|
|
PUBLIC HEARING HB 2187 BILL
INTRODUCTION: LC HB 2197, LC 3295 |
|
|
TAPE 59, 60,
A-B |
FEBRUARY 27,
2003 8:30 AM STATE CAPITOL BUILDING
Members Present: Representative Lane Shetterly, Chair
Representative
Wayne Scott, Vice Chair
Representative
Joanne Verger, Vice Chair
Representative
Phil Barnhart
Representative
Vicki Berger
Representative
Pat Farr
Representative
Mark Hass
Representative
Elaine Hopson
Representative
Max Williams
Witness Present: John Phillips, Department of Revenue
Jeff
Tashman, Association of Oregon Redevelopment Agencies, (AORA)
Affiliate of League of Oregon Cities
John
Russell, AORA
City of Salem
Pat
Simpson, Bandon resident
Staff Present: Paul
Warner, Legislative Revenue Officer
Mazen
Malik, Legislative Revenue Office
Kathy
Tooley, Committee Assistant
TAPE 59, SIDE A
|
004 |
Chair Shetterly |
Calls meeting to order at 8:37 a.m. |
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING ON HB 2187
|
013 |
Mazen Malik |
Presented description and background for HB 2187, (Exhibit 1). Described
affects of Measure 50, Measure 5 limits and the Shilo Inn Supreme Court
decision. Discussed “Division of Tax Pre-Shilo”, (Exhibit 2), “And Compress
Taxes Post Shilo”, (Exhibit 3). |
|
190 225 240 |
John Phillips Phillips Phillips |
Presented an overview of HB 2187 and history of the bill, “Urban
Renewal and the Shilo Inn Decision”, (Exhibit 4), and Administrative Rule X, (Exhibit
5). The bill does three things: ·
Requires
compression be prioritized for any increment revenues that are derived from
local option authority. ·
Requiring
any tax revenues from both local option and bonds be moved into the general
government category. ·
Repeals
the statute that was declared unconstitutional. Discussion of the Shilo Inn decision. |
|
283 |
Rep. Barnhart |
In “Pre-Shilo” (Example Page 2, Exhibit 4), the government portion of
tax is not listed and appears there is collection of a larger dollar value of
taxes overall in “Post-Shilo”. |
|
320 335 |
Phillips |
It is a simplified example and not necessarily typical, describing
other possible categories. The
“Post-Shilo” method could rise more or less depending on the compression
situation on each account. Questions and discussion regarding accounts basis interpretation
required by Measure 5. |
|
325 |
Scott |
Questions and discussion regarding account basis. |
|
355 |
Chair |
Compression is determined on an account by account basis. The effect of the post Shilo calculation
will be different based on compression.
That will vary account by account? |
|
366 |
Phillips |
Answered affirmatively. |
|
380 |
Scott |
Does compression occur based on the differential between real vs.
market value? |
|
384 395 |
Phillips Phillips |
Answered affirmatively. Continued description of Administrative Rule (Page 3, Exhibit 4). The rule is not wholly made up of changes
from the Shilo Inn decision. |
TAPE 60, SIDE A
|
016 |
Barnhart |
Is there anything in the rule, not dictated by Shiloh case? |
|
020 |
Phillips |
Does not believe so, it is arguable whether prioritization and
compression may not follow through in the local option. |
|
022 |
Chair Shetterly |
Is that the language on Page 2, Exhibit 5? |
|
024 |
Phillips |
Answered affirmatively, language is based on legal advice from the
Attorney General’s Office and Legislative Counsel’s Office. |
|
025 |
Rep. Barnhart |
This doesn’t address the Shilo case. It’s the best guess by legal
counsel of what the court would uphold in the event of another case? |
|
029 |
Phillips |
Answered affirmatively. |
|
029 |
Verger |
What were the three options for those areas with urban renewal
districts? |
|
032 |
Phillips |
Applies to a number of circumstances this is not one of them. Discussed two of the options from 1998,
different from the “local option”. |
|
043 |
Chair Shetterly |
This is different from local option? |
|
046 |
Phillips |
Answered affirmatively. |
|
048 085 128 195 |
Jeff Tashman Tashman Tashman Tashman |
Spoke in favor of HB 2187, (Exhibit 6). Presented overview of urban renewal as a tool to promote economic
vitality and jobs in a community, (Exhibit 7). Discussed long-term and short-term benefits to taxing districts
financed by property taxes. Discussed examples of new and recent new urban renewal projects and
revenue benefits. |
|
219 |
Chair Shetterly |
Asked his response to elements of HB 2187 and the Shiloh Inn decision
in the event of another case. |
|
225 |
Tashman |
Would argue against the interpretation in the decision. Has not
requested an amendment, because overall urban renewal’s treatment in the bill
seems fair. |
|
242 270 |
John Russell Russell |
Discussed the success of the Fairview Urban Renewal Project. Discussed talks with City of Salem and Department of Administrative
Services, (DAS), regarding Mill Creek Urban Renewal development of surplus
land in Salem. |
|
297 |
Rep. Hass |
What was the property that was sold last year in that area? |
|
299 302 |
Russell |
DPST, a police training center adjacent to this property. Questions and discussion regarding the Fairview Industrial Park. |
|
340 |
Rep. Berger |
Discussed recent meeting she attended regarding Mill Creek Project
and its readiness for development. |
|
370 |
Chair Shetterly |
Explained scope and context the hearing on HB 2187. |
|
380 |
Pat Simpson |
Private citizen, spoke in opposition to HB 2187, citing need for time
limitations on how long a project can be considered an urban renewal district
and not be required to pay taxes for public services, (Exhibit 8). |
TAPE 59, SIDE B
|
020 |
|
Discussion regarding Canby Urban Renewal area. |
|
080 167 |
Simpson Simpson |
Discussed purpose of HB 2187 to show what urban renewal costs a
taxpayer. Described HB 2187 as a policy change and does not address the Shilo
implementation. Issue with HB 2187,
is the bill does not answer who pays. |
|
200 |
Simpson |
Concerned urban renewal is difficult to understand, implement, and
modify. Discussed Urban Renewal recommendations. ·
No
new urban renewals projects ·
No
new debt for current urban renewal. ·
Replace
with local renewal projects that the city votes on and is able to tax. |
|
278 |
Rep. Verger |
It’s in the OARs now that when the urban renewal district goes out of
debt they go away. Are there any that
went out of debt, but did not go away? |
|
290 |
Simpson |
Bandon’s Urban Renewal District went out of debt, but did not go
away. |
|
365 |
Simpson |
The bill should be modified to indicate who pays in the bill. The Legislature
should make the policy decision and it should be in the ORS. |
|
389 |
Shetterly |
Clarifies, you are not so much opposed to HB 2187, you feel this is
an invitation to make the policy changes you are advocating and it should go
further than it does? |
|
390 |
Rep. Simpson |
Policy decisions should be made by legislators, not by administrators
and it should be in the ORS. Should
be able to look at the tax bill and understand what the amount of taxes going
to each fund. |
|
|
Chair Shetterly |
Closed public hearing on HB 2187. |
|
|
|
|
|
043 |
Chair Shetterly |
MOTION:
MOVES INTRODUCTION OF LC 2197 and LC 3295 AS COMMITTEE BILLS. ORDER: THERE BEING NO OBJECTION, THE CHAIR SO
ORDERS. Members Present: Chair
Shetterly, Verger, Scott, Berger, Farr, Hass, Hopson, Williams. EXCUSED:
Barnhart. Clarifies the bill is
entered as a Committee Bill, but does not indicate support or opposition by
the members of the Committee. |
|
|
|
Meeting adjourned at 10:03 a.m. |
Tape Log Submitted by,
Kathy Tooley, Committee
Assistant Reviewed by Kim Taylor James
Exhibit Summary:
1.
Malik,
“Staff Measure Summary HB 2187, 1 page
2.
Malik,
“Division of Tax Pre Shilo”, 1 page
3.
Malik,
“And Compress Tax Post Shilo”, 1 page
4.
Phillips,
“HB 2187: Urban Renewal and the Shilo
Inn Decision”, 6 pages
5.
Phillips,
“Administrative Rule Review OAR 150-457.440(9) 8 pages
6.
Tashman,
“Testimony HB 2187”, 4 pages
7.
Tashman,
“Urban Renewal in Oregon”, 63 pages
8.
Simpson,
“Urban Renewal – Shilo Inn Implementation”, 1 page
9.
Shetterly,
“LC 2197”, 2 pages
10.
Shetterly,
“LC 3295”, 1 page