Committee Meeting Information

November 13 & 14, 2007

University of Wyoming Outreach Center

Casper, Wyoming

 

Committee Members Present

Senator Cale Case, Co-Chairman

Representative Pete Illoway, Co-Chairman

Senator Ken Decaria

Senator Stan Cooper

Senator Grant Larson

Senator Charlie Scott

Representative Kermit Brown

Representative Mary Gilmore

Representative Marty Martin

Representative Saundra Meyer

Representative David Miller

Representative Lorraine Quarberg

Representative Tom Walsh

Representative Dan Zwonitzer

 

Legislative Service Office Staff

Lynda Cook, Staff Attorney

 

Others Present at Meeting

Senate President John Schiffer

Representative Mary Hales

Representative Tom Lockhart

Representative Monte Olsen

Please refer to Appendix 1 to review the Committee Sign-in Sheet
for a list of other individuals who attended the meeting.

 

Joint Corporations Interim Committee Meeting Summary (November 13 & 14, 2007)

 

The Joint Corporations, Elections and Political Subdivisions Interim Committee met in Casper to consider the legislation concerning election reform, campaign finance limitations, special district election laws, and business friendly versus fraud friendly statutes.  The committee also considered legislation relating to the subdivision statutes.   The committee received a report on a poll taken and also considered legislation regarding the authority of the real estate commission.

 

Call To Order

Co-Chairman Illoway called the meeting to order at 8:00 am.  The following sections summarize the Committee proceedings by topic.   Please see the Agenda for details. (Appendix 2).

 

approval of minutes

The committee approved the minutes of the July, 2007 meeting. 

 

Special District Issues

 

08 LSO 0026.C1 – Special district elections.  (Appendix 3).

 

LSO staff explained that the bill had been approved at the July meeting.  It also was brought to their attention that provisions alleviating the mapping requirements on special districts that do not levy taxes was approved at the May meeting but did not get included in the bill at the July meeting.  Brenda Arnold, Laramie County Assessor, testified in support of the amendment.  The committee moved to reconsider the bill.  The amendment was adopted (Appendix 4).

 

The bill passed (Case opposed).

 

Real Estate Commission

 

08 LSO 0093.W1 – Real estate commission.  (Appendix  5)

 

The bill corrects a citation in the real estate license act to include provisions that were intended within the definition of the act.  Steven Beazley, Wyo. Association of Realtors, testified in support of the bill.

 

The bill passed unanimously.

 

Wyoming Conservation and Ranching Poll Results

 

Jim Magagna, Stockgrowers Association introduced Diana Holm with the Ruckelshaus Institute provided a presentation regarding a statewide survey about conservation issues.  (Appendix 6).  A poll was taken in 2004 and again in 2007.  The poll was initiated by the  Ruckelshaus Institute, the Wyoming Stockgrowers Association and the Nature Conservancy.  The results show that voters are very positive about the direction of the state and the numbers have increased since 2004.  The poll showed that voters are concerned with conservation and resource issues.  The presenters discussed how the poll showed that the majority of respondents support the wildlife and natural resources trust fund.  The poll also showed that there was support for assessment of impact fees on development. 

 

The committee discussed the lack of comparison with other issues that may be more important to voters.  The committee asked for a list of the questions asked.

 

Subdivisions

 

08 LSO 0029.W2 – Subdivisions – development.  (Appendix 7)

 

Joe Evans, County Commissioners Association, and Kent Connelly, Lincoln County Commissioner, presented the bill.  The bill allows for county commissioners to regulate conservation design processes.  Mr. Evans asked the committee to separate the conservation design process provisions into a separate bill.  The other provisions which deal with requirements for a homeowners association and definitions of "sale" would stand better on their own.

 

Mr. Evans testified that the bill is now more complicated because it requires the same information on water and sewer systems that are required on less than 35 acre parcels.  He testified that the bill appears to leave out financial requirements and documentation of transfer of water rights.

 

He proposed that page 6-line 4 through Page 18-line 3 be separated.  He testified that the definition of sale in this bill is problematic.  He is concerned that the definition puts more pressure on commissioners to approve a subdivision if some of the lots already have earnest money deposits on them.  He also expressed concern about including water systems for irrigation and stock water in the definition of water supply systems.  He agreed that irrigation systems should be reviewed but they should go through a separate review process.  Mr. Evans suggested that the problems this provision tries to solve are already addressed in statute.  The problem is with enforcement.

 

There was discussion about the provision allowing requirements for homeowners association.  Mr. Evans testified that county commissioners have no problem with this provision except they do not want to be involved in any mediation regarding those associations.  There was discussion about the problems with home owners associations creating themselves as special districts and using the county to collect taxes.  There was discussion on how the bill forces homeowners associations to go through arbitration before going to court – but it does not mandatorily involve the commissioners.  Mr. Evans also testified regarding the provision of impact fees and how this bill does not address those.  Mr. Evans testified that there is little incentive to go through the cluster development process because the bill picked up all the requirements for water and sewer systems that are currently required for less than 35 acres parcels.

 

Jeanne Leske, landowner, testified about her concerns regarding development.  She provided an advertisement in the USA Today newspaper promoting the sale of 40 acre homesteads in Wyoming.  She is concerned about lack of water and sprawl.  She stated she does not like the cluster development provisions of the bill but she supports open space. 

 

Steve Beazley, Wyo. Association of Realtors, testified in support of the cluster development provisions of the bill.  He expressed concern that the bill tries to do too much.  He is uncomfortable with the homeowners' association provisions of the bill.  He stated strong support for the definition of sale on page 19 of the bill. 

 

Mark Kott, Sweetwater county planner, testified in support of the cluster development portion of the bill and that it should be separated from the rest of the bill.  He testified that he would like to see a provision stating that these are minimum provisions and counties can add to them, similar to W.S. 18-5-315.   He testified in support of the homeowner association provisions.  He noted that the term should be property owners association instead to deal with industrial developments as well.  He expressed concern about the definition of sale in the bill.  He agreed that allowing receipt of interest money before the review of the plat puts too much pressure on the county commissioners. 

 

Brenda Arnold, Laramie County Assessor, testified that the current statutes do not preclude the ability of a county to approve cluster developments.  She is supportive of the open space concepts.  She thinks you can just incorporate the idea into the current Article 3.  That would ensure that those lots were required to have all the same provisions.   She did express concerns about the tax consequences of the open space area.  She asked that the bill not include the language on Page 4-lines 12 through 17.  She noted that she does support the language in the large acre subdivision bill.  She also testified in opposition to the definition of sale.  She noted that W.S. 34-12-115 prohibits the sale of land that isn’t platted.  She is concerned that provision is conflicting.  She noted the oddity of putting more restriction on 35+ acre lots in the other bill but lowering restrictions on lots that are much less in this bill.

 

Jim Whalen, Sonoran Institute, testified regarding the bill.  The institute is a private non-profit association dedicated to looking at land issues and promoting responsible land use development.  They support the bill as a vehicle for allowing cluster developments.  He suggested that Page 3-lines 22 through Page 4-line 3 “open space forms an adjacent parcel”  and add “and whenever possible is adjacent to other open space”.  The goal would be to preclude the use of some acreage on a lot as part of the determination of open space.  He also suggested that limiting development on the open space to forty years is not long enough.  Mr. Whalen described how impact fees work in Montana.  He noted that it is very expensive to assess impact fees in Montana because the government has to look at how costs to the government will go up specific to the subdivision in question.  The committee discussed how the use of impact fees is going to affect the availability of affordable housing.  There was discussion about the difference between impact fees and general taxes the landowner already has to pay for essential services.  Mr. Whalen testified that the cluster development provisions should be incentivized better.  Senator Scott noted that the incentive deals with the overall density provision and the lesser filing requirements.

 

­John Francis, rancher, testified about concerns over having 35 acre parcels with inadequate wells and septics.  He testified in support of giving county commissioners as much authority to make decisions on the local level as possible.  He noted that his experience is that homeowners associations make more problems then they are worth.  He also testified regarding the increased  taxes versus increased responsibilities created by additional subdivisions.  He testified in support of impact fees.

 

Kent Connelly, Lincoln County Commissioner, testified in support of cluster developments.  He testified that the biggest incentive to a developer using cluster developments is the lower cost of providing the electric, sewer, roads, etc.  He noted that his county already provides incentives of smaller lots to developers who use cluster developments.  They do this through zoning incentives.  He stated that the Lincoln county process has been challenged and upheld by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.  He also testified in opposition to changing the definition of sale.

 

Jim Magagna, Wyo. Stockgrowers Association, testified that he supports the idea of an incentive driven approach.  He agreed with Mr. Whalen’s suggestion about the definition of open space.  He believes the forty year time period is fine.  He noted that the provisions should be a cap on what the county can require rather than a minimum of what is required.  He additionally testified in support of the use of impact fees. 

 

Brett Moline, Wyoming Farm Bureau, testified regarding concern over the 40 year development prohibition on open spaces.   He also raised the question of how roads and buildings would be defined in the definition of open space. 

 

The bill was moved and seconded. 

 

There was discussion about the problems with collecting taxes from homeowners' associations for the open space areas.  There was discussion by the committee that they were largely in support of the concepts contained in the bill but it still needs too much work for introduction in a budget session.  There was also discussion that there is no emergency because counties can do it now through zoning.  The committee overwhelmingly expressed an interest in working the bill further in the next interim. 

 

The motion was made to lay the bill back to be brought back in the interim.   The motion passed (Case, Decaria, Scott and Zwonitzer opposed).

 

08 LSO 0027.W2 – Subdivisions – Large acre parcels. (Appendix 8)

 

The bill provides for regulation of subdivisions which create parcels between 35 and 160 acres.

 

Mark Kott, Sweetwater county planner, testified in support of the bill.  He suggested an amendment to look at the sustainability of groundwater and jurisdiction over fire protection.

 

Bruce Hinchey, Petroleum Association of Wyoming, testified that he would like to see language added requiring notice on the plat that the surface area is subject to development.

 

Steve Beazley, Realtors Association, testified that his association has not voted on its position on this bill but they are definitely opposed to impact fees.

 

Doug Cooper, rancher, testified in support of the bill. 

 

Joe Evans, County Commissioners Association, testified in support of the bill.  The County Commissioners Association supports the bill because they believe the option is needed.  They don’t think this stops any development, it just requires better development.  Mr. Evans testified that it is not going to be used by every county.  The bill is modeled after the smaller acre subdivisions law but with fewer requirements.   Mr. Evans was asked to inform the committee on the percentage of the state that is covered by fire protection districts.

 

John Francis, rancher, testified that he is currently selling 40 acre parcels to keep his ranch afloat due to the drought.  He testified in opposition to the bill.  He noted that he doesn’t think the conservation districts need to be involved.  Page 10-lines 8 through 12.

 

Kent Connelly, Lincoln County Commissioner, testified in support of the bill.  He testified that it is an important tool they need. 

 

Brenda Arnold, Laramie County Assessor, testified that the Assessors Association has taken no position on the bill because some counties want it and some don’t care because it is not a big issue.  She testified that she likes the way the bill deals with agricultural  land classification.  She also testified that she likes the provision of the bill that requires recording of contracts for deed.

 

Brett Moline, Wyoming Farm Bureau, testified  that he thinks W.S. 34-1-151, which requires property disclosures, probably handles much of the public protections included in this bill.  He also expressed concern that this bill will cause inconsistencies across counties. 

 

Jim Magagna, Wyoming Stockgrowers Association, testified regarding the bill.  He is not in support of the bill but offered suggestions that might make it more palatable.  He suggested making the 5 lot exemption mandatory and increasing the exemption to 10 lots. 

 

Frank Falen, attorney, testified in opposition to the bill.  His biggest concern is that the bill doesn’t limit the ability of commissioners to add additional requirements on subdividers.    He also supported making the five lot exemption mandatory and increasing it to 10.  He argued that the provision in W.S. 18-5-315 that states that the statutory requirements are minimum have caused the price of land to skyrocket.  He supports ensuring that planners cannot place additional requirements than what is in the statute. 

 

Rick Anderson, General Manager for Brooks Realty, testified against the bill.  He asked whether there should be statewide standards regarding what a road should be, etc.

 

Tres Brooks, Brooks Realty, testified that he has some issues with the bill because he thinks the bill is being rushed through. 

 

The bill was moved and seconded.

 

The committee discussed what happens if a buyer waives disclosure under W.S. 34-1-151.  The seller would not have to disclose under that statute but they would still be required to disclose what is under the subdivisions laws. 

 

The bill was amended  as shown in Appendix 9.

 

The bill passed (Miller, Quarberg opposed).

 

Reporting requirements.

 

LSO staff described the various reports that are statutorily required to be provided to the committee.   The committee reviewed the list and voted to repeal specified reports and to discontinue receiving reports as provided in Appendix 10.

 

Election issues

 

08 LSO 0130.W1-Campaign finance reporting-electronic filing.  (Appendix 11)

 

Secretary of State Max Maxfield introduced his staff in attendance.  He described how the bill provides for electronic filing of campaign finance reporting.  Peggy Nighswonger explained the bill page by page.  There was discussion about the $2.5 million appropriation for the start up costs of developing the database.  

 

Sarah Gorin, Equality State Policy Center testified in support of the bill.

 

The bill was moved and seconded.  The committee discussed the issues of accessing the internet and making the electronic filing mandatory.  The committee asked the Secretary of State to come back to the committee every six months to report on their progress with the implementation if the bill passes during the legislative session.

 

The bill passed (Scott, Brown, Miller, Quarberg and Walsh opposed).

 

08 LSO 0016.W3-Campaign finance reporting.  (Appendix 12).

 

Former Representative Dick Sadler addressed the committee in opposition to the bill.  He discussed the reason the bill was requested.  The bill limits the amount a political action committee can contribute to a candidate.  Mr. Sadler argued that the bill should limit how much a person can contribute to a PAC rather than how much a PAC can contribute to a candidate.  In addition he suggested the committee should limit a candidate's ability to keep money after an election.

 

Sarah Gorin, Equality State Policy Center, provided written testimony.  (Appendix 13).   She testified in support of the bill but asked to have the current limits on contributions be reinstated in the bill.   Additionally the Center for Governmental Studies provided written testimony.  (Appendix 14).

 

The committee discussed how the increase in allowable contributions reflects cost of living increases and brings the value of those contributions back to the value in real dollars when they were set.

 

The bill was moved and seconded.

 

Senator Decaria moved to reinstate the annual limit on total contributions.  Representative Zwonitzer moved to reinstate the individual limits.  The motions failed.

 

There was discussion about how the bill limits contributions by political action committees but does not limit a person from creating multiple political action committees to circumvent the caps.

 

The bill passed (Decaria, Gilmore, Martin, Meyer and Zwonitzer opposed).

 

Lobbyist Reporting

 

Sarah Gorin, Equality State Policy Center, gave a presentation regarding complete lobbyist reporting.  (Appendix 15).  She advocates improving transparency and reporting by  lobbyists.  She noted that the law currently only requires reporting of receptions, gifts and advertising.  The law does not require reporting of lobbyist's salaries or other expenses that support the lobbying activity.  She described the reporting requirements in surrounding states. 

 

Business Entities

 

O8 LSO 0025.W4-Business entities-registered agents.  (Appendix 16).

 

Secretary of State Max Maxfield introduced the bill.  Karen Wheeler explained the bill.  The bill creates consistent registered agent and registered office requirements across all entities.  It establishes consistent requirements for service of process and duties of registered agents.  The bill makes uniform the record retention and record production requirements.  The bill also establishes minimum standards for commercial registered agents and provides remedies for failure to comply with the requirements.

 

The secretary of state provided a copy of the bill showing all the changes and how they relate to current law.  (Appendix 17).

 

The secretary of state provided proposed amendments.  (Appendix 18).

 

CT Corporation Systems, a registered agent company, provided proposed amendments (Appendix 19).

 

Capitol Corporate Services, Inc, a registered agent company, provided written testimony (Appendix 20).

 

Corporation Service Company, a registered agent company, provided written testimony.  (Appendix 21)

 

The Board of Directors of the National Public Records Research Association provided written testimony.  (Appendix 22).

 

Tom Jones, attorney for National Association of Independent Businesses, testified regarding the bill.  He expressed concern that the bill creates new causes of action against business entities and registered agents.  He is concerned that the bill provides for a status as a entity awaiting dissolution which can be resolved but until it is resolved the entity might be subject to loss of their corporate protections.    He provided proposed amendments to the bill.  (Appendix 23).   The committee voted to incorporate the amendments into the registered agent bill and limit the reinstatement language to dissolution based on registered agent failure only.  This would be a new section in the registered agent bill that would cross reference to each of the dissolution statutes. 

 

Daniel Dunn, National Public Records Research Association, testified that his organization proposes the committee use the model registered agent act.  They are opposed to the bill. 

 

A panel of registered agents - Jerry Daniel, Robert Rowell, Tom Connolly, John Morrissey and Jay Robbins - testified regarding their concerns with the bill.  Mr. Robbins testified that he agrees that responsibility for service of process by a natural person is valuable but he does not agree that there should be a written agreement.  He is concerned that an agency agreement might create an employment situation.  He also was concerned that it can be difficult when temporary workers are hired.  Mr. Rowell commented on the record keeping requirement.    Mr. Morrissey expressed concern about the provisions authorizing actions against registered agents.  He disagreed with the provisions allowing the secretary of state to deny registration, require enhanced record keeping or refuse to accept filings without a contested case hearing.  Mr. Daniel testified regarding the history of the need for information kept by registered agents.  He argued that the bill should require the filing of a name of a person that has the information rather than having the information at the registered agent's office.  The panel discussed how the bill expands what is expected of registered agents.  They are concerned that the bill makes them a regulatory arm of the secretary of state.

 

The secretary of state went on record as opposing any additional amendments to the bill in order to move the bill along.   Several committee members expressed concern that they have not had time to review the proposed amendments.  The committee asked staff to track the proposed amendments so they can consider them during session.

 

The bill was worked by the committee, with several amendments and the resulting bill appears as Appendix 24.

 

The bill passed unanimously.

 

08 LSO 0030.W3-Business entities-revisions.   (Appendix 25).

 

Karen Wheeler presented the bill.  The bill creates penalties for filing false documents and creates a method for the secretary of state to administratively dissolve or revoke domestic and foreign limited liability companies and corporations for signing false documents, failing to respond to a subpoena, providing false documents and failing to have a registered agent.

 

The committee approved the amendment proposed by the secretary of states office .  Appendix 26.

 

LSO was asked to find out other statutes that penalize false filings and let the committee know if the penalty in this bill is similar. 

 

The bill passed unanimously.

 

Other business.

 

The chairman asked the task force looking at corporations to meet prior to the legislative session.

 

Meeting Adjournment

There being no further business, Co-Chairman Cale Case adjourned the meeting at 4:45 pm.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Representative Pete Illoway, Co-Chairman                              Senator Cale Case, Co-Chairman

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Appendix

 

Appendix Topic

 

Appendix Description

 

Appendix Provider

1

 

Committee Sign-In Sheet

 

Lists meeting attendees

 

Legislative Service Office

2

 

Committee Meeting Agenda

 

Provides an outline of the topics the Committee planned to address at meeting

 

Legislative Service Office

3

 

Special Districts

 

08 LSO 0026.C1-Special Districts-elections.

 

Legislative Service Office

4

 

Special Districts

 

Amendment to 08 LSO 0026.C1-Special districts-elections.

 

Legislative Service Office

5

 

Real Estate

 

08 LSO 0093.W1-Real estate commission.

 

Legislative Service Office

6

 

Subdivisions

 

Presentation on poll results

 

Ruckelshaus Institute

7

 

Subdivisions

 

08 LSO 0029.W2-Subdivisions- development.

 

Legislative Service Office

8

 

Subdivisions

 

08 LSO 0027.W2-Subdivisions-large acre parcels.

 

Legislative Service Office

 

9

 

Subdivisions

 

08 LSO 0027.W1-Subdivisions-large acre parcels as amended

 

Legislative Service Office

10

 

Reports

 

List of reports to committee

 

Legislative Service Office

 

11

 

Elections

 

08 LSO 0130.W1-Campaign finance reporting-electronic reporting.

 

Legislative Service Office

 

12

 

Elections

 

08 LSO 0016.W3-Campaign finance reporting

 

Legislative Service Office

 

13

 

Elections

 

Written testimony

 

Equality State Policy Center

14

 

Elections

 

Written testimony

 

Center for Governmental Studies

 

15

 

 

Elections

 

 

Written testimony

 

 

Equality State Policy Center

16

 

Business Entities

 

08 LSO 0025.W4-Business entities-registered agents.

 

Legislative Service Office

       17

 

Business Entities

 

Presentation on 08 LSO 0025.W4-Business entities-registered agents.

 

Secretary of State

18

 

Business Entities

 

Proposed amendments to 08 LSO 0025.W4-Business entities-registered agents.

 

Secretary of State

19

 

Business Entities

 

Written testimony

 

CT Corporate Systems

20

 

Business Entities

 

Written testimony

 

Capitol Corporate Services

21

 

Business Entities

 

Written testimony

 

Corporate Services Company

22

 

Business Entities

 

Written testimony

 

National Public Records Research Association

23

 

Business Entities

 

Proposed amendments to 08 LSO 0025.W4-Business entities-registered agents.

 

Tom Jones

24

 

Business Entities

 

08 LSO 0025.W4-Business entities-registered agents as amended

 

Legislative Service Office

 

25

 

Business Entities

 

08 LSO 0030.W3-Business entities-revisions.

 

Legislative Service Office

 

26

 

Business Entities

 

Proposed amendment to 08 LSO 0030.W3-Business entities-revisions.

 

Secretary of State

 


[Top] [Back] [Home]