|
|
PUBLIC
HEARING, WORK SESSION HB 2671A, PUBLIC HEARING HB 2298A |
|
|
TAPE 93, 94,
A-B |
MARCH 24,
2003 8:30 AM STATE CAPITOL BUILDING
Members Present: Representative Lane Shetterly, Chair
Representative
Wayne Scott, Vice Chair
Representative
Joanne Verger, Vice Chair
Representative
Vicki Berger
Representative
Pat Farr
Representative
Mark Hass
Representative
Elaine Hopson
Representative
Max Williams
Members Excused: Representative Phil Barnhart
Witness Present: Tom Butler, District 60
Art
Fish, Oregon Economic and Community Development Dept. (OECDD)
Rep.
Bill Garrard, District 56
Robert
Trotta, People’s Energy Resources, Cobb Energy Facility
Tray
Sena, Klamath County Economic Development Association (KCEDA)
Andrew
Stadelli, KCEDA
Staff Present: Paul
Warner, Legislative Revenue Officer
Mazen
Malik, Legislative Revenue Office
Kathy
Tooley, Committee Assistant
TAPE 93, SIDE A
|
004 |
Chair Shetterly |
Calls meeting to order at 834 a.m. |
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING ON 2298A
|
010 |
Mazen Malik |
Provided description of HB 2298-A, no fiscal impact, revenue impact
as yet not completed, (Exhibits 1, 2). |
|
026 070 083 094 |
Rep. Tom Butler Rep. Butler Rep. Butler Rep. Butler |
Spoke in support of HB 2298A, described distressed communities
designation. Described challenges to encouraging people to come to rural Oregon
and employ 5 or more employees, specifies population, wages, insurance
requirements. Described long-term commitment (10 years or more) requirement for
property, plant, and equipment. No fiscal, there is a fee for the OECDD certification. Did not have revenue cost last session. |
|
130 |
Chair Shetterly |
Regarding revenue impact, there is no current revenue being foregone,
because it only applies to new business ventures coming into the state? |
|
133 |
Rep. Butler |
Answered affirmatively. Must
apply with OECDD, discussed parameters, sign offs with city, county and a
port district if applicable. |
|
143 |
Chair Shetterly |
What is the thinking with the addition of port? |
|
145 |
Rep. Butler |
Described situation in Lakeview and port districts. Did not want new
company to come in that was not going to use infrastructure already in
existence within the city and urban growth boundaries. |
|
171 |
Rep. Verger |
Does this bill take care of the problem as when American Bridge came
in, reducing unemployment, then running into problem of not qualifying with unemployment
percentage requirements? |
|
182 |
Rep. Butler |
This is done county by county some with long time unemployment
rate. This attempts to give longer
period of time for company to come to town as long as per capita income was
down for the full year. |
|
218 |
Chair Shetterly |
Reconstruction and modification has been added to activities to
qualify, assumes movement into existing facility? |
|
222 |
Rep. Butler |
Reconstruction qualifies, if new to Oregon business. |
|
242 |
Chair Shetterly |
Is this written so tight that no one has qualified to use it? |
|
225 |
Rep. Butler |
Haven’t been able to attract people to businesses in distressed, rural
Oregon. This gives them more
latitude. Questions and discussion regarding small facilities that would come
in; not employ many and receive credit. |
|
300 500 |
Art Fish Fish |
Described background of HB 2298A.
Discussed current law, proposed changes. Discussed eligibility criteria, cities, counties, high
unemployment and per capita income. Discussed city and county approval requirements. |
TAPE 94, SIDE A
|
024 |
Chair Shetterly |
Concern that this bill was so complicated, it would be difficult for
people to determine if they were going to qualify. Can you help them through if someone comes to you wanting to
qualify? |
|
028 |
Fish |
It is complicated to keep up on the data and figure out. Once a location is chosen, just a matter of
process, giving cities/counties 60 days to approve or disapprove benefit. Discussed criteria new to state, number of
employees, median wage, long term outlook, non-competition with current
business. Whole process could take
6-9 months to start up. |
|
071 |
Chair Shetterly |
Where is the “New to Oregon language”? |
|
074 |
Fish |
That’s not new to the bill, A Engrossed, Page 3, lines 18 and
19. Significant issue, do have inquiries
by current companies. Questions and discussion regarding example of new entities. |
|
091 |
Rep. Verger |
Do you think we are going to work hard on how to get to yes in these
processes? |
|
105 |
Fish |
Can say yes, as quickly as some of these requirements are met. The program is not too difficult. It just
has some constraints that limit applicability. |
|
115 |
Rep. Verger |
Would you use the community solutions team process in a small area,
with these criteria? |
|
111 |
Fish |
Yes, if there are other issues complicating, especially where there
are benefits available. Some areas
are enterprise zones with additional incentives available. |
|
121 |
Rep. Verger |
Cited difficulties involved with enterprise zones and urban renewal
requirements. Need to work with companies to make it easier. |
|
150 |
Chair Shetterly |
The intention is to try to focus development within particular
distressed areas. |
|
151 |
Fish |
Requirement of 150% of per capita income is a complicating issue. Potential for local objection is another
complication. |
|
183 |
Chair Shetterly |
For the record, received exhibit from Oregon Revenue Coalition
(Exhibit 4). |
|
188 |
Chair Shetterly |
Closed public hearing on HB 2298-A. |
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING ON HB 2671-A
|
194 |
Mazen |
Provided background and described HB 2671 (Exhibit 5), minimal fiscal
(Exhibit 6), and revenue impact, (Exhibit 7). |
|
289 |
Rep. Bill Garrard |
This will create jobs in Bonanza and Klamath County during and after
construction. |
|
301 |
Robert Trotta |
Spoke in support of the bill, discussed long term rural enterprise
zone. Taking project from a concept
to actually benefit economic development by bringing investment into a
community. How do you make it easier? This bill takes those steps. |
|
304 365 |
Trotta Trotta |
Discussed development and permitting process taking 2 years. Project
makes sense from environmental, permitting. Now working on economic phase. Discussed incentive as not going as far as it needs to go. Described other states enterprise zone
incentives as better. Trying to site
facility now. Today the land provides $2000 property taxes, could be $700
million investment, describes breakout of union labor, length of time to
build, permanent employees, $87 million annual salaries. |
|
387 |
Trotta |
This bill increases the possibility of this facility moving forward. |
|
410 |
Rep. Garrard |
Cited electrical market rates currently uncertain, but this company
is willing to take the risk; Oregon needs to take risk as well in offering
economic incentives. |
|
422 |
Tray Sena |
Spoke in support of bill. Reiterated
testimony of Trotta and Rep. Garrard.
Klamath County adopted in its goals and objectives power generation as
a key ingredient for economic prosperity.
Company chosen based on track record and integrity of company and
Trotta |
TAPE 93, SIDE B
|
010 |
Andrew Stadelli |
Spoke in support of bill and Cobb Energy Facility. Cited company’s dedication to minimizing
any negative impacts. |
|
020 |
Rep. Hass |
This feels like the strategic investment program, question regarding
language regarding start up, Section 1? |
|
070 |
Chair Shetterly |
That’s a question for Fish. |
|
031 |
Rep. Verger |
In 2 years trying to get this business into Oregon, can you give the
Committee an idea of what has been done right, possibly wrong;
environmentally sensitive? |
|
052 |
Trotta |
Goal/vision of the state to protect environment and resources and
process, protections are in place to do that thoroughly. Needs additional tweaking, for companies
that meet criteria and goes through review, should be economic criteria that make
it feasible. |
|
114 |
Sena |
This is an incentive plan that is designed to help small economic development
areas, with small employment opportunities. Intent is to bring in
employment. Some frustration is urban
vs. rural. What ifs have taken a long
time. |
|
140 |
Rep. Verger |
In rural areas, for businesses that have a track record should not
necessarily take 2 years to jump through hoops. There should be a happy medium. |
|
160 |
Rep. Garrard |
Discussed cogeneration plant existing in Klamath, plus additional
plant proposed. This bill sets model,
clears way for additional projects in Klamath Falls and in Oregon. |
|
172 |
Rep. Farr |
Support bill, this is exactly what is needed to improve the economy
of the state. Discussed need to make it easier for companies to come in to
this state. |
|
190 |
Rep. Berger |
On scale to 1 to 10, one being easiest, 10 being difficult how would you
rate Oregon’s permitting process? |
|
204 |
Trotta |
The degree of difficulty is rated at 11. |
|
206 |
Chair |
The sense of the committee is to help you move this bill along for
your benefit and for Klamath County. |
|
240 |
Fish |
Discussed Oregon Enterprise Zone (Exhibit 9), long-term rural tax
incentives (Exhibit 10), discussed history, Section 1 of the HB 2671-A lists
options that allow a company to meet requirements, including size of the
county and distance from Interstate 5. |
|
328 |
Hass |
Don’t understand what section 1 does, what does the first part of Section
1 apply to and what does it strive to accomplish? |
|
334 370 393 |
Fish Fish Fish |
Section 1 of the bill, partially defines the program includes all
minimum requirements for a facility to meet; discussed gradations. Discussed average compensation, as most significant hurdle. Discussed options available if siting more than 10 miles from Interstate-5. |
|
420 |
Rep. Hass |
Wouldn’t they be able to qualify under existing law? |
|
422 |
Fish |
They could if they met the 10 job requirement. Questions and discussion regarding meeting requirements |
|
473 |
Chair Shetterly |
This bill creates a new entry “rural enterprise”. |
|
475 |
Fish |
Answered affirmatively. |
|
476 |
Chair Shetterly |
This may be the only facility that qualifies for it, but it is $200
million and jobs for Klamath County. |
|
480 |
Fish |
There could be other energy facilities, or use of Strategic
Investment Program. |
|
484 |
Chair Shetterly |
This would not qualify for the income tax exclusion under HB 2298,
Klamath County does not come under that? |
|
487 |
Fish |
That is correct, even with proposed changes. |
|
496 |
Chair Shetterly |
Acknowledged for the record, that Exhibit 4 from the ORC, was
intended for HB 2671-A as well as HB 2298. |
|
507 |
Chair Shetterly |
Closed public hearing. |
OPENED WORK SESSION
TAPE 94, SIDE B
|
040 042 048 |
Rep. Verger |
MOTION: MOVED HB 2671-A TO
THE HOUSE FLOOR WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION ROLL CALL: MOTION PASSED 8-0-1 REPRESENTATIVES VOTING AYE: Berger,
Farr, Hass, Hopson, Scott, Verger, Williams, Chair Shetterly. EXCUSED:
Barnhart Rep. Garrard will carry the
bill. |
|
051 |
Chair Shetterly |
Meeting adjourned at 10:00 a.m. |
Tape Log Submitted by,
Kathy Tooley, Committee
Assistant Reviewed by Kim Taylor James
Exhibit Summary:
1.
Malik,
“Fiscal Impact HB 2298A”, 1 page
2.
Malik,
“Staff Measure Summary HB 2298A, 1 page
3.
Fish,
“Testimony HB 2298”, 5 pages
4.
ORC,
“Testimony HB 2671 and HB 2298”, 3 pages
5.
Malik,
“Staff Measure Summary HB 2671-A”, 1 page
6.
Malik,
“Fiscal Impact HB 2671-A”, 1 page
7.
Malik,
“Revenue Impact HB 2671-A, 1 page
8.
House
Committee on Trade and Economic Development, “Staff Measure Summary HB 2671-A”,
1 page
9.
Fish,
“Oregon Enterprise Zones”, 1 page
10.
Fish,
“Long-Term Rural Tax Incentives”, 2 pages