|
|
PUBLIC
HEARING, WORK SESSION HB 3616-A |
|
|
TAPE 167,
168, AB |
MAY 16,
2003 8:30 AM STATE CAPITOL BUILDING
Members Present: Representative Joanne Verger, Vice
Chair
Representative
Wayne Scott, Vice Chair
Representative
Phil Barnhart
Representative
Vicki Berger
Representative
Pat Farr
Representative
Mark Hass
Representative
Elaine Hopson
Representative
Max Williams
Members Excused: Representative, Lane Shetterly,
Chair
Witnesses Present: Representative Jackie Dingfelder,
District 45
Mark
Barsotti, Department of Forestry, (DOF)
Andrew
Bowman, Defenders of Wildlife
John
Phillips, Department of Revenue (DOR)
Bruce
Tindall, DOR
Gil
Riddell, Association of Oregon Counties, and League of Oregon Cities
Katie
Fast, Oregon Cattlemen’s Association
Gail
McKewan, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
Staff Present: Paul
Warner, Legislative Revenue Officer
Mazen
Malik, Legislative Revenue Office
Kathy
Tooley, Committee Assistant
TAPE 167, SIDE A
|
004 |
Vice Chair Verger |
Calls meeting to order at 8:40 a.m. |
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING ON HB 3616-A
|
044 |
Rep. Jackie Dingfelder |
Spoke in support and provided an overview of HB 3616-A, (Exhibit 1). Bill
comes out of recommendations from the Conservation Incentives Work Group, and
was approved by the House Water Committee with amendments. Knows of no opposition to the bill. |
|
075 |
Rep. Dingfelder |
Described –A4s, (Exhibit 2) requires the Fish and Wildlife Commission
give significant weight to a city or county’s argument regarding economic
burden. |
|
095 |
Mark Barsotti |
Spoke in support of HB 3616-A, discussed work group from cities,
counties, and conservation group, all agreed on incentives as effective tool
in meeting resource needs. |
|
105 |
Barsotti |
DOF most interested in stewardship agreements allowing the farmer/ forester
to holistically work with regulators and have one plan for their property. |
|
121 |
Andrew Bowman |
Spoke in support of HB 3616-A.
Reiterated testimony by Rep. Dingfelder and Barsotti. |
|
145 |
Rep. Barnhart |
Would like to know more about the revenue impact and evaluation
issues. |
|
150 |
Mazen Malik |
Discussed revenue impact of HB 3616-A, (Exhibit 3). |
|
192 |
Rep. Hass |
How is this going to work? Who is going to use this? How would it be put into practical use? |
|
203 |
Bowman |
Provided hypothetical example, where land was moved from farm or
forest assessment into wildlife habitat special assessment without being hit
with higher property taxes, assumes ODFW approval of land for program. Rather
than create an incentive, it removes a disincentive. |
|
212 |
Rep. Hass |
Why is that? |
|
215 |
Bowman |
If the landowner was getting a farm or forest use special assessment,
and could no longer meet the criteria for the special assessment, they would be
disqualified and face back taxes and a higher ongoing property tax bill. |
|
229 |
Rep. Hass |
If someone isn’t in a timber or farmland, are those the only practical
places this would apply? |
|
232 |
Bowman |
There may be some circumstances where the person is at a market rate
assessment. Unable to determine how often it would happen, don’t think often. These lands are already in resource zones
and probably in the special assessment.
Bill provides a safety net for cities or counties to say an economic
burden exists and would like to opt out of the program. |
|
246 |
Rep. Barnhart |
What happens to old taxes due for land gone out of assessment for some
other reason? |
|
256 |
John Phillips |
Disqualification would be for 10 years, taxes due as if disqualified
from open space or under this program. |
|
262 |
Rep. Barnhart |
Value of program is that it prevents back taxes becoming due from a
special assessed area if it goes into the habitat program. What happens to
taxes otherwise due if it is disqualified from habitat program, but for this
bill? |
|
288 |
Phillips |
Provided explanation of back taxes due. |
|
300 |
Rep. Verger |
Requested explanation of cities and counties being able to opt out. |
|
294 |
Bruce Tindall |
Described special assessment disqualifications, going from one special
assessment to another, potential tax liability rolls with the land. |
|
321 |
Rep. Barnhart |
What happens if the county/city opts out of the program? |
|
324 |
Tindall |
Those in the special assessment stay in until disqualified or remove
themselves; it is not a retroactive removal. |
|
330 |
Gil Riddell |
AOC agrees natural resources policy at this stage is more effective
to provide incentives than regulations. Opt in and out provision is important
for local buy in. This bill allows counties to try the program, and can
petition Fish and Wildlife Commission to opt out. Also supported the –A4
amendments. |
|
360 |
Katie Fast |
Participated in work group, concerns were addressed in the Water Committee
with the amendments. Supported flexibility for counties to opt in and out of
the program. Supported the Department
of Agriculture addition to the stewardship agreement program. |
|
388 |
Rep. Verger |
What is the public process?
What it the county commissioners think this is a good idea and haven’t
been in before, is there a public process? |
|
400 |
Riddell |
Up to the individual county, believes there would be a public
process. Cited example of
individual doing something that makes sense to resource and economy without
penalty. Constituents would come to
the county and enter into the public process. |
|
439 |
Malik |
ODFW is required by the bill to examine the designation periodically,
is that every year, two years, or three years? |
|
450 |
Gail McKewan |
Currently, have a biologist assigned to each county to work with
landowners on this program and are required to monitor properties in program at
periodic intervals to ensure compliance.
Anticipate having an adequate number of staff to keep up with the
program. |
|
482 |
Rep. Berger |
How many current projects are going on, and for how long? |
|
487 |
McKewan |
Gave history of program which began as a pilot project in Marion and
Polk Counties, discussed expansion. |
TAPE 168, SIDE A
|
039 |
Rep. Verger |
Described emotional reaction from county, where regulatory process
defines attitude that might prevent them from being open to this, in spite of
the consensus building that has gone into this bill? |
|
053 |
Barsotti |
Described wildlife planning process and stewardship agreement which
allows landowner to have access to other funds. Described relationship to ODFW and Soil and Conservation and
access to financial and technical resources. |
|
076 |
Rep. Verger |
Closed Public Hearing on HB 3616-A. |
OPENED WORK SESSION ON HB 3616-A
|
082 |
Rep. Williams |
MOTION: MOVED ADOPTION OF THE
–4 AMENDMENTS INTO HB 3616. ORDER: HEARING NO OBJECTION,
THE CHAIR SO ORDERS. (ALL MEMBERS PRESENT EXCEPT CHAIR SHETTERLY, EXCUSED). |
|
086 |
Rep. Williams |
MOTION: MOVED HB 3616, AS
AMENDED, TO THE HOUSE FLOOR WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION ROLL CALL: MOTION PASSED 8-0-1 REPRESENTATIVES VOTING AYE:
Barnhart, Berger, Farr, Hass, Hopson, Scott, Verger, Williams. EXCUSED:
Chair Shetterly. Rep. Dingfelder to carry the bill. |
|
100 |
Rep. Verger |
Adjourned the meeting at 9:15 a.m. |
Tape Log Submitted by,
Kathy Tooley, Committee
Assistant
Exhibit Summary:
1.
Dingfelder,
“Testimony HB 3616-A”, 2 pages
2.
Dingfelder,
“HB 3616-A4 Amendment”, 1 page
3.
Malik,
“Revenue Impact HB 3616-A4” 1 page
4.
Malik,
“Staff Measure Summary HB 3616-A”, 2 pages