PUBLIC HEARING HB 2187

BILL INTRODUCTION:  LC HB 2197, LC 3295

 

TAPE 59, 60, A-B

 

HOUSE REVENUE COMMITTEE

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