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.