HOUSE COMMITTEE ON

ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE

 

 

January 23, 2003   Hearing Room HR E

8:30 AM     Tapes  6 - 7

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:            Rep. Bill Garrard, Chair

                                                Rep. Dennis Richardson, Vice-Chair

Rep. Cliff Zauner, Vice-Chair

Rep. Robert Ackerman

Rep. Dan Doyle

Rep. Mitch Greenlick

Rep. Diane Rosenbaum

 

STAFF PRESENT:                  Ray Kelly, Committee Administrator

David Peffley, Committee Assistant

 

 

MEASURE/ISSUES HEARD:            HB 2137 - Public Hearing

 

 

These minutes are in compliance with Senate and House Rules.  Only text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker’s exact words.  For complete contents, please refer to the tapes.

 

TAPE/#

Speaker

Comments

Tape 6, A

005

Chair Garrard

Chair calls the meeting to order at 8:34, and opens the public hearing on HB 2137.  

HB 2137 – PUBLIC HEARING

013

Gene Prete

From Sisters.  Gives personal testimony in support of HB 2137, having purchased property in 1990 and been told that he was unable to build on the land.

134

Rep. Greenlick

Asks what assurances were given that they could build on the land  at the time of purchase.  

138

Prete

States that he assumed they could build because others have done so.

146

Rep. Greenlick

Asks the witness whether he received official permission to build on the land.

151

Prete

Responds that he didn’t receive permission, but observed that others were doing so.  Thus they assumed that they could also build.

158

Rep. Zauner

Asks for an explanation of the $80,000 rule.

161

Prete

Explains the $80,000 rule as it relates to building a farm house.

167

Rep. Zauner

Asks the witness how long they’ve been working on the property and how much money they’ve spent.

170

Prete

States that they’ve spent $100,000 for over seven years. years.

179

Chair Garrard

Asks what the surrounding plot sizes were.

182

Prete

Responds to the sizes of his neighbors’ plots.

190

Chair Garrard

Asks if farming exists on each of the neighboring plots.

197

Prete

Speaks to the surrounding farming activity.

200

Chair Garrard

Asks where the witness gets his water.

202

Prete

Responds that he gets it from Squaw Creek irrigation.

212

Chair Garrard

Asks how much the witness originally paid for the land.

214

Prete

Answers that he paid $105,000.

217

Chair Garrard

Asks what the land is presently worth.

218

Prete

Responds that he estimates it to be worth at least $300,000.

220

Chair Garrard

Asks that if this law passed, what the witness’ claim would be.

225

Prete

Responds that he doesn’t want money, just to be able to build their home.

228

Rep. Rosenbaum

Asks the witness to describe the appeals process.

231

Prete

Describes the process.

250

Rep. Rosenbaum

Asks if Mr. Prete sought legal counsel.

252

Prete

Responds affirmatively.

254

Rep. Rosenbaum

Asks if they were advised to discontinue appeal the process.

256

Prete

Responds affirmatively.

260

Rep. Ackerman

Asks how many square feet might be involved.

264

Prete

Answers 2500 square feet in addition to the barn which is already standing.

267

Rep. Ackerman

States assumption that they wouldn’t take any farm use out of production.

270

Prete

Responds affirmatively.

287

Barbara Prete

Testifies that for the Pretes, the American Dream is being taken away. 

330

Eurick

Testifies in support of HB 2137.  Gives personal testimony as to the problems he has experienced in utilizing his property to it’s full potential.

385

Rep. Zauner

Asks the location of Mr. Eurick’s property in relationship to the drive-in theatre

390

Eurick

Explains the location of the property and the theater.

TAPE 7, A

023

Rep. Greenlick

Asks about access to the property.

029

Eurick

Explains further the location of the property and available access.

033

Rep. Greenlick

Confirms the timing of the improvements to the land.

037

Eurick

Responds by elucidating the process he took.

041

Rep. Greenlick

Asks about increase in the value of land.

045

Eurick

States specifics of the appraisals.

068

Kay Finney

Corbett, Oregon.  Testifies in favor of HB 2137.  Gives personal testimony of how local control has worked against her.  States that HB 2137 is their last resort

113

Rep. Ackerman

Asks witness to confirm the sequence of events.

117

Finney

Confirms the sequence.

120

Rep. Ackerman

States concern that two witnesses have testified that they weren’t appraised of their rights.

123

Chair Garrard

Asks the witness if Measure 7 was in effect, what compensation she would want to receive.

133

Finney

States that she doesn’t want financial compensation.  She just wants to erect their house. 

136

Rep. Zauner

Asks witness how many years the process has been ongoing.

143

Finney

Responds that they’ve been pursuing a remedy since 1986.

153

 Joseph Burke

States that he is a casualty of the Columbia Gorge Commission.  Testifies in support of HB 2137.  States that he bought his recreational property with the assumption that someday he would subdivide-something he is unable to do.

253

 Jeff Herbst

Testifies in support of HB 2137.  States that he bought property on Columbia River for recreation with certain assumptions and now he is unable to subdivide.

303

Rep. Zauner

Asks as to the location of the property.

306

Herbst

Clarifies the location of the property.

308

Rep. Zauner

Asks if the rules are different on the other side of the freeway.

311

Herbst

States that he is not sure, but that the parcels seem to be smaller.

325

Chair Garrard

Asks whether the Scenic Area Act is involved in this instance.

329

Herbst

Responds that it is.  Describes development in the area.

383

Chair Garrard

Asks how many organizations he’s had to deal with during this process.

385

Herbst

Responds that he personally hasn’t had to, but that generally it is very difficult dealing with the Columbia Gorge Commission.  Details troubles.

433

Rep. Greenlick

Asks witness how the property value would have increased if he had been allowed to subdivide.

438

Herbst

Responds that it would be significant.

TAPE 6, B

012

Evan Manvel

Oregon Community Protection Coalition (OCPC) Chair.   Introduces (EXHIBIT B) - testimony in opposition to HB 2137.  Testifies that average Oregonians don’t understand takings law and that Measure 7 didn’t actually address land use planning. 

134

Rep. Richardson

Tells witness that we are concerned and must also protect minority rights, not just the majority viewpoint. 

156

Chair Garrard

Asks what OCPC seeks to protect.

161

Manvel

States that OCPC stands for fairness issues regarding community, environment, and taxpayers in relation to Measure 7 issues.

173

Don Schellenberg

Associate Director of Governmental Affairs, Oregon Farm Bureau. Testifies that HB 2137 is a mixed bag, that it addresses important issues, but that it has some shortcomings.  Encourages committee to be deliberate and understand the full consequences of the actions taken.

265

Rep. Ackerman

States that cautionary advice is well taken.  Asks if the witness has a dollar figure in mind for the passage of this bill.

280

Schellenberg

Responds that it would vary from farm to farm, depending on the  proximity to urban areas.

291

Rep. Ackerman

Asks whether the depreciation values stated by the witness are speculative.

294

Schellenberg

Responds in the affirmative.

301

Linda Ludwig

Senior Staff Associate, League of Oregon Cities (LOC). Submits (EXHIBIT D) in support of her testimony, affirming issues to consider while hearing HB 2137.

TAPE 7, B

030

Ludwig

Continues testimony pointing out concerns about compensation claims contained in HB 2137.

061

Ludwig

Introduces (EXHIBIT E)-a letter to Rep. Betsy Close from the Albany City Council expressing concerns with HB 2137.

124

Rep. Ackerman

Asks whether any of the municipalities have the resources to pay the potential liabilities expressed by HB 2137.

127

Ludwig

Responds that they do not.

135

Chair Garrard

Cites a problem with the lack of notification and asks if notification varies from municipality to municipality and asks further if it has changed.

140

Ludwig

Affirms that yes, it has changed.  Asserts that the requirements changed in 1997.

147

Rep. Rosenbaum

States concern about the grandfathering issue and asks for the witness’ comments on the issue.

153

Ludwig

States that 90% of these issues occur outside of the urban growth boundaries.  Suggests that perhaps the $80,000 rule needs to be addressed.

178

Bob Rindy

Legislative coordinator, Department of Land Conservation and Development (LCDC).  States concern with the possible relaxation of regulations which would come about as a result of this bill.

218

Ron Eber

Farm and Forest Land Specialist, LCDC.  States concerns with the bill, but offers to participate in a work group.  Submits written testimony (EXHIBIT F).

271

Rindy

States that they were asked to estimate cost, but that the cost has not been able to be sufficiently ascertained due to a myriad of factors. 

291

Rep. Greenlick

Asks the witness to elaborate on the background of the Sisters case.

311

Eber

Provides history of legislation dealing with developing farm dwellings. 

366

Chair Garrard

Schedules invited testimony for the next meeting.

 

The following testimony is submitted for the record without public testimony for HB 2137.

 

Jeanette Holman

Submits written testimony (EXHIBIT A).

 

Don Schellenberg

Submits written testimony (EXHIBIT C).

432

Chair Garrard

Adjourns meeting at 10:30

 

EXHIBIT SUMMARY

 

B – HB 2137, written testimony, Evan Manvel, 6 pp.

D – HB 2137, written testimony, Linda Ludwig, 5 pp.

E – HB 2137, Linda Ludwig, 1 p.

F – HB 2137, Ron Eber, 3 pp.

 

The following exhibits are listed out of order in the body of the tape log.

A – HB 2137, written testimony, Jeanette Holman, 1 p.

C – HB 2137, written testimony, Don Schellenberg, 2 pp.