The legislative priority legislation and “wish list” for 2003 includes an
increase in recording fees. Dan stated they are waiting for the results of a
survey before proposing legislation. Not all counties are recouping costs for
recording, primarily reflecting the impact of inflation and the requirement and
need for technology conversion.

The IAC supports legislation allowing counties, upon a vote of the people,
to remove the 3% levy cap on ambulance districts to make up for the loss in
revenue due to changes in federal Medicare laws.

They strongly support allowing local option taxation at the county level which
would be subject to a vote of the public within the affected county. IAC
recognizes that local option is not a viable option for all 44 counties and will
not support any move to replace revenue sharing with local option authority.

They support legislation that allows Assessors 5% flexibility within the 5-year
revaluation cycle to schedule appraisal work to meet local county needs.

The IAC will propose legislation that moves the deadline for filing appeals
from the fourth Monday in June to the third Monday in June, allowing
Assessors more time to solve issues outside of the Board of Equalization
and relieving stress on counties that experience overwhelming numbers of
appeals.

They have discussed legislation that removes the 180-day Delayed
Application for county medical indigent applications. However, prior to
drafting legislation in this regard, they are working with the Idaho Hospital
Association in an effort to resolve the problems.

IAC strongly supports clarification of the law that provides that wireless
communications are subject to the 911 fees adopted in each county. They
are conducting a survey on usage now, but early information indicates in
some areas over 50% of calls made to 911 are made by cell phones.

They support legislation that would authorize state and local governments
to add on the cost of collecting a public debt, including a reasonable fee, to
the amount of any debt owed to the state or local governments.

As the Session goes on, there will undoubtedly be a need for other
legislation that has not been included on this priority list.

A policy position of the IAC is they oppose the creation of additional
property tax exemptions and the expansion of existing exemptions, which
cause any loss of property tax revenue or shifts the burden from one class
of property another.

EXCUSED:

Assistance; and Nancy Merrill, Mayor of Eagle

The Association provides education, training and technical assistance to the
cities in the state. This year they will begin using an interactive network for
training. There will be seven locations initially tied in to this network and
these city employees can then be trained while remaining at home and all at
one time, saving the cities money..

The AIC will seek legislation removing term limits on planning and zoning
commissioners from the Land Use Planning Act. In smaller areas it is
difficult to find volunteers to fill these nonpaying positions The two year
restriction on P and Z Commissioners was passed in this committee in 1995.
This legislation to remove this restriction was before this committee in 2000,
passed the House, but was held in the Senate Local Government
Committee, who wanted to wait for the outcome of term limits on all elected
officials.

The Association is looking at legislation to update subdivision platting
statutes. The group of people, representing several different entities, that
are working on this legislation, have determined that this will be at least a
two year process. Therefore, there will be no legislation presented this year.

They are planning on drafting legislation that will allow Employer PERSI
Firemen’s Retirement Fund gain sharing to pay off unfunded liability.
Firemen hired prior to 1980 were covered under a separate fund which did
not allow for gain sharing pay off. There is a large amount of unfunded
liability accumulating in this account. The gain sharing is returned to the
employees, employer and retirees.

There is a statute on the books that calls for publication of notices and
hearings on fee increases. New legislation will allow for some discretionary
leeway in publicizing fee increases.

The AIC further is discussing legislation that will state a regulatory takings
analysis must be prepared at the request of the owner of private real
property and further that it become public knowledge.

Nancy Merrill, Mayor of Eagle and Legislative Chair of the Association of
Idaho Cities made a few brief remarks in regards to her position as
Legislative Chair. She asked that this committee, prior to passing legislation,
consider that if a law fits a small city, it will undoubtedly fit a large city, but if
a law fits a large city, it does not necessarily fit a small city.

EXCUSED:

MINUTES

It was moved by Rep Miller that the minutes of January 20, 2003, be
approved as written.

Rep Schaefer was questioned about a recall election provision. When
asked, Rep Schaefer stated there were many who supported this legislation
and he knew there were those that would oppose it, but asked that it be
printed in order to have a debate on the issue.

Rep Bradford stated he was a former county commissioner and felt in
holding that position he was involved in the entire county, not just the district
he lived in.

It was stated, and Rep Schaefer agreed, there should probably be an
allowance for local option in this particular legislation and that it could more
readily be accomplished prior to being printed as a bill.

EXCUSED:

Mike Kane, representing the Idaho Sheriff’s Association, stated that when
a person becomes lost or injured in the wilderness, it is necessary to put
together teams of people to assist in the search. The problem that has
arisen in Bonner County involves a group of people who have assisted in
search and rescue operations. For tax purposes, this group incorporated,
holds fund raisers, and proclaims to be the official search and rescue group
taking charge of search and rescue operations. The law currently states that
the sheriff of the county shall coordinate search and rescue operations, but
leaves in question who is ultimately in charge.

Phil Jarvis, Bonner County Sheriff, stated that once this group had
incorporated they felt they had no need to accede to the sheriff’s authority.
They further felt the sheriff should allow use of county equipment, allow them
to be under the umbrella of the sheriff’s liability, and to further use the
sheriff’s assets. From the sheriff’s point of view, one person has to be in
charge of these operations and assume total responsibility for the entire
search and rescue operation. It does not work with more than one person
attempting to take charge. He felt this legislation would clarify this issue and
prevent further problems along these lines.

Bruce Allcott, representing the Idaho Fire Chief’s Association, asked to
speak to this legislation. He stated he was not speaking in opposition nor
was he speaking to support the bill, he merely wanted to point out that there
were situations that could occur that might be in conflict. He felt this
legislation should be more specific as to the types of search and rescue
operations it is being applied to.

It was pointed out that the specific example Mr Alcott cited where a conflict
might occur involved disaster services and not search and rescue
operations.

Rep Clark questioned whether this language should also be included in
Section 46-1006 of the Idaho Code. Mr Kane explained that particular
section of the Idaho Code pertained to disaster services and he had no
intention of affecting that. This legislation addresses search and rescue
operations only.

EXCUSED:

Chairman Barrett called the meeting to order at 1:55 pm

Rep Smylie asked about students at BSU who were allowed funds to
support the Republican party and funds to support the Democrat party. This
bill would make that illegal.

Rep Eskridge asked the question about the Association of Idaho Cities and
the Idaho Association of Counties. Would the city and county membership
fees to these organizations then become illegal, since it would involve
taxpayer funds?

Rep Ringo asked what the duties and functions of fire protection board
commissioners are. Rep Naccarato, co-sponsor of the bill responded that
attending meetings was a function and these could vary from one or more
per week or could be monthly meetings. Their work mainly consists of
setting budgets, administration of the budget, checking equipment and
verifying that new building construction meets fire safety codes.

Rep Clark asked who set the amount of pay for the commissioners. The
answer was the Board, which can consist of three to five fire district
commissioners. Rep Clark withdrew his motion.

EXCUSED:

Rep Clark had some concerns about the language under general powers
that would grant the ability to impose fines. He asked the sponsor to see if
the language could be clarified.

EXCUSED:

Speaker Newcomb suggested it would be easier to discuss both these bills
at the same time as they were companion bills. H 256 defines a “regulatory
taking” and adds a voidable clause if a written taking analysis is not prepared
after a request has been made. He feels these bills help everyone involved,
not just the property owners.

During 2002, the speaker tried to get lawmakers to adopt a constitutional
amendment that would have required state and local governments to pay
private property owners for losses created by regulations. This effort was
dropped and instead a committee worked on this legislation during the
interim. The committee consisted of representatives from the cities and
counties, attorneys, developers, regulators and others with an interest in this
legislation. These bills are a result of that effort. In the past there have been
guidelines available from the Attorney General’s office. This legislation will
now make it part of the Idaho Code.

Rep Smylie asked for a definition of takings and further questioned whether
this legislation would open up a new cottage industry.

Dan Chadwick, Executive Director, Idaho Association of Counties,
responded to the question of what the costs might be associated with the
analysis. He stated they honestly didn’t know at this point. He didn’t feel
there were going to be too many requests. Most of these cases will be
negotiated. One of the good things in H 257 is that local government cannot
stack one moratorium on another. It imposes an intervening period between
moratoriums.

In regards to the cottage industry, he felt this legislation is manageable. He
responded to the question about the difference in terms, “taking” and
“regulatory taking”. This legislation deals with “regulatory taking” and
“taking” is covered in another part of the Idaho Code.

Ken Harward, Executive Director, Association of Idaho Cities, stated his
organization supports this legislation. One of the concerns was that the local
government would not be the fulcrum between both sides. Currently, the
government is obliged to make an analysis in a takings issue. This bill will
clarify when an analysis is needed. He feels it is fair to the property owners
and fair to the government agencies.

Bill Chisholm stated he is opposed to this legislation. It is geared to
economics, but there are other qualities of life not addressed in this bill. He
does not see anything in the bill that addresses the neighbors and how they
are impacted. He would prefer to see this legislation tabled and get more
issues on the table for discussion.

Helen McCracken, is opposed to this legislation. She finds these two bills
outstanding in what she considers “questionable” proposed legislation as
promulgated by this year’s legislature. Neither does she find the bills ethical.
Mrs McCracken’s remarks pertained to a situation she and her neighbors
have been fighting, however, this legislation does not address that problem.
It will neither help or hinder her or her neighbors.

The guests were asked to keep their testimony germane to the legislation
being presented.

JoAnn Butler, Attorney, was a member of the committee working on this
legislation. She stated the committee worked on what “regulatory takings”
are. This legislation only addresses those issues, not “takings”. The
amendment to IC 67-8003 is to establish a consistent review process that
better enables governments to evaluate whether proposed actions may
result in a taking of private property without due process. The purpose is to
ensure that a government catches potential mistakes.

The committee was concerned that a taking analysis in all actions would be
an inordinate burden on some governments. To lessen the perceived
burden, the language in the bill indicates that a taking analysis is triggered
only following a written request for such analysis after final action has been
taken.

In today’s society neighbors affected do have recourse. If a landowner is
claiming economic deprivation, the landowner has the obligation to explain
it.

Phuong Smith, expressed her opposition to this legislation. She thinks this
legislation takes away homeowner rights and gives them to big companies
and big landowners. There is no quality of life in her home due to decisions
that have been made. She cannot open her windows at night and cannot
enjoy the comforts of her home. No analysis made will compensate for this.

Ed Smith, opposes this legislation and feels it is an unveiled attempt to
eliminate the rights of ordinary citizens and caters to large land barons. The
taking benefits are all on the landowners side. The neighbors can express
their concerns at public hearings, but that is all. He thinks the public should
also be able to make a takings analysis request. Why pass a bill when it has
flaws. Why not make it equal for both sides.

In response to the concerns expressed by Mrs McCracken and the Smiths,
it was pointed out that this legislation does not deal with their situation.
There is other recourse available in the statute that they must look to.

Dick Rush, IACI, stated his organization supported this legislation, and feels
that it shares equitably on benefits and quality of life.

Bill Batt, Attorney, IACI, felt this is good legislation and supports it and
does not see it offering a cottage industry.

Greg Garatea, Idaho Cattle Association, stated his organization supports
this legislation. Feels there has been a fair compromise from the proposed
constitutional amendment proposed last year to the introduction of these
bills. What the cattle association wanted was a definition that there could be
partial takings. Feels this is a beginning, however, not completely
satisfactory.

Chris Carlson, stated he takes no position on this legislation. He wanted
to hear the testimony pro and con and wanted to hear what the bills were
about. He felt this legislation could possibly allow the neighbors to ask for
an analysis, but testimony indicates that is not the case.

Norm Semanko, Idaho Water Users, stated his association was in favor of
this legislation. He feels these bills improve the regulatory takings process
which has not been working well in the past. If there is going to be a
regulatory taking, there should be a written analysis and people need to see
it. Nothing in this bill will impact the Idaho Water Users’ ability to deliver
water. Further, he does not feel this bill expands the definition of “takings”.

He feels sympathy for those people who expressed their concerns, but this
is not the bill to address those concerns. There are other bills that are
working on those issues.

Judy Bartlett, Idaho Farm Bureau, stated her organization supported this
legislation.

Jon Barrett, Idaho Smart Growth, thinks this legislation expands the
definition of “regulatory takings” and feels there already is a cottage industry
in place, but he has no problem with that.

He thinks this legislation is going above and beyond other states in their
legislation and will produce a flood of lawsuits. He doesn’t feel an analysis
made a part of the public record will be honest, accurate and complete. For
that to happen is should be made a part of attorney-client privilege. He
further thinks this legislation amounts to an unnecessary unfunded mandate
being passed to state agencies and local governments.

Claudia Haynes, testified that she and her husband bought a home
intended to be their retirement home. There is now to be a dairy farm
located directly behind their home. She feels this legislation would protect
the dairy farmer, but does not protect her and stated she will lose nearly
$100,000 valuation in her home due to the location of the dairy farm.

Speaker Newcomb, in his closing remarks, stated he was offended by
remarks and questions about the ethics of this bill. Ethics and morality are
always a major concern of his and nothing less has gone into this legislation.
Even though neighbors may not request an analysis by this legislation, they
will be notified of a regulatory takings, which is not the case today. He
further stated the current law in place simply does not work. He feels
government needs to be reined in from stepping on property owners.

He feels compassion for those speaking at the meeting and the problems
they are faced with. He suggested they get with their legislators and see that
legislation is written to address their concerns, which would more
appropriately be found in the Environmental Affairs Committee or even the
Agricultural Affairs Committee. Unfortunately, the legislation presented
today does not deal with the problems they have encountered.

Rep Bieter stated he has clients on both sides of the issue and is not
convinced this legislation helps enough of them. He is not certain he could
rely on a judge interpreting the language in the bill the same manner as
intended by the authors. He appreciates the effort that has gone into this
legislation, but he is not certain of its effectiveness, therefore, he will be
voting no.

Rep Smylie stated he had an intern sit in on this hearing and felt it was a
good demonstration on our representative democracy. He feels they do not
give fair representation to those aggrieved by certain land uses and thinks,
if enacted, will become another unfunded mandate. He has great empathy
for the problems some of the people who testified have and he, too,
appreciated the efforts that have been exerted in drafting this legislation.

7 AYE – Representatives Collins, Eskridge, Clark,
Smylie, Bradford, Miller and Barrett

2 NAY – Representatives Bieter and Ringo

Speaker Newcomb will sponsor these bills on the floor.

The board members have a variety of functions they must perform, which are
becoming more complex, and it is necessary to recruit qualified board
members to conduct this business. Board member compensation can only
be changed by Statute.

The members are not reimbursed for automobile or per diem expenses.
Their meeting compensation is the only compensation they receive. This
legislation is not asking that all board members receive $100 per meeting,
it is merely setting a maximum amount that would be paid. It is up to each
association to determine the appropriate rate of compensation for their board
members.

EXCUSED:

On Page 4, under Rep Bieter’s remarks include the statement that “This
legislation is not fair to adjacent landowners as they could not request a
taking analysis.

On Page 2, under Rep Smylie’s remarks, include the statement that “He
asked for a definition between a taking and a regulatory taking”.

Rep Clark asked what a conversion schedule was.

Bruce Allcott, Idaho Fire Chiefs, replied that it was a schedule designed
to place the election of fire district commissioners on a staggered basis, so
all were not being elected at once. This legislation will not allow the board
to merely extend a fire board commissioner’s term of office because of the
conversion schedule.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:03 pm.

EXCUSED:

Chairman Barrett Called the meeting to order at 2:20 pm. She explained the
purpose of this meeting was to provide information to the committee on the
lawsuit that had been filed against the State of Idaho in regards to
annexation, and not to discuss any proposed legislation. She further stated
she would accept questions from the committee, but would not accept
questions or testimony from the audience.

Mr Pollott was previously with the Department of Justice, then in private
practice with a Chicago firm working out of San Francisco> He worked
primarily with land issues. In 1993 he published a book on private property
rights. He stated that Idaho is now the only state in the Union that does not
give residents a right to vote for or against being absorbed into a
governmental entity. He also stated this lawsuit will not go away, and
further, that it could go on for years, as is not uncommon for this type of
litigation.

At the time this lawsuit was filed there were no annexation proceedings
underway. Now there are. The purpose of the lawsuit is to declare the
statute governing annexation unconstitutional. He stated the legislature has
the ability to come back and resolve this matter now. If the lawsuit is
successful, the law will be thrown out and will be very costly to many.

The balance of Mr Pollott’s remarks are attached to these minutes as
“Attachment A”.

He stated that he could not speak to the lawsuit specifically, since it being
handled out of the Attorney General’s office and he was not in the loop.
None of the cities he represents are involved at this point.

Mr Nichols’ remarks are attached to the minutes as “Attachment B”.

He disagreed with Mr Pollot’s statement that lessees of property should have
ownership voting rights.

Mr Nichols did address some remarks to H 274, which is proposed
annexation legislation and has not had a scheduled hearing at this point. He
thinks the bill, as written, would prohibit voluntary annexations. Typically
voluntary annexations come before the city as a package, annexation and
subdivision plans. The current law is intended to give people more rights,
not less. Today, between Nampa and Meridian, most of the annexations are
consensual.

He stated, in regards to the lawsuit, even if the judge ruled in favor of the
plaintiffs, he did not personally think the judge would throw the entire law out.
Instead he thought he might pare it down a bit.

Chairman Barrett did not accept questions from the audience, but thanked
them for their attendance, thanked both Mr Pollot and Mr Nichols for their
remarks.

EXCUSED:

Director, AIC

Chairman Barrett called the meeting to order at 2:26 pm

This legislation was brought forth by the Association of Idaho Cities and he
feels this is necessary to make clear the responsibilities of the city council.
The problem is not with the Idaho Statute, as the law is clear, responsibility
lies with the city council for all approvals and disbursement of money. This
legislation will clarify the need for the city council to establish and maintain
an adequate and reasonable system of internal accounting controls.

The questions was asked if he felt this bill would make the system work any
better since it seemed the law already calls for council review. A control
system sets up checks and balances and causes people to be more
circumspect in their actions.

Rep Eskridge felt making council members responsible to examine every
large transaction as this bill proposes is probably unnecessary. The
response to this is that departments still have leeway to approve a large
number of expenses but, they too, need to be more aware of exercising
checks and balances in examining these expenses.

Rep Bieter stated he feels that the current system does work, since it was
a councilman that caught the problem. He agreed that the extra precautions
this bill proposes are unnecessary. He still feels the problem lies more with
credit cards than with the checks and balances. By the time a credit card
expense is questioned it has already been paid.

Rep Smylie does not feel this bill is meant to be a punishment for city
councils, but there is a degree of cynicism in the community we need to
aware of.

A 1995 Attorney General’s opinion stated that only the board of county
commissioners may exercise legislative powers in the unincorporated areas
of the county. An ordinance enacted by a city pursuant to the Idaho Code
67-6527(a)(1) is not effective in the unincorporated area of impact until the
county, by ordinance, adopts the terms of the city ordinance. This legislation
will simply incorporate and clarify that opinion in the Idaho Code.

This legislation will further require that the seller or leaseholder of the
property fully disclose the obligations to the buyer or leaseholder by
forwarding the signed and dated paperwork to the legislative authority
responsible for the district.

Rep Bieter presented an amendment to this legislation which was requested
by the Board of Realtors to ensure that the process they use in disclosing
information to their clients is also used in this legislation. This will provide
for written disclosure and will also provide for disclosure forms.

EXCUSED:

Vice Chairman Collins called the meeting to order at 1:40 pm.

Rep Barrett provided a brief history of annexation legislation which started
in 1992 when she first came to the legislature. She brought forth the issue
of forced annexation on behalf of residents of Stanley and the issue has
never been resolved.

Since that time residents of Boise felt they were dis-enfranchised by the City
of Boise and several pieces of legislation have been brought forth, but have
not completed the process. Last year a “compromise” bill surfaced that
proposed to reach “consensus”, but it did very little to include citizens in the
decision to force annexation. It was a bad bill, but it got everyone off the
hook – except the dis-enfranchised citizens. This attempt at reform
“compromise” is currently on the books and being challenged in court on
grounds of constitutionality.

Now, other areas are drawn into the conflict. Presently, Madison County
residents are questioning the “forced annexation” policy and the way it is
being handled. This bill is simple. It repeals section 50-222 Idaho Code and
amends Chapter 2, Title 50 of the Code by the addition of a new section 50-222. The real issue in annexation is addressed in this legislation, voluntary
annexation or annexation by force. Voluntary annexation is determined by
existing statute and, for forced annexation, a process is set forth for an
election. This legislation further provides alternatives to annexation and
offers reasonable compromise.

Paula Harris of Rexburg testified in favor to this legislation. She is one of
the homeowners involved in a “forced annexation” in Rexburg. Her
testimony is included in these minutes as “Attachment A”.

Rep Smylie asked how many people objected to the annexation and she
responded it was hard to say, but approximately 90%. He further asked
whether they objected to being included in an area of impact and when were
they included in the area of impact. She replied that it was about 10 years
ago when they were included in the area of impact and further stated they
did not object, but probably most people did not even know what that meant.

Marlena Belnap, also a resident of Rexburg involved in a “forced
annexation” testified in favor of this legislation. Her testimony is included in
these minutes as “Attachment B”.

Mrs Belnap was asked about the size of lots in the subdivision in question
which she responded were one acre lots. It was stated the window for
hooking up to sewer services could be up to l0 years, and Mrs. Belnap was
asked what length of time they were being offered. She responded they had
a window of 18 months.

Charles Thomas spoke in favor of this legislation. He stated he purchased
his home with no knowledge of a forced annexation. He will not accept
forced annexation peaceably. He accuses the city of extortion and
racketeering.

Wendell Bartlow spoke in favor of this legislation. He feels annexation is
taxation without representation. Not one city can say that taxes will not
increase with annexation.

Bill Nichols, Attorney for the City of Meridian, spoke in opposition to this
legislation. He states further annexation legislation is unnecessary at this
time. He feels that reforms passed last year have not had a chance to
succeed or fail. A copy of Mr Nichols remarks is attached to these minutes
as “Attachment C”.

Nancy Merrill, Mayor of Eagle and legislative chair of the Association
of Idaho Cities, spoke in opposition to this legislation. She worked on the
interim committee that prepared the legislation that passed last year. She
is well aware of the concerns of the people being annexed and stated
annexation is not one of the fun things a city does. It is a method of going
forward and allowing people to be heard. She asked that the present
legislation be given a chance. She stated the issue of annexation is before
the court and the court will ultimately decide this issue.

Vern Alleman, spoke in favor of this legislation. He stated this legislation
involved private property rights and voting rights. It is important for that
reason.

Robert Kunesh, spoke in favor of this legislation. He stated the present
Idaho Code is long, involved, and complicated and contains unconstitutional
aspects of the one person – one vote principle, contained in both the Idaho
and U S Constitutions. He feels present law is weighted to the area of
ownership rather than to the landowner or voter.

He states Idaho is the only state in the union that abolishes property rights
and grants absolute power of involuntary annexation to cities without a vote
of the people.

David Cuoio spoke in favor of this legislation. He feels this legislation will
abolish forced annexation. Forced annexation is the wrong way to do the
right thing. He asked if this bill was something we could live with, and, if not,
what further needs to be done so the people asking for this legislation could
fix it.

John Eaton, Idaho Building Contractors Association, spoke in opposition
to this legislation. He felt that the way this legislation was written, five acre
subdivisions would have little chance of being annexed. One would have to
spend thousands of dollars to comply without any guarantee of success. He
felt that the annexation proposal requirements were too open ended and
would be extremely expensive to comply with.

He further felt the two-thirds requirement of those wishing to be annexed was
too high a bar and that there was no consideration for the amount of property
owned. This would wreak havoc with local planning. He did not understand
the requirement that no request would be effective after three (3) months
unless renewed in writing to the governing body. This would not be enough
time. He questions why there could only be one annexation request in any
six month period.

Mr Eaton cited some economic figures and stated his association was the
economic driver for the state. He sees several economic impacts to his
industry and to the state in sales tax, property tax and income tax. This
legislation would allow just a few individuals to stop growth and economic
development in Idaho. He felt this legislation would short circuit local
planning.

Rep Bieter brought up the point that the proper time to argue against
annexation is when an area is placed in an area of impact.

Margaret Crill spoke in favor of this legislation. She was in a situation
where the Planning and Zoning Commission was asked what benefits would
be received after annexation. The answer was they didn’t know, except a
library card, at least for a while. This legislation will require the city to state
when benefits would be provided.

Larry Break spoke in favor of this legislation. 37 years ago they bought their
property which was outside Nampa’s city limits. Since that time Nampa has
grown and many enclaved areas have grown up. They have been told that
enclaved property poses problems for fire departments, the sheriff and city
police. He does not believe this to be so. He feels a city uses dishonest and
foolish excuses to force annexation.

John Brewer, spoke in favor of this legislation. Mr Brewer has worked on
annexation legislation for several years and stated this issue is not only a
Boise issue, it is happening in other areas. His testimony is attached to
these minutes as “Attachment D”.

Alex Labeau, Idaho Association of Realtors, spoke in opposition to this
legislation. He worked on the interim committee during 2001 that brought
the compromise bill before the legislature in 2002 that was then enacted into
law. He stated only one annexation in every six months causes a problem
since there can be several annexations going on at one time. This is not
practical in larger cities. He felt this legislation would infringe on the right to
contract.

He questioned the fiscal note on the legislation. While there may be no
fiscal impact to the general fund, there undoubtedly would be a fiscal impact
to local entities. He asked the committee to hold this legislation in committee
and let the current law work.

Mark Butler, Eagle Chamber of Commerce and Land Use Planner, spoke
in opposition to this legislation. He stated that an urban growth boundary is
the same as an impact area. One gives up certain rights to be in urban
situations. He thinks everyone should be advised what these boundaries are
and what they mean. He stated cities needed to be able to plan and that
comprehensive plans are not only mandated by law, but are essential in that
planning process.

Garret Nancolas, Mayor of Caldwell, spoke in opposition to this legislation.
He stated he understands private property rights and knows full well that it
is an emotional issue. He stated there is value in being able to plan. He
thinks the legislation passed last year allows for planning and is good
legislation. This proposed legislation does not allow for planning.

Steve Ahrens, IACI, spoke in opposition to this legislation. He stated many
might wonder why a business association was interested in an annexation
issue. An effective annexation process is important in economic
development growth. That will never be more important than in our present
economic situation. The current law allows more information than every
before. He urges that H 274 be held in committee.

Scott Erskine, spoke in favor of this legislation. He stated a city uses sewer
service as a hammer. The city does not always have to provide sewer
service or even water service. They can and do enter into contracts with
other entities to provide this service. He thinks people should have the right
to vote on annexation.

Mark Pollot, Attorney, spoke to the committee at their February 26, meeting
and his remarks were attached to those minutes. Mr. Pollot is the Attorney
of record in the current annexation lawsuit filed against the State of Idaho.
Mr Pollot stated there were 28 other states that allowed people to vote on
annexation and they got along just fine. He also stated that a planner who
could not plan for contingencies was not a planner at all. He said it is
misreading to say you cannot be annexed unless you are subdivided.

In reference to the 90 day waiting period leaving one in limbo, currently it is
longer and is called the statute of limitations.

Mr Pollot asked if he might submit a written response to objections raised
in regards to the legislation. The chairman granted that request and that
response is attached to these minutes as “Attachment E”.

Cindy Ries, stated she and the people supporting Citizens for Annexation
Reform are not trying to stop annexation or development. In fact, voluntary
annexation is what happens about 90% of the time. This bill addresses the
other 10%. She feels with this legislation citizens will have a place at the
table and a decision in the annexation process.

She states the legislation on the books is not consensus legislation. They
tried working with the other members of the interim committee, but the other
representatives would not show up at meetings.

Rep Clark asked where in the bill it states “citizens will have”. Mrs Ries
conceded that exact terminology was not actually in the bill.

Rep Barrett closed the debate by stating this legislation will not destroy the
housing industry, nor will it hurt the state and it won’t kill cities. By and large,
no one really listens when they are holding the power to force annexations.
Why should they? Those with a vested interest always expect a catastrophe
and, invariably, misread the bill. She stated the only people left our of last
year’s legislation were residents of the area to be annexed. Constitutional
issues were raised by the opponents of the bill, but the bottom line is the
State can determine how annexations occur. I would urge you to sent H 274
to the floor with a Do Pass recommendation.

Rep Smylie lives in the area that started this annexation process. He stated
the annexation in 1999 was handled very badly by the city.

Rep Smylie stated he had four concerns with this legislation, the 3 month
window contained on line 26 of Page 2 and lines 37 – 40 on Page 2 referring
to not more than one territory shall be proposed for annexation in any six
month period. He felt this was artificial. Line 8, page 3 asking for twenty
percent of the number of voters in the last general election being able to
object, he feels is unfair and finally the three year waiting period between
annexations is excessive. School bond elections only require a six month
waiting period.

He asked Rep Barrett is she would be amenable to sending this legislation
to the amending order or if she preferred a yea or nay vote.

Rep Barrett stated she was merely the legislative sponsor of this bill and
would not make that decision without talking to the sponsors of the bill.

MOTION

Rep Eldridge stated he would not be voting for the substitute motion. He
felt it was too soon to take this as replacement legislation for that passed last
year, especially when he saw serious problems with this bill.

Rep Ringo stated she would be voting against the substitute motion. She
had a great deal of empathy with those being annexed, however, she had
some serious concerns with this legislation.

Rep Clark pointed out that motion called for a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the
committee members.

SUBSTITUTE
MOTION

3 AYE – Representatives Collins, Bradford and Barrett

6 NAY – Representatives Eskridge, Clark, Smylie, Miller, Bieter

and Ringo

6 AYE – Representatives Eskridge, Clark, Smylie, Miller, Bieter

and Ringo

3 NAY – Representatives Collins, Bradford and Barrett

EXCUSED:

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Barrett at 2:37 pm.

This agreement is entirely between the seller and buyer and is intended to
prevent someone from holding on to the TDR and keeping the property from
being developed.

Current legislation presumes the TDR is there in perpetuity and this
legislation is designed to allow the buyer and seller the right to determine the
length of time involved in the transfer.

Alex LaBeau, Idaho Association of Relators, supports this legislation. It
gives the seller the option to determine the length of time he wants on the
TDR.

Rep Bieter stated that we had been dealing with TDR legislation for the past
few years and wanted to know if it had really taken hold or if it even would.
Mr LaBeau stated this type of free market solution is only effective in certain
types of areas. He didn’t feel it would ever be too suitable for the Boise area,
but it was certainly suitable for Blaine county, primarily because of its
topography.

John Eaton, Building Contractors Association, supports this legislation.
He believes Blaine County is the first area to use this solution. He feels
TDR’s are the option that need to be in place for certain areas.

EXCUSED:

Chairman Barrett called the meeting to order at 3:07 pm

Phil Hart, Remington Water District in Athol, Idaho, stated his
organization had a need for this legislation. There are about five homeowner
associations in the area his water district serves, but none of them are
functioning. His district is in an area where there can be three to four feet of
snow and there is no snow removal by another agency. Without specific
authorization in the Idaho Code, a water user association is precluded from
removing snow to gain access to their facilities and assessing fees to cover
the cost.

Don Munkers, Idaho Rural Water Association, stated his association
supported this legislation.

EXCUSED:

Chairman Barrett called the meeting to order at 2:40 pm.

Dan Chadwick, Executive Director, Idaho Association of Counties,
explained the amendments that had been made to this legislation. The
legislation allows the public agency to negotiate with the collection agency
allowing for a contingent fee not to exceed thirty-three percent (33%) of the
unpaid debt per account. Some of the language in the legislation is taken
from the Idaho Code governing collection agencies.

Mr Chadwick explained that such debts may include ambulance service
fees, civil fines, solid waste services, prisoner reimbursement where the
inmate is not indigent, and other fees charged by such entities.