SLC C.S.H.B. 2349 75(R)BILL ANALYSIS LAND & RESOURCE MANAGEMENT C.S.H.B. 2349 By: Hamric 4-16-97 Committee Report (Substituted) BACKGROUND When the Legislature passed S.B. 14 (the "Takings Act") last session, it chose to exempt counties for two years. The exemption gave counties breathing room to see how the ground-breaking new law would work and how litigation would resolve various issues. At the same time that it gave counties a two-year exemption, the Legislature gave cities, which have much broader regulatory authority than counties, an almost complete permanent exemption. Two years later, the courts have not had time to resolve the lawsuits filed under the Act. There are unresolved issues, such as whether an adjacent landowner can sue based on damage to his property by an activity for which his neighbor received a permit. This issue could put a governmental entity in a Catch-22: If it denies the permit, the permit-seeker could sue, and if it grants the permit, the neighbor could sue, alleging effect on property values by location of the offensive land use. Meanwhile, a possible antidote to litigation -- the "loser pays" provision of the Act -- has been avoided by at least one creative plaintiff, who non-suited before judgment was entered, thus escaping the imposition of attorneys fees. Also, as a practical matter, it is often difficult to recover attorney's fees from a plaintiff who loses a case. In addition to the cost of fighting lawsuits, there are significant costs in conducting "Takings Impact Assessments," which the law requires governmental entities to perform before taking any action that might affect property values. Harris County estimates that, adding legal, engineering, and appraisal costs, it would spend $2,500-$5,000 per tract for a TIA. Considering that the county approved a total of 208 plats last year, and applying just the cost for a simple one-tract assessment per plat, the cost adds up to $520,000 to $1,040,000. A more costly example is Harris County's regulation prohibiting sexually oriented businesses from being within 1,500 feet of a church, school, park, or community center. Conducting a TIA on this regulation alone would cost the county between $5,382,500 and $10,765,000. Some argue putting counties under the Act reduces local control, because the high cost of a TIA could paralyze a county's ability to govern. PURPOSE The bill extends the exemption from the Takings Act for counties for two more years and also grants the exemption to political subdivisions for which the commissioners court is the governing body.. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency or institution. SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS SECTION 1. Amends Section 2007.003(d), Government Code, to extend the exemption from the "Takings Act" to counties and to political subdivisions for which the commissioners court is the governing body until September 1, 1999. SECTION 2. Effective date: September 1, 1997. SECTION 3. Emergency clause. COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL TO SUBSTITUTE CSHB 2349 is a legislative council draft and the original legislation was not, that is the only difference between the two.