local planning; grazing
protection
DPA |
Committee on Natural Resources and Agriculture |
|
|
DPA |
Caucus and COW |
|
|
X |
Third Read |
|
|
|
As Passed the House |
|
HB 2638 provides a method to determine whether compensation is due to a landowner whose land value has been affected by a county conservation plan.
HB 2638 was amended in the Natural Resources and Agriculture Committee to modify the water rights element and to clarify that the county cannot regulate or reduce existing agricultural activities conducted on five or more contiguous acres. The amendment also stipulates that one arbitrator will be used and states the county may also be liable for appraisal fees incurred as a result of a claim. States that a claimant who chooses binding arbitration is precluded from pursuing other legal remedies. Provides an effective date of May 1, 2002 for the provisions relating to claims against a county. The bill was amended in the Committee of the Whole with a substitute floor amendment that removed the provisions of the bill relating to the water and grazing elements of city and county plans. In addition the amendment clarifies that the prevailing party may be liable for costs associated with the arbitration and the county has thirty business days to respond to a claim.
Cities are required to adopt a general plan which is a municipal statement of land development policies that outlines the principals and standards for local growth. Each county board of supervisors is required to adopt a comprehensive long-term county plan. The plans may include maps, charts or graphs. The process for drafting, approval and administration of a city general plan is outlined in statute under Title 9, and the requirements for a county comprehensive plan are outlined in statute in Title 11.
§ Provides that if a county adopts a conservation regulation relating to a “biological preserve” or a “conservation lands system” that causes a reduction in the use or exchange value of real property of ten percent or greater, the property owner may request compensation. The property owner must initiate proceedings within 60 days after the county adopts the regulation, by serving the board of supervisors with a notice of claim by certified mail.
§ Outlines a process for arbitration to remedy a complaint filed by a landowner. Requires the arbitration process to follow the American Arbitration Association rules, and current Arizona law that addresses arbitration. The arbitration process will determine the status of the claimant’s interest in the property; whether the county regulation has reduced the property value; and if necessary, the compensation due to the claimant. Provides that the prevailing party in the arbitration is eligible for reimbursement for the cost of arbitration. This includes attorney fees and appraisal fees.
§ If the property owner has been affected by the county regulation, establishes the amount of compensation as the greater of either: 1) the reduction in the fair market value of the property, or 2) the total amount of taxes and special assessments, including interest, levied against the property while owned by the claimant.
§ Provides an effective date of May 1, 2002 for those provisions that require a county to compensate a land owner whose use or value of land is affected by the adoption of a county regulation related to a biological preserve or conservation lands system.
§ Provides that only those county regulations related to conservation are affected by the bill.
§
Authorizes a property owner who believes the use or
value of the land has been affected by a conservation regulation to require the
county to either settle the matter within 30 business days or participate in
binding arbitration.
§ States that a claimant who elects binding arbitration is precluded from pursuing other administrative and judicial remedies
§ Makes technical and conforming changes.
HB 2638 was amended
in the Natural Resources and Agriculture Committee as follows:
§ Rewrites language that would have required the water resource element of a city or county plan to recognize and protect existing surface water and groundwater rights. Instead, the bill requires a city or county plan to recognize existing water rights, and prohibits any reduction in continued use of existing surface water and groundwater rights.
§ Clarifies that a city or county plan cannot regulate or reduce existing grazing or general agricultural activities if those activities are conducted on 5 or more contiguous acres of private, state or federal land.
§ Requires cities and counties to provide a process for a landowner to resolve disputes regarding designation of private or state trust land as open space.
§ Provides an effective date of May 1, 2002 for those provisions that require a county to compensate a land owner whose use or value of land is affected by the adoption of a county regulation related to a biological preserve or conservation lands system.
§ Clarifies that regulations affected by this bill are those that are related to conservation regulations only.
§ Authorizes a property owner who believes the use or value of the land has been affected by a conservation regulation to require the county to either settle the matter within 30 days or participate in binding arbitration.
§ Requires one arbitrator, rather than three, to remedy a complaint filed by a landowner.
§ Requires the arbitration process to follow the American Arbitration Association rules.
§ Provides that the county may be liable for appraisal fees, in addition to a landowner’s arbitration fees, if the landowner prevails in the claim against the county.
§ States that a claimant who elects binding arbitration is precluded from pursuing other legal remedies.
HB 2638 was amended
in the Committee of the Whole as follows:
§
Deletes the first fourteen pages of the bill relating
to the water and grazing elements of city and county plans.
§
Incorporates the Natural Resources and Agriculture
Committee amendment relating to the remaining section of the bill.
§ Prescribes that current Arizona law regarding arbitration will be used in the dispute resolution process. (Title 12, Chapter 9, Article 1)
§ Allows the county thirty business days to respond to a claimant.
§ Provides that the prevailing party in the arbitration is eligible for reimbursement for the cost of arbitration. This includes attorney fees and appraisal fees.
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------
45th Legislature
Second Regular Session 3 April 4, 2002
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------