HOUSE COMMITTEE ON

ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE

February 04, 2003 Hearing Room E

8:30 AM Tapes 12 - 13

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

MEASURES HEARD: HB 2273 – Public Hearing

HB 2257 – Work Session

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 12, A
003	Chair Garrard	Calls the meeting to order at 8:33 AM and opens a public hearing on HB 2273.
HB 2273 - PUBLIC HEARING
007	Rep. Shetterley	Testifies in favor of HB 2273 brought forth by the Oregon Law Commission, created by the legislature in 1997. Introduces HB 2273, which deals with technical issues dealing with laws of condemnation and eminent domain.
035	Greg Mowe	Oregon Law Commission. Introduces the Eminent Domain Report (EXHIBIT A). Explains property rights laws and urges the passage of HB 2273, as it will increase efficiency and streamline ORS chapters 35 and 281.
129	Rep. Richardson	Asks if compensation would be given under the takings provision.
131	Mowe	Answers affirmatively. Explains ongoing litigation under the takings clause.
138	Rep. Richardson	Asks about actual damages incurred by public entities and related compensation.
141	Mowe	Replies that this law did not address that issue; that it was a procedure which couldn’t be answered.
166	Don Schellenberg	Oregon Farm Bureau (OFB). States OFB’s concerns with HB 2273. Suggests that property rights would be better served if the condemner first got the permits before entering the property.
217	Rep. Greenlick	Asks the witness to confirm the process of eminent domain as it relates to this bill.
222	Schellenberg	Explains the process and purpose of eminent domain. Suggests amendments to the bill.
241	Rep. Rosenbaum	Asks for Mr. Schellenberg’s understanding of Section 2 of HB 2273 as it relates to this process.
247	Schellenberg	Clarifies the qualifications for permission to enter the property under Section 2.
280	Rep. Rosenbaum	Asks for Mr. Mowe to return to clarify this provision in Section 2.
288	Mowe	States that they have not discussed Mr. Schellenberg’s. Explains the survey process. Affirms that they do not wish to run roughshod over farm land.
322	Rep. Doyle	Asks Mr. Mowe to clarify the definition of the condemner.
325	Mowe	Defines the condemner as one who has condemnation power.
342	Rep. Doyle	Asks how the courts address this issue now.
357	Mowe	Explains the latitude which the courts have for enforcement.
373	Chair Garrard	Examines the bill and asks Mowe if this issue has not already been addressed.
384	Mowe	Explains that the statute presumes that condemning bodies would have the right to conduct examinations and the testing if they pay compensation.
393	Chair Garrard	Asks if notification is really the issue here.
410	Mowe	Confirms Chair Garrard’s notion of the intent of the statute.
416	Schellenberg	Adds further clarification on valid reasons for the surveys.
429	Chair Garrard	Asks if he understands that OFB would prefer a permit, rather than notification.
TAPE 13, A
003	Schellenberg	Agrees with the Chair’s understanding.
009	Rep. Doyle	Questions whether the law might impinge upon the jurisdiction of the court.
015	Mowe	Responds that he also reads the measure the same way.
017	Rep. Doyle	States concern for removing discretion from the court.
022	Mowe	Explains that this is one of the reasons for the damage provision. Affirms that the intent is not to limit the power of the court.
038	Rep. Ackerman	Attempts to clarify the issue of notification in Section 2, Sub 1. Asks Mr. Mowe if Sub 2 addresses the issue.
048	Mowe	Affirms Rep. Ackerman Explains the need for subsections of the said clause.
054	Rep. Ackerman	Notes that specifics are not addressed, but are left for the court to determine.
060	Rep. Greenlick	Asks if a surveyor may come onto the property at any time.
066	Mowe	Agrees and explains the general surveyors statute.
083	Rep. Greenlick	Asks for the limits of change which would be affected by HB 2273.
087	Mowe	Responds that he is not sure whether the general surveyor’s statute addresses this issue or not.
107	Rep. Richardson	Asks for confirmation of the actual intent of this legislation.
113	Mowe	Confirms that this legislation is intended to address condemnation above all. Offers to tweak the provision to offer the courts broader jurisdiction.
126	Rep. Rosenbaum	Asks Mr. Schellenberg whether that language might satisfy their objections.
130	Schellenberg	Confirms that it seems to address the concern.
141	Chair Garrard	Asks Mowe and Schellenberg whether they could work out the differences in this bill to satisfy both parties. Schedules a work session for 2/11 to work this out. Closes the public hearing on HB 2273 and opens a work session on HB 2257.
HB 2257 – WORK SESSION
157	Ray Kelly	Explains HB 2257.
167	Rep. Rosenbaum	MOTION: Moves HB 2257 to the floor with a DO PASS recommendation.
173		VOTE: 7-0
180	Chair Garrard	Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED. REP. ZAUNER will lead discussion on the floor.
208	Chair Garrard	Adjourns meeting at 9:16 AM.

EXHIBIT SUMMARY

A – HB 2273, written materials, Greg Mowe, 5 pp.