME:	04:17:29 PM
MOVED:	Ragsdale
MOTION:	Moved prepared amendment L.002 (Attachment E). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:	Gallegos
		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


BILL:	SB06-154
TIME:	04:17:54 PM
MOVED:	Ragsdale
MOTION:	Moved to refer Senate Bill 06-154, as amended, to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation. The motion passed on a 9-0-2 roll call vote.
SECONDED:	Carroll T.
		VOTE
	Cadman	Yes
	Carroll T.	Yes
	Coleman	Excused
	Crane	Yes
	Gallegos	Yes
	Liston	Excused
	Lundberg	Yes
	Schultheis	Yes
	Todd	Yes
	Ragsdale	Yes
	Weissmann	Yes
Final YES: 9 NO: 0 EXC: 2 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: 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, concerning 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 harassment 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

07:10 PM -- House Bill 06-1096

Representative Hefley reacquainted the committee with House Bill 06-1096, concerning a limitation on the exercise of the power of eminent domain by certain special districts. The committee previously took testimony on the bill and passed two amendments on February 7.

07:13 PM

No further amendments were forthcoming for House Bill 06-1096. Representative Hefley explained that House Concurrent Resolution 06-1001 has no bearing on the bill. A discussion ensued regarding the potential for removing the bill's safety clause on second reading. Further discussion ensued regarding the bearing of the concurrent resolution on House Bill 06-1096. A discussion followed regarding limiting the powers of the special districts affected by the bill. Representatives Hefley and Liston responded to a question regarding the timing of special district elections.


BILL:	HB06-1096
TIME:	07:23:26 PM
MOVED:	Cadman
MOTION:	Refer House Bill 06-1096, as amended at a committee meeting held on February 7, to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation. The motion passed on a 6-5 roll call vote.
SECONDED:	Liston
		VOTE
	Cadman	Yes
	Carroll T.	No
	Coleman	No
	Crane	Yes
	Gallegos	No
	Liston	Yes
	Lundberg	Yes
	Schultheis	Yes
	Todd	Yes
	Ragsdale	No
	Weissmann	No
Final YES: 6 NO: 5 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

07:25 PM -- House Bill 06-1099

Representative Gardner, prime sponsor, reacquainted the committee with House Bill 06-1099, concerning a limitation on the exercise of the power of eminent domain by public entities, and provided testimony in support of the bill. Public testimony was previously taken on the bill, and the bill was previously amended by the committee on February 7. Representative Cadman expressed his support for the bill. A discussion ensued regarding the impact of the passage of House Bill 06-1096 on House Bill 06-1099. Representative Gardner clarified that the bill does not amend the Colorado Constitution, and explained that the bill provides an option regarding the eminent domain issue should House Concurrent Resolution 06-1001 not pass. A discussion followed regarding the powers vested in the judiciary by the Colorado Constitution.

07:35 PM

No further amendments to the bill were forthcoming. Representative Gardner provided closing remarks in favor of House Bill 06-1099. Discussion ensued regarding striking the legislative findings.


BILL:	HB06-1099
TIME:	07:37:28 PM
MOVED:	Cadman
MOTION:	Moved to refer House Bill 06-1099, as amended, to the Committee of the Whole with favorable recommendation. The motion failed on a 5-6 roll call vote.
SECONDED:	Lundberg
		VOTE
	Cadman	Yes
	Carroll T.	No
	Coleman	No
	Crane	Yes
	Gallegos	No
	Liston	Yes
	Lundberg	Yes
	Schultheis	Yes
	Todd	No
	Ragsdale	No
	Weissmann	No
Not Final YES: 5 NO: 6 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL


BILL:	HB06-1099
TIME:	07:38:03 PM
MOVED:	Coleman
MOTION:	Moved to Postpone Indefinitely House Bill 06-1099. The motion passed on a 6-5 roll call vote.
SECONDED:	Carroll T.
		VOTE
	Cadman	No
	Carroll T.	Yes
	Coleman	Yes
	Crane	No
	Gallegos	Yes
	Liston	No
	Lundberg	No
	Schultheis	No
	Todd	Yes
	Ragsdale	Yes
	Weissmann	Yes
Final YES: 6 NO: 5 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

07:40 PM -- House Bill 06-1208

Representative Lundberg reacquainted the committee with and testified in favor of House Bill 06-1208, concerning special compensation to property owners whose property has been taken through the exercise of the power of eminent domain. Public testimony on the bill was previously taken on February 7. Representative Lundberg explained the compensation figures contained in the bill and explained an amendment altering those figures. A discussion ensued regarding compensating private property owners subject to eminent domain proceedings for factors not captured by the market value of the property.

07:48 PM

Representative moved and explained prepared amendment L.001 (Attachment K). Representative Lundberg explained how he arrived at the figures contained in L.001.


BILL:	HB06-1208
TIME:	07:48:43 PM
MOVED:	Lundberg
MOTION:	Moved prepared amendment L.001 (Attachment K). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:	Weissmann
		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

07:49 PM

Representative Lundberg urged the committee members to vote in favor of House Bill 06-1208. Discussion ensued regarding the potential for landowners to unduly maximize profit using the provisions of the bill.


BILL:	HB06-1208
TIME:	07:56:05 PM
MOVED:	Lundberg
MOTION:	Moved to refer House Bill 06-1208, as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations with favorable recommendation. The motion passed on a 6-5 roll call vote.
SECONDED:	Schultheis
		VOTE
	Cadman	Yes
	Carroll T.	No
	Coleman	Yes
	Crane	Yes
	Gallegos	No
	Liston	Yes
	Lundberg	Yes
	Schultheis	Yes
	Todd	No
	Ragsdale	No
	Weissmann	No
Final YES: 6 NO: 5 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

07:57 PM

The committee discussed the need to meet on Tuesday, March 21. Representative Weissmann proposed that the committee meet to hear Senate Bill 06-090 on Tuesday and tour the SAVE program. Some committee members objected to meeting on Tuesday. Representative Weissmann resolved to explore the potential for meeting on Friday, March 24, or in April.

08:01 PM

The committee adjourned.