|
|
WORK
SESSION HB 2368, SB 229 PUBLIC
HEARING HB 2991, HB 2296-A |
|
|
TAPE 160,
161, A |
MAY 9,
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
(DOR)
Representative
Steve March, District 46
Debra
Buchanan, DOR
Glenn
Stonebrink, Oregon Cattleman’s Association
Oregon Hay and Forage Association
Mike
Burton, Oregon Economic and Community Development Department
OECDD
Casina
Squires, Special Districts Association
Don
Schellenberg, Oregon Farm Bureau
Staff Present: Paul
Warner, Legislative Revenue Officer
Mazen
Malik, Legislative Revenue Office
Lizbeth
Martin-Mahar, Legislative Revenue Office
Kathy
Tooley, Committee Assistant
TAPE 160, SIDE A
|
004 |
Chair Shetterly |
Calls meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. |
OPENED WORK SESSION ON HB 2368
|
013 |
Rep. Hass |
MOTION: MOVED TO RECONSIDER THE VOTE BY WHICH THE HB
2368, WITH AMENDMENTS, WAS REFERRED TO THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE. ORDER: HEARING NO OBJECTION,
THE CHAIR SO ORDERS. (ALL MEMBERS PRESENT. |
|
019 022 |
Rep. Hass |
MOTION: MOVED HB 2368, WITH
AMENDMENTS, (EXHIBIT 1) TO THE HOUSE FLOOR WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION. ROLL CALL: MOTION PASSED 9-0-0 REPRESENTATIVES VOTING AYE:
Barnhart, Berger, Farr, Hass, Hopson, Scott, Verger, Williams, Chair
Shetterly. Rep. Barnhart will carry the bill. |
OPENED WORK SESSION ON SB 229
|
039 |
Chair Shetterly |
MOTION: MOVED TO RECONSIDER THE VOTE BY WHICH THE SB
229 TO THE HOUSE FLOOR. THE BILL IS
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE. ORDER: HEARING NO OBJECTION,
THE CHAIR SO ORDERS. (ALL MEMBERS PRESENT. |
|
045 |
Mazen Malik |
Described background and intent of SB 229 (Exhibit 2). Provided Revenue Impact SB 229, (Exhibit 3). |
|
062 |
John Phillips |
Discussed unintended affect of the bill, provision of sharper
language, discussed –A4 amendment (Exhibit 4). |
|
072 |
Chair Shetterly |
This fixes interest as of the date the taxes are deemed due and not
retroactive interest? |
|
074 |
Phillips |
Answered affirmatively. There
is a provision that says if it is not paid by the due date, collection and
enforcement reverts back to the year possibly 2-3 years earlier when appeal was
made; focuses on foreclosure process.
DOR’s position is it is not good policy to have interest revert to a
prior year, before the person knew they had liability. |
|
094 |
Chair Shetterly |
MOTION: MOVED ADOPTION OF THE
–4 AMENDMENT INTO SB 229. ORDER: HEARING NO OBJECTION,
THE CHAIR SO ORDERS. (ALL MEMBERS PRESENT). |
|
086 090 |
Rep. Verger |
MOTION: MOVED SB 229, AS
AMENDED, TO THE HOUSE FLOOR WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION ROLL CALL: MOTION PASSED 9-0-0 REPRESENTATIVES VOTING AYE:
Barnhart, Berger, Farr, Hass, Hopson, Scott, Verger, Williams, Chair
Shetterly. Rep. Verger will carry the bill. |
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING ON HB 2991
|
099 |
Lizbeth Martin-Mahar |
Described background and description HB 2991, (Exhibit 5). |
|
124 |
Rep. Steve March |
Spoke in support of HB 2991. Described the bill as targeting only
areas that have been declared drought disasters. DOR has requested minor clarifications to the bill. Question what is long term farm debt? The intent
was a debt instrument for 10 years or more, rather than production crop loan
that would carry over for just a year. |
|
155 |
Rep. March |
There is an issue with line 17 of the bill which speaks to both the
water right and the farmland. Suggested change to leave a period after
agricultural land owner and drop words “for irrigation purposes”. DOR also has changes to make it workable
for them. Do not anticipate a lot of
people taking advantage of the bill, only those forced to. They would still have to pay federal
capital gains, just state capital gains forgiven if they reinvest or payoff
farm debt. |
|
183 |
Rep. March |
Relating to clause said to taxation.
If it has a huge fiscal impact, would like to figure out how to pay
for. Would like this to have a
minimal fiscal impact or no net loss to the state. |
|
192 |
Rep. Hass |
Regarding revenue impact, if this works like a 1031, ultimately long
term someone would pay that tax. |
|
204 |
Rep. Hass |
A revenue impact this biennium will even out down the road. |
|
208 |
Debra Buchanan |
Discussed concern with HB 2991, suggested language in 316.881 that
could be used as a model. |
|
225 |
Ben Stonebrink |
Spoke in support of HB 2991. This bill probably won’t be used by many,
because their intent is to keep their farms and keep operating. Asked for the opportunity to sell to
another farmer with the possibility of buying it back in the near future. |
|
240 |
Rep. Barnhart |
I thought water rights ran with the land and were not severable? |
|
390 |
Stonebrink |
Water rights are allowed to be sold for instream rights. Anything a water right is sold for is for
capital gains. |
|
256 |
Chair Shetterly |
Recessed hearing on HB 2991. |
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING ON HB 2296-A
|
269 342 |
Malik |
Provided background and description of HB 2296-A, (Exhibit 6).
Discussed addition of 5 new enterprise zones for short and long-term. Discussed Revenue Impact (Exhibit 7). |
|
370 |
Mike Burton |
Intent of the bill to create an opportunity for North Lincoln County
to compete for an enterprise zone.
OECDD does not have a strong feeling about the number of zones and is
willing to see HB 2296-A go forward. |
|
380 |
Burton |
OECDD has concerns regarding opt out provision, shared with special
districts. |
|
401 |
Burton |
Discussed staff comments, based on a report on investments made in
the last year, rather than the life of the 49 existing zones. |
|
416 |
Casina Squires |
This bill applies only to 5 new zones, SDA neither supports or
opposes HB 2296 as long as it includes opt out language. |
|
442 |
Rep. Hass |
Opposed to HB 2296, as this tends to dilute other enterprise zones,
if it makes the whole state a zone, it takes away from the strategy of
locating a business in an existing zone.
Has this changed your attitude toward that? |
|
465 |
Burton |
OECDD believes this is a policy question as to interest by the
Committee in allowing 5 new enterprise zones. This is an incentive OECDD believes works and makes a
difference to companies as to where they locate. Believe the North Lincoln County issue is addressed in HB 2299
by allowing same position on hotel/motel and destination resorts. OECDD is not convinced HB 2296 is necessary. |
TAPE 161, SIDE A
|
098 |
Barnhart |
Are you suggesting that adding more zones, could have the affect of
cannibalizing existing zones? |
|
075 |
Burton |
To an extent, that’s true. With
49 or 54 zones, not sure how effective this as an incentive to drive
investment to those distressed parts of the state. |
REOPENED PUBLIC HEARING ON HB 2991
|
112 |
Don Schellenberg |
Spoke in support of HB 2991, (Exhibit 8). The only thing wrong with this bill is it only applies to
drought areas, ought to apply to all farm areas. |
|
131 |
Schellenberg |
Question with language, regarding the definition of long term farm
debt, and regarding a qualified sale. |
|
152 |
Rep. Scott |
Amendments are proposed on both of those issues. |
|
163 |
Rep. Scott |
Closed Public Hearing HB 2991. |
|
166 |
Vice Chair Scott |
Meeting adjourned at 10:10 a.m. |
Tape Log Submitted by,
Kathy Tooley, Committee
Assistant
Exhibit Summary:
1.
Shetterly,
“HB 2368-A14 (Consisting of -A5, -A10, -A11 Amendments), 13 pages
2.
Malik,
“Staff Measure Summary SB 229”, 2 pages
3.
Malik,
“Revenue Impact SB 229”, 1 page
4.
Phillips,
“SB 229-A4 Amendments”, 1 page
5.
Martin-Mahar,
“HB 2991”, 1 page
6.
Malik,
“Staff Measure Summary HB 2296-A”, 2 pages
7.
Malik,
“Revenue Impact HB 2296-A”, 1 page
8.
Schellenberg,
“Testimony HB 2991”, 1 page