Debate Transcripts

LB 490 (1995)

Select File

April 27, 1995

SPEAKER WITHEM: You've heard the motion. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. It is advanced. I don't ... apologize to the folks in the balcony if this is repetitive, but I found a note up here, I don't think I've introduced the guests of Senator Schmitt, 26 seventh and eighth graders from Elba High School with their teacher. They're in the north balcony. Would you please rise, or rise again, as the case may be. LB 490, Mr. Clerk.

CLERK: The first item, Mr. President, Enrollment and Review amendments.

SENATOR MAURSTAD: Mr. President, I'd move to adopt the Enrollment and Review amendments to LB 490.

SPEAKER WITHEM: You've heard the motion. All in favor say aye. Opposed. They are adopted. Mr. Clerk, first amendment.

CLERK: Senator Kristensen would move to amend with AM1609, Mr. President. (Amendment may be found on page 1644 of the Legislative Journal.)

SPEAKER WITHEM: Senator Kristensen, with AM1609.

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members of the Legislature. What I've done with LB 490 is, and I have two amendments here this afternoon, and I took what our discussion was at the last stage of debate and have tried to attempt to make some of those changes. I put them in two different amendments. And the purpose is the first one is just easier ... that's stuff that I took right off debate. The second amendment I'm going to have today has a lot of harmonization in it and a few changes in harmonization, so I wanted to try to separate the two so it's easier to explain. First of all, in the Journal you'll see this particular amendment, it's not particularly long. But I think, Senator Hall, you had some questions the last time we debated about the removal of a county assessor or a deputy assessor about what sort of process that would be. And so what I did was went back and looked at Section 77-425, which is the procedure that's currently in law. And so .7 put that in there in terms of ... that you're going to have rules and regulations if somebody willfully, and that's where this comes from, if they willfully fail or refuse to

5706

comply with the orders, then you have to have a hearing. you have to have notice, after you've had notice there's a procedure for how that occurs. Then there's an appeal process. And I took that directly out of the statutes that we have existing right now for that procedure to be done. I think Senator Hall also had a question about the removal of a commissioner, about could we do that. So the second... also what I did was take that out, use the same misfeasance, malfeasance or willful neglect of duty. Also did it with a notice and hearing, and they've got their usual appeal rights to that as well. Someone else, and I believe it was Senator Lynch and maybe a couple of other senators had a could of questions about, well what happens if we have, you know, a small change here or there? Could this commission get out of hand and order reevaluation for the whole county? And we had the discussion about, could a small violation result in the... a countywide reevaluation? To address that concern I've got an amendment, part of it here, that says if no other relief is adequate to resolve the dispute and the relief is not excessive compared to the problems to be addressed. So it's a comparative to what the problem is. And, for example, if somebody comes in and says, my house is too high, it's at 110 percent of valuation, you know the appropriate remedy may well be to take them down below the 100 percent and not necessarily make the county go through the entire process. And then to that extent also is the next one on page 11, line 9, the commission may issue decisions and orders which are supported by the evidence and appropriate for resolving the the matters in dispute. That was attempted to take care of the fear that, well they're going to go and take some small case and make a huge issue out of it and get carried away. What I wanted to do was try to put that restriction in there, tighten that up a little bit that they're going to decide what's before them that's supported by the evidence, and then resolve the matters in dispute. Also, what I did was for the removal of the property tax administrator, there was some concern about that he or she could not be removed. I put those in there again that they could be removed for misfeasance, malfeasance or willful neglect of duty after a notice of hearing, that is similar to current law that we have in other areas. Finally the concern about, well what happens if there is 10,000 protests? Right now if you go to district court with your appeal on valuation and so on, you're going to have to pay a filing fee of over $50. So what I did was take less than half of that and put a $25 filing fee, that goes into the General Fund, it doesn't go to a separate Cash Fund, goes to the General Fund. And so if there's

5707

a huge mountain of appeals that's the process that we're going to basically be able to pay, and that will be the regulator. So if there's a lot more appeals, you're going to take in these small filing fees that will help take care of that processing. And if there aren't many appeals, there won't be that much money coming in, and that's sort of the regulator that needs to be done. Now that's this first amendment, Mr. Speaker. I'd be happy to answer any other questions, but I do have another amendment that's more of a harmonization and would deal with the issues that Senator Bromm had raised about centrally assessed property and the equalization of that. That's in the next amendment, Senator Bromm, if you were wondering where your questions were at to be answered. With that, I'd be happy to try to address any questions about this part of the amendment. I also would point out, I believe, that Senator Vrtiska and I had some discussion about the compensation for the individuals here. He has an amendment that's to come that I have no problem with that reduces that compensation. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

SPEAKER WITHEM: Senator Hall.

SENATOR HALL: Thank you, Mr. President, members. Senator Kristensen, I have a number of questions in regard to the amendment. And I do appreciate your willingness to address those concerns, but I still have questions with regard to, and I apologize because I did not think we would get to this bill today, so I knew you had printed the amendments, but I had riot worked them out on the copy, as I understand it, that we're working from. And correct me if I'm wrong, is it AM1673, Senator Kristensen, that we are amending?

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: No, 1673 is the next one that's coming up.

SENATOR HALL: Okay, so we are working off of the committee amendments, is that it?

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: You'll work off the green copy and the committee amendments.

SENATOR HALL: Okay. And we're dealing here with AM1609,...

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: Yes.

SENATOR HALL: ... as it would amend the E & R amendments, which

5708

are the green copy and the committee amendments? Is that right?

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: I don't know that the E & R amendments are ... are ... they're not a white copy, I think they're just separate additions. You're still going to have to make some reference to the green copy and to the committee amendments.

SENATOR HALL: Okay. Then be patient with me, if you will....

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: Oh, sure.

SENATOR HALL: ... because I apologize. Again, I did not think that we would get this far down the agenda. The issue ... the first question I have is in Section 14 as it's found as a new section on this amendment.

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: Right.

SENATOR HALL: And we're talking about a $25 filing fee.

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: Yes.

SENATOR HALL: That's a new issue?

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: Yes.

SENATOR HALL: And why are we charging folks $25 to complain about their taxes?

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: Well, again, let's make sure that we characterize that correctly. If they want to complain, they have three areas to go to. The first is they go back to their local assessor.

SENATOR HALL: Right.

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: That costs them nothing.

SENATOR HALL: Right.

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: They can also file a protest with their county board of equalization, because you got to go there before you can got to the commission. That's a free protest or free complaint. This commission basically is replacing their district court. If they had to go to the district court they'd

5709

pay, what, $56, plus service fees and those sorts of things. This is a little less than half of that, and this was designed to generate the money. If there were a flood of protests, this goes to pay for those masters. And this is the regulator if there's, in one year, a huge amount of protests and the next year there's not very many, people didn't want to appropriate a lot of money that just was setting out there.

SENATOR HALL: But the ability for that taxpayer to go to the court after this process is not stripped away, is it? court

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: They have an appeal process, Senator Hall,

SENATOR HALL: Right.

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: ... they go from here to the Court of Appeals, and they can ... that's their access to the court system to do that.

SENATOR HALL: Correct, so they could still have those same or similar court costs, is that not...

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: Well, you won't have the filing fee...

SENATOR HALL: You won't have the filing fee because you're at the appeal level.

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: Right, yes. You may have the transcript fees, but those are...those are going to happen, you know, with any ... with any review, whether administrative or not.

SENATOR HALL: Well, I guess my question is, is the 25 fee an arbitrary figure, $25 fee, or is it ...

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: I ... there's ... there's no magic, Senator Hall. What I did with that was I basically said, look, if...for the average person you tell them it costs them a little over 56 bucks, I just cut it in half.

SENATOR HALL: And we don't ... we General Fund it, we don't Cash Fund it?

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: Well, right, right, it's a credit into the General Fund.

5710

SENATOR HALL: okay. The...I just want to point out ... point out, and I appreciate you did address that. But I want to point out that it is... it's an additional charge that we're putting in this new system that we're putting in place, and I understand it, I (inaudible) ...

SPEAKER WITHEM: One minute.

SENATOR HALL: ... the rationale for it makes sense in light that it basically does take the... I guess the place of the trial court, if you will. My real question goes back to the two items that I raised in the original green copy of the bill when we were on General File. And they go back to the issue of the commission having the ability to remove the assessor. And in this amendment you allow for not only the assessor, but ... or deputy assessor to be removed from office. Our ... do we have deputy assessors that are elected officials?

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: No.

SENATOR HALL: Is there a reason we're going beyond the elected official, well, I mean don't the deputies work at the pleasure of the assessor?

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: Yes, well, no, not at the pleasure necessarily. But the reason I did that, Senator Hall, was that I wanted to make it as close to what the existing law is today. And so I ... if you'll look on page 37 of the green copy you'll see the existing law that's there to remove assessors now, and they ... they access the term assessor, deputy assessor. Deputy assessor, as you know, also can act, if there's not an assessor, they can be the acting one. They also can be appointed to take care of certain ministerial duties, in other words the assessor says, look, you're in charge of this division and they're in charge of doing that particular operation. But the reason it's in there isn't to expand it, it's to make it as close to what existing law is today.

SENATOR HALL: But...

SPEAKER WITHEM: Senator Hall, just to point out, you're about 45 seconds into your next five minutes. I didn't interrupt you there when you were discussing.

5711

SENATOR HALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The issue, and I appreciate that. Senator Kristensen, if we could just continue this...

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: Sure.

SENATOR HALL: ... because my concern is, what about the ... will the Commission then have the ability, because I'm thinking of a deputy assessor who would have, I guess, be protected under a county civil service system. And I ... because for the most part the assessor will be the elected official, and they'll come into office and there may be, as you stated, there may be more than one deputy assessor, there could be a couple of them that would head up various divisions, and I'm thinking of in Douglas County, because that's where I'm somewhat familiar. But I'm just curious, if we're going to allow the commission.... I can understand the elected official being removed. I don't... I'm still not, wild about it, but I think the way you're changed the provisions to allow for the hearing, the appeal process and things like that, that weren't in the original proposal, I think it makes more sense. But I'm still... I still have a real question about expanding it to the deputy assessor. And I guess is the commission...

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: Can I help you with that a little?

SENATOR HALL: ... is it ... well, okay, that would be fine because, is the commission going to deal with the deputy assessors, or will they deal with the...

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: Well, they...

SENATOR HALL: ... county assessor?

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: ... they may, Senator Hall. The reason that you include the deputy as well is that we certificate from the Department of Revenue assessors and deputy assessors. That certificate is their authority to do what they do. Now that's opposed to the clerical people that maybe will be in an individual assessor's office. And so you do this because that's the remedy. When you send an order back to the county, you're probably going to order the assessor to do something, but in affect it's the deputy assessor who's in charge of that particular division or doing that operation.

5712

SENATOR HALL: But isn't it... isn't it the county assessor who's responsible...

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: Well, the county assessor is obviously...

SENATOR HALL: ... for his or her office?

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: ... ultimately the voters, I think that's probably correct. Do I envision this... I mean I can't tell you the history of how often, if they've ever removed a deputy assessor. I don't even know that there's ever even been an assessor who had their certificate removed under the current law.

SENATOR HALL: Well they're not real tough to get. We sent somebody down to take the test once and it wasn't real difficult but...

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: Did Senator Will pass that test or...

SENATOR HALL: No, it wasn't Senator Will, it was Mr. Erickson at that time. Senator Will was on ... off to other things. But it was another employee of mine, you're right. The concern in, I guess, Doug, if it's the... if ... would the county assessor have the ability to basically tell the deputy assessor, no, it's your fault, you're the one that's going to have your certificate removed, not me. And I guess if you're telling me that that's not a problem right now because it's never been done, but it's a concern I raise if the deputy serves at the pleasure of county assessor, he tells the (inaudible) ...

SPEAKER WITHEM: One minute.

SENATOR HALL: ... the problems lies with this deputy assessor, I'll remove the deputy assessor, therefore the problem goes away. I mean is there the ability for the blame to be passed down the road by the assessor who, in effect, can then circumvent the will of the commission?

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: But follow this scenario, an order is given for the assessor to do something, the assessor says, no, I'm not going to do it. You take his certificate. Well, before there's anybody ever replaced, who's in charge? It's the ... the only one else that can operate is the deputy assessor with a certificate. And the deputy assessor says, no way, I'm not going to do it.

5713

What's your remedy? Your remedy is to take that certificate. If there is nobody left with a certificate obviously then there's ... you know, it's going down that process of a remedy.

SENATOR HALL: Well,...

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: I suppose you could fashion a scenario in either direction, but that would be my guess as to why we have it that way.

SENATOR HALL: Yeah but that plays to the argument that the county board is not going to get involved at all in this process somewhere along the line, too.

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: Yeah, but you see there may be (inaudible) they can't do that with.

SPEAKER WITHEM: Time, but, Senator Hall, you're recognized once again.

SENATOR HALL: Thank you, Mr. President, members. Senator Kristensen, go ahead, I'm...

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: Well I think there may be certain orders. You know obviously the county board can't do certain functions of the assessor. And so as much as the county board would like to get involved and maybe politically they would...

SENATOR HALL: Well, to your example that the county assessor is going to be removed, I think the board would be involved.

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: Well,...

SENATOR HALL: I mean I would guess that they would have to be replaced, and usually it's a group of county officials who make those appointments when there's a vacancy, usually involves...

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: Right, board (inaudible).

SENATOR HALL: ... members of the board, possibly a county attorney, you know, it might be the county clerk.

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: It depends on who's... it's going to be the board, unless it's a member of the board and then that's...

5714

SENATOR HALL: Right.

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: ... that's when the county attorney and the court and the treasurer get involved.

SENATOR HALL: Right, when there's county officials that are involved, that's ... when vacancies occur, that's what happens. I'll ... I'll, I guess, agree to that issue. But I raise it as a concern, and I see it as a problem, hopefully it won't be. The issue of the five years and not being able to run for office, is that new language?

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: No, I took that right out of the existing law.

SENATOR HALL: But is it new language in this bill?

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: Well, it's new ... what I did with ... yes, it is new language to the bill, and the reason it's in there is that I copied it from what the existing law is with assessors and deputy assessors right now.

SENATOR HALL: So in other words right now ill' a person is removed from office they're not eligible for up to five years.

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: Right.

SENATOR HALL: And that's for the deputy as well as the...

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: Yeah, whoever ... whoever is ... yes, would vote ... yes.

SENATOR HALL: Do we declare that the deputy assessor to be, is it an office that's spelled out? I guess my conc...

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: You know, that's one 1 don't know, Senator Hall.

SENATOR HALL: And that's my problem,...

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: I don't know.

SENATOR HALL: ... is it an office that, you know, what is ... what is ... who declares the deputies? The county assessor does...

5715

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: Well ....

SENATOR HALL: ... I can understand saying that the county assessor cannot hold the office for five years. But why are we penalizing the deputy who again could just be acting under the order of their supervisor, that being the county assessor. You're saying that this individual cannot hold that job for five years, even though it's not an elected position.

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: Well, if they're lost their certificate, that's... I mean that's the penalty for losing your certificate.

SENATOR HALL: So in other words there's no ability to retain that or regain that certificate for five years?

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: Well, see what used to happen was that, or at least was envisioned when I was doing it, that you'd take somebody's certificate, end it you didn't place some period of ineligibility, the county board would turn around the next week and say, oh, you're appointed back again.

SENATOR HALL: And I understand that, but...

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: And that's the game that got played.

SENATOR HALL: ... there's a big difference between a week and five years. And I'm thinking about somebody who may have served in this capacity for a number of years and has no, really, other option for employment. I'm just...I'm concerned about the five-year time frame. When you remove it ... you don't make them eligible. It doesn't say here that their certificate is necessarily removed for five years, it says that they will not be eligible to hold that office for a period of five years.

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: I'm sorry, Senator Hall, I was discussing the matter...

SENATOR HALL: No, that's fine, and I apologize. I...the question is, we don't say that the individual has lost their certificate for five years, we say that if they lose the certificate, for no matter what the time period is, that they aren't eligible to hold the office for a period of five years. So in other words, their certificate could be reinstated, but yet under this we don't allow them to hold the office.

5716

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: Well, the office of the assessor, that's correct.

SENATOR HALL: Well, okay, and that's my point is that the assessor or the deputy assessor.

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: Well ... and I'm looking at ... well, I guess I could look at either language. But what it's saying is that if that person is not eligible to hold that office, now the office... the only office that we're talking about is the assessor, that's the elected office.

SENATOR WESELY PRESIDING

SENATOR WESELY: One minute.

SENATOR HALL: So I'm the deputy assessor, my certificate is removed, and then it's reinstated a year later. Okay. I couldn't run ... the vac ... the seat or the office of county assessor is vacated because the individual retired. I would not be eligible to run for that office, even though my certificate had been reinstated, for five years?

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: I don't know the exact answer to that. I don't know that there's ever been a ruling or an interpretation of that. My plain reading of it, Senator Hall, is that's probably right.

SENATOR HALL: Is that what we want to do, and if so why?

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: Well,

SENATOR HALL: Because I agree with the plain reading, that's how I read it, I mean...

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: My response to you is that this isn't a new concept in law. What I'm doing is trying to accommodate and say, look, if we want to basically have the same powers, this commission needs the same powers that the ... that was available to the commissioners before, and you're trying to copy the same powers. What I'm trying to do is get a transition here to this board. So I give them as near identical powers as I can. As to why the law was originally put in, I don't know, we could probably look up the legislative history to that. I'm just saying that it's not like I'm creating something new. To the

5717

extent that that may be poor policy, that poor policy is existing law today.

SENATOR WESELY: Time.

SENATOR HALL: Senator Kristensen, I appreciate that.

SENATOR WESELY: Time. Thank you, Senator Hall. Before we go on to the next speaker, I'd like to recognize, in the north balcony, guests of Senator Beutler. Thirty-four fourth graders from Blessed Sacrament with their teacher. Would you please rise and welcome. Well, they were just up there. Senator Will, you're the next speaker.

SENATOR WILL: Yes, thank you, Senator Wesely. I'd yield my time to Senator Hall.

SENATOR WESELY: Senator Hall.

SENATOR HALL: Thank you, Mr. President, members. Thank you, Senator Will. Senator Kristensen, I appreciate that. If it's poor policy today, why do we duplicate it, I guess, in this proposal? And it's not my point that it's poor policy, it's just that why do we drag the deputy assessor in, and why do we use a period ... a time frame of five years that would basically be a ban from serving in that capacity, even though it's possible that an individual would have their certificate reinstated? And I guess that's a concern for me in terms of is it whether it's current policy or not, it makes no difference. We're basically restating it and try... and readopting it in this proposal. So it's open to, I guess, discussion at a minimum, and I would argue defense of why we're doing it. I mean it clearly tells me that we could have someone who has every ability and it meets every requirement to hold the office, but because of a provision in law we're not going to allow them to do that, because of the time period that we spell out that may or may not, depending on their situation, had any impact on them other than following the direct orders of their supervisor. That raises. a concern for me. Can you... I mean is there... I understand that it was ... that it's, you know, as close to existing law as it could be drafted. But is there any ability to sit down and take a look at the issue of the five year time frame as long as the certificate has not been reinstated?

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: Oh, I don't see why not. I guess I'm ... you

5718

know that's one of those policy issues that if we want to go back and change the policy for all of those...

SENA TOR HALL: Well, we're changing the policy right now. I mean this bill is complete...

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: No, I'm not, I don't think.

SENATOR HALL: Well, I would argue that it's complete, if that's not the case then what's the need for the bill?

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: Well, if the purpose for the change was to accommodate your concern...

SENATOR HALL: No, I'm talking about the underlying measure.

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: ... I can take that out real quick.

SENATOR HALL: Well, I'm talking about the underlying ... that's fine, we can talk about it all afternoon. I'm talking about the underlying measure. And my question is this, the argument is somehow it's not a change, that it's as close to existing law as possible. I just need to know why we have existing law the way it is and why this proposal is drafted the way it is? It's a simple question, and again I apologize that I didn't think we'd get this far today, and I would like to have been better prepared and sat down with you off the floor and talked about these. And I appreciate your willingness to address some of .,these concerns. I just don't know that they completely do that, that's the reason for my question. I go on, there's other provisions in the amendment that deal with the, as I remember, the green copy of the bill, there was one other area that I had a ... really those were the only two questions I had.

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: I think you also ... my notes show that you had a question about removing the property tax administrator. That would be the last part...

SENATOR HALL: And you've addressed that, and I think that's...

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: That's the same-what I did...

SENATOR HALL: And I support... I have no problem with that, I support that portion of this amendment. And I very much appreciate that effort. I think the other area that I had a

5719

concern, with dealt with the ability of the commission, and I'm trying to think, on reassessing a class or subdivision of a class.

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: Okay. I lump...

SENATOR WESELY: One minute

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: I lump that into the ... what I call sort of the proportionality of the remedy amendment. In other words, if you had a small ... and maybe I'm wrong. But one of the questions I think (inaudible) ...

SENATOR HALL: Is that the subsequent amendment that's coming up?

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: No, that's part here...

SENATOR HALL: Okay, could you point to that.

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: ... and it goes to, I think you said if you had to make a small change in a subclass, or that was the only problem, could they go ahead and do the whole county and thus invoke all that expense for the entire count. And that's the reason I put it in and talked about that relief is adequate to resolve the dispute and not excessive compared to the problems to be addressed.

SENATOR HALL: Okay, can you walk me through that in relation to the green copy or the committee amendments, which ever one we're working from here, for purposes of... let's ... so I can see how it's going to read.

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: Okay, if you go to the committee amendments and...

SENATOR WESELY: Time, sorry. Senator Lindsay, you're next.

SENATOR LINDSAY: Thank you, Mr. President. I would yield to Senator Hall, if he needs the time.

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: Senator Hall.

SENATOR HALL: Thank you, Mr. President and members. Thank you, Senator Lindsay. Senator Kristensen, could we continue?

5720

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: Yes. If you go to the committee amendments and you will look on line 11,...

SENATOR HALL: Correct.

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: ... of the committee amendment.

SENATOR HALL: Correct.

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: And before the period on line 11, which says, "subclass within a county", and then it goes period.

SENATOR HALL: Right.

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: Then you add the new language, "if no other relief is adequate to resolve the dispute and the relief is not excessive compared to the problems to be addressed".

SENATOR HALL: So in total it would read as...

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: It would be that whole sentence in the start of Section 18...

SENATOR HALL: "In resolving a contested case, a commission order a reappraisal of property within a county, an area within a county, or classes or subclasses within a county, if no other relief is adequate to resolve..."

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: Yes, right. And then the other thing that I did was if you'll see on the printed amendment that I have, one line... it goes on page 11, that's page 11 of the green copy....

SENATOR HALL: Okay, just a mi .... All right.

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: And then you go to line 9 on that one,...

SENATOR HALL: Right.

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: ... which is basically that ... that section has been renumbered, so I think it's Section 19 now, but I'm not sure, but it's 17 in the green copy. You add the sentence, "the commission may issue decisions and orders which are supported by the evidence and appropriate for resolving the matters in

5721

dispute". And the reason that that's in there, that language basically says, look, you're going to just ... you're only going to make those rulings based on what the evidence is given to you and try to give a decision or an order that's appropriate for resolving that particular matter that's in dispute. The fear, I think, that a lot of people ... well, not a lot, but that some people had was that somebody would get carried away and become a mad commission and take ...

SENATOR HALL: Right.

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: ... one homeowner and do the whole county.

SENATOR HALL: Sure.

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: So that tightens it up, I think.

SENATOR HALL: Okay. Can we go back, and I don't have any problem with the second portion of that, subsection 3 of the amendment that we're on,...

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: Okay.

SENATOR HALL: ... that would address the new Section 19.

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: Okay.

SENATOR HALL: Can we go back to the first half where we're back on Section 18 of the committee amendments?

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: Sure.

SENATOR HALL: All right. And can you walk me through that again, just so ... and I'm trying to make sure that I...

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: Okay. In resolving a contested case,...

SENATOR HALL: Right.

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: ... okay, so that means one that's got to be before the commission, and the commission may order a reappraisal of property within a county. Okay. So that could be ... that's the ... that's the "biggie" 'that could be the entire county if there's a problem there; an area within a county. Now that well could be a neighborhood, or classes or subclasses, for

5722

example, if residential is out of whack with ag land,...

SENATOR HALL: Would you accept. . I know what I need in orderwould you accept the addition of the term "only" to start out your amendment?

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: Well, but if I do ... well, I might. But if ,I do "only" doesn't that qualify this and say that you can do all those other things?

SENATOR HALL: Well, that's the point I want to get to.

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: See, I'm not sure you want to put that in, if I were you, but...

SENATOR HALL: Well, I would...

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: ... maybe.

SENATOR HALL: ... if I could put "only" and then move this to the front of the paragraph, in other words move this new language so that it would read, "only if no other relief is adequate to resolve a dispute and the relief is not excessive compared to the problem to be addressed, the commission may order a reappraisal in a contested case of property within a county, an area within a county or classes or subclasses within a county."

SENATOR KRISTENSEN: I'll look at that.

SENATOR HALL: I think it's just a redrafting to clarify, because I don't have a problem, I appreciate.... I agree with the amendment, I just wonder if there isn't a better, a little clearer way to say it, because my concern is that are we qualifying...

SENATOR WESELY: Half minute.

SENATOR HALL: ... the first half, and we made it clear that the amendment, as you offer it in the first half, does address the contested case issue that the commission would be allowed to reappraise subclasses and complete classes of ... within A county. And I think it can be done real quickly. But I'll work on that.

It doesn't appear that there's a lot of other lights on here this afternoon, Senator Kristensen, so I apologize.

5723

SENATOR WESELY: Time, Senator Hall. I've discussed with the Speaker that we were to move to the resolutions at two-fifteen. We went a little longer, but I guess we 111 now move of f of LB 490 and move on to LR 96. Senator Fisher, we call on you -to open on LR 96.

5724