HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RULES AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS

 

May 08, 2003 Hearing Room E

1:00 PM  Tapes 56 - 57

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:            Rep. Dan Doyle, Chair

Rep. Linda Flores, Vice-Chair

Rep. Laurie Monnes Anderson, Vice Chair

Rep. Vic Backlund

Rep. Phil Barnhart

Rep. Betsy L. Close

Rep. Joanne Verger

 

STAFF PRESENT:                  Cara Filsinger, Administrator

Annetta Mullins, Committee Assistant

 

MEASURE/ISSUES HEARD:  HB 3631 – Public Hearing and Work Session

SB 137 A – Public Hearing and Work Session

SB 457 A – Public hearing and Work Session

                                                HB 2144 – Work Session

 

 

These minutes are in compliance with Senate and House Rules.  Only text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker’s exact words.  For complete contents, please refer to the tapes.

 

TAPE/#

Speaker

Comments

Tape 56, A

004

Chair Doyle

Calls meeting to order at 1:06 p.m., announces order agenda items will be considered, and opens a public hearing on HB 3631.

HB 3631 – PUBLIC HEARING

015

Rep. Bill Garrard

District 56.  Testifies in support of HB 3631.  Explains that the purpose of the bill is to right a wrong.  Explains that the House Environment and Land Use Committee tried but failed with the Forest Park bill to restore the rights of a landowner. 

033

Dave Hunnicutt

Oregonians in Action.  Asks that Mrs. English be allowed to testify first.

 

Dorothy English

Resident of Forest Park.  Explains events of improving 40 acres of land purchased in 1953.  Describes geographic layout of property and their intent to be able to give homesteads to their grandchildren, the intrusion of Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), and her payment of annual taxes when due.

072

Hunnicutt

Testifies in support of HB 3631.  First three sections deal with Forest Park and the area around Forest Park and create a Goal 5 designation for Forest Park and the surrounding area. Goal 5 is LCDC’s natural resources goal.  LCDC requires cities and counties to map areas and declare those areas as significant resource sites for open spaces, scenic views, wildlife habitat, or aggregate.  This bill does not do that; it indicates the area is a significant resource site.  Section 2(3) is permissive; it says the cities and counties and the regional government can determine the boundaries of this area, prepared summaries, adopt ordinance requirements to protect the area.

114

Hunnicutt

States that most if not all of the property around Forest Park has Goal 5 overlay zones.  The first three sections of the bill do what is being done in the area now.

119

Hunnicutt

States Section 4 of the bill rights a wrong spoken to by Rep. Garrard. 

130

Hunnicutt

Comments on arguments against changing Oregon land use system.

146

Hunnicutt

States they have tried to draft a bill that deals with Mrs. English’s property and would be willing to expand the bill to cover other problems. 

162

Hunnicutt

States there are two reasons they are before the legislature instead of Multnomah County.  Mrs. English is in forest zone and he does not believe they could get an exception to get it out of Goal 4.  It is a rural residential area and does not believe Multnomah County can do anything to help Mrs. English.  The second reason is the 1993 statute limits parcel sizes in forest zones to 80 acres.  State statute, Multnomah County ordinance, and LCDC prohibit her from dividing her property.  The HB 3631-1 amendments (EXHIBIT A) further narrows who would be entitled to relief. 

217

Rep. Barnhart

Asks if there is a physical connection between the land in question and Forest Park.

221

English

Explains her land is near, but not against Forest Park.

 

Hunnicutt

Section 2 of HB 3631 also applies to wildlife corridors.  Comments there are elk and deer on Ms. English’s property. 

237

Rep. Garrard

Comments that Ms. English is 91 years old. 

 

English

States they have always been in the wildlife corridor.

262

Randy Tucker

1000 Friends of Oregon.  Testifies in opposition to HB 3631.  States they do not have a position on Sections 1-3 relating to Forest Park, but do oppose Section 4 for two reasons.  It undermines Oregon’s land use program.  Believes the legislature should set broad policy instead of reaching down to individual properties.  The concerns about Section 4; is that they believe it is clear the language was drafted with one landowner in mind.  Comments on divisions and sell offs of parts of the original land purchase by English. 

313

Susan Muir

Interim Planning Director, Multnomah County Land Use and Transportation Section, representing the Multnomah County Commission.  Testifies in opposition to Section 4 of HB 3631 (EXHIBIT B).

347

Rep. Verger

Asks Muir to verify that if a person bought property in 1955 and it was in any category, that category would never change nor would there ever be an exception taken to the category.

354

Muir

States there are processes to allow exceptions if certain criteria are met.

 

Rep. Verger

Asks if the property owner has tried to get an exception to Goal 4.

 

Muir

Responds she does not believe so.

377

Rep. Verger

Asks if the Multnomah County has offered to assist this property owner in trying to get an exception to Goal 4.

 

Muir

Comments on review of the area and decision to not change the zoning of the  property at that time; they did mailed notice to all the property owners to get them into the process.

399

Doug Riggs

Representing Metro.  Comments they had requested an amendment on page 2, Section 3 to revised lines 21-23.  It was never submitted for drafting and therefore they cannot support the bill as written.  They believe the precedent that would be set in lines 21 and 22 would be terrible.  Metro has consistently opposed bills that would force local governments to bring land into the urban growth boundary (UGB).  States that Rep. Greenlick and OIA have agreed to the amendment.  States there is a commitment to fix the bill in the Senate and he looks forward to working with the sponsors of the bill.   

TAPE 57, A

003

Hunnicutt

Comments they would not oppose Metro’s amendment and will support it on the Senate side.  Comments on area being rural residential with mostly 20-acre parcels and no commercial forest activities in the area.  States Mrs. English has been involved all along in the process but she would not qualify for an exception to Goal 4 because it was zoned the day the Multnomah County Comprehensive Plan was adopted.  Under Goal 4, it will always be zoned Goal 4.

029

Rep. Verger

Asks if there are any exceptions to Goal 4.

 

Hunnicutt

Comments on working with Deschutes County and amendment of their comprehensive plan that was then acknowledgment by LCDC.  Multnomah County has not amended it comprehensive plan.

048

Chair Doyle

Closes the public hearing on HB 3631 and asks committee to stand at ease at 1:37 p.m.

053

Chair Doyle

Reconvenes the meeting at 1:39 p.m. and opens a public hearing on SB 457 A.

SB 457 A – PUBLIC ;HEARING

052

Sen. Richard Devlin

District 19.  Testifies in support of SB 457 A. Reviews the provisions of the bill and explains that all municipal corporations are required to be audited and reviewed at least once each calendar or fiscal year.  Municipal corporations are exempt from the audits if they meet the requirements in ORS 297.435; they are only subject to providing a financial statement to the Secretary of State.  Explains that Rivergrove, Oregon, population 320, meets these requirements and submits yearly financial statements to the Secretary of State.  The statute provides that municipal corporations can be subject to a municipal audit if a petition is signed by 10 residents who are subject to the taxes, fees, assessments or other charges levied by the municipality. The costs of the audit are incurred by the municipality.

 

Sen. Devlin

Explains that for the past three years a Washington developer has battled Rivergrove over land use ordinances, claiming the city has no authority to require development permits for such things as construction of a one-fourth mile sewer line, an 800 foot long rock and steel wall, excavation of hundreds of yards of fill in a flood plain, installation of a power pole to serve a non-permitted mobile home, removal of 30-year old fences, and encroachment on a neighbor’s land with fences that re 15 feet high.  The developer told the city three years ago that he had a one-quarter million dollar legal budget which he intended to use to bankrupt the city.  The general fund for the city of Rivergrove last year was less than $30,000. 

091

Sen. Devlin

Comments on lawsuits by the developer against the city and the inability of the city to collect the attorney fees from the developer.

103

Sen. Devlin

Stats that the bill will not impact the audit that is under way, but they decided to modify the law to provide relief for the city of Rivergrove.  States that the Secretary of State’s office is neutral on the bill and the League of Oregon Cities is strongly in favor.  Increasing the number of signatures will not prohibit the citizens from seeking an annual audit if they wish to do so.  It will make the annual audit process a requirement for a city that is this small truly reflective of the original intent.

125

Sen. Devlin

Explains they chose the numbers in the bill because they looked at the municipal corporations, particularly cities, and it seemed like a natural cutoff point and easier to administer as opposed to giving a percentage of residents.

139

Richard Barrett

Mayor of Rivergrove.  Comments on the city prevailing over the defendant in many court cases and before LUBA.  The defendant has appealed a decision to the Appellate Court.  Comments that the developer will not win but it will cost the city a lot of money.  The defendant has also put the city on notice that he is going to hit the city for an 11 count tort suit for violation of federal civil rights.  The city budget is $28,000 and they have no money for continued audits.  Believes the audits should be reasonable.  They do not believe the individual can convince 30 people to audit their city.

189

Michelle Deister

League of Oregon Cities.  Testifies in support of SB 457 A (EXHBIIT C). 

 

Rep. Verger

Asks if there is a nuisance law or if someone can actually put a city through that kind of expense.

208

Chair Doyle

Responds he is not aware of any mechanism a city would have to avoid such actions.  Comments that Rivergrove keeps getting their attorney fees awarded but the person doesn’t payoff. 

213

Chair Doyle

Closes the public hearing and opens work session on SB 457

SB 457 A – WORK SESSION

214

Rep. Flores

MOTION:  Moves SB 457 A to the floor with a DO PASS recommendation.

225

 

VOTE:  6-0-1  (SEE TAPE 57A AT 195)

AYE:            In a roll call vote, all members present vote Aye.

EXCUSED:  1 - Rep. Close

 

Chair Doyle

The motion CARRIES.

REP. MILLER will lead discussion on the floor.

 

230

Chair Doyle

Closes the work session on SB 457 A and opens a public hearing on SB 137 A.

SB 137 A – PUBLIC HEARING

215

Fred Neal

Campaign Finance Manager, Oregon Elections Division, Secretary of State’s office and Voters’ Pamphlet Supervisor.  Explains the provisions of SB 137 A. It allows photographs of candidates to be up to four years old, and Section 2 clarifies the requirement relating to the names and titles of the officers, organizations, and public officials on statements of endorsement.  Submits copies of Statement of Endorsement form adopted for the 2002 General Election (EXHIBIT D).  The bill also applies the state Statements of Endorsements requirement to county voters’ pamphlet.

282

Neal

Reviews the form (EXHIBIT D).  States they will edit the candidate’s statement or the measure argument to match the instructions in the box.

303

Chair Doyle

Asks Neal to give example of what the problem has been.

 

Neal

Comments on situation during a previous election. 

339

Chair Doyle

Asks if this would clarify the situation where an individual is endorsing a candidate or measure as an individual, not as an official.

 

Neal

Responds affirmatively.  States that an alternative to this bill for the Senate Rules Committee was to go back to the pre-2001 legislation and not have a proscription on the candidate changing names and titles on statements of endorsements.  The Senate committee chose to adopt this clarification.

375

Rep. Flores

Asks if the endorsement would be invalidated if the signature is not as shown in the statement.  Gives example of her signing her middle initial when the statement did not include her middle initial. 

 

Neal

Responds they would print her name without her middle initial.

400

Rep. Barnhart

Comments on difficulty in filling out the previous version of the form during his primary campaign.

416

Chair Doyle

Closes the public hearing and opens a work session on SB 137 A.

SB 137 A – WORK SESSION

423

Rep. Flores

MOTION:  Moves SB 137 A to the floor with a DO PASS recommendation.

424

 

VOTE:  6-0-1    (SEE TAPE 57 A AT 191)

AYE:            In a roll call vote, all members present vote Aye.

EXCUSED:  1 - Rep. Verger

 

Chair Doyle

The motion CARRIES.

 

432

Rep. Doyle

MOTION:  Moves SB 137 A be placed on the CONSENT CALENDAR.

432

 

VOTE:  6-0-

EXCUSED:  1 - Rep. Verger

 

Chair Doyle

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

 

 

 

434

Chair  Doyle

Closes the work session on SB 137 A and opens a work session on HB 3631

 

HB 3631 – WORK SESSION

436

Dave Hunnicutt

Oregonians in Action (OIA).  Explains the HB 3631-1 amendments (EXHIBIT A), noting criteria to qualify under the provisions of the bill. 

TAPE 56, B

021

Chair Doyle

Asks if there is protection to the extent that the original parcel was larger than 20 or 25 acres.

 

Hunnicutt

Responds they are referring to the currently owned lot or parcel, not the one that was purchased in 1953. 

037

Rep. Verger

Asks how they were able to divide and sell off the first 20 acres.

 

Hunnicutt

Explains that the state statute that created an 80-acre minimum parcel size was enacted in 1993 and the property was done prior to that.

047

Rep. Barnhart

Ask for an explanation of the language in Section 4 on lines 35-38 on page 2 of the bill.  .

 

Hunnicutt

Explains it is to frame the ability of a person to qualify.  The HB 3631 amendments would change “The” to “A”.  They would be able to divide or partition only one parcel. 

 

Rep. Barnhart

Comments he does not understand line 35 on page 2 of the bill.

084

Hunnicutt

Comments he thinks (a) in line 35 is superfluous.

 

Rep. Barnhart

Clarifies that (a) applies to the existing arrangement and (c) is what you end up with after the operation of this bill.

097

Hunnicutt

States that Rep. Barnhart is correct.

101

Rep. Flores

MOTION:  Moves to ADOPT HB 3631-1 amendments dated 5/8/03.

103

Rep. Monnes Anderson

Comments that she believes in regional planning and does not like to override the local planning process and will be a no vote.

111

Rep. Backlund

Comments that regional planning is very broad and sometimes things get out of whack and mistakes can be made, and sometimes there is no place for the landowner to go except the legislature. 

123

 

VOTE:  7-0-0

 

Chair Doyle

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

 

127

Rep. Flores

MOTION:  Moves HB 3631 to the floor with a DO PASS AS AMENDED recommendation.

133

 

VOTE:  5-2-0

AYE:               5 - Backlund, Close, Flores, Verger, Doyle

NAY:               2 - Barnhart, Monnes Anderson

 

Chair Doyle

The motion CARRIES.

REP. GARRARD will lead discussion on the floor.

 

135

Rep. Barnhart

Serves notice of a possible Minority Report.

144

Chair Doyle

Closes the work session on HB 3631 and opens a work session on HB 2144

 

HB 2144 – WORK SESSION

 

Chair Doyle

Reviews previous committee hearing on the bill and notes that an amendment has been proposed (EXHIBIT E).

143

Fred Neal

Comments that the HB 2144-4 amendments adding the co-chairs of Ways and Means may have raised an issue of constitutionality.  Legislators' service may be a function that is not judicial.  The Secretary of State has no objection.

 

Chair Doyle

Comments that legislators participate on explanatory statement committees 

 

Neal

Explains that legislators serve on the committee if there is a referral or a referendum.  If a legislator happens to be the chief sponsor of a measure, the Secretary of State would appoint that person if appropriate.  Adds that explanatory statement committees have chosen a legislator rather than a retired judge as the fifth member of an explanatory statement committee.

207

Rep. Barnhart

Asks what the bill does.

 

Chair Doyle

Advises members the Staff Measure Summary is in their bill files.

 

Fred Neal

Explains the purpose of the bill. 

246

Chair Doyle

Reminds committee of the testimony that used the ballot measure for genetically engineered foods as an example.

259

Rep. Close

Asks if the HB 2144-4 amendments cover all the concerns.

 

Neal

Responds affirmatively.  Adds that the HB 2144-4 amendments are the same as the HB 2144-3 amendments with the additional amendment to add the co-chairs of Ways and Means to the committee.

290

Rep. Close

Asks what it means to say the committee will be considering the effects of companion or contingent legislation on the ballot, and the secondary effect of the measure passing or failing.

 

Neal

Explains that the legislature may have passed enabling legislation.  Gives example that the ballot measure itself would not authorize the issuance of bonds.  States that is also an example of a secondary effect.

337

Rep. Close

Asks if there is a word limit.

 

Neal

Explains why there is a limitation of 500 words.

371

Rep. Flores

Asks how impartiality is determined.

 

Neal

Responds that it is in the eye of the beholder, but it is also grounds for a person to appeal an explanatory statement to the Supreme Court saying it is not impartial, or understandable.  Adds that fiscal impact statements cannot be appealed based on whether they are impartial or not, but only if they are accurate.  Fiscal impact statements are only estimates and it would probably be asking too much of the Supreme Court to second guess a panel of public officials on the accuracy or the impartiality.  The only appeal of a fiscal impact estimate for a ballot measure is on a procedural flaw—that the committee did not meet in open or the Secretary of State did not take testimony on the draft estimate, or a quorum was not present. 

 

 

 

433

Rep. Monnes Anderson

Notes that on page 4 of the amendments in line 28, the required vote is not a majority of the committee. 

478

Chair Doyle

Asks Legislative Counsel staff to assist the committee. 

485

Rep. Monnes Anderson

Asks what the timing is to have an initiative filed.  Notes language on page 5, (5). 

 

Neal

States that the schedules are appropriate for a primary or general election and they work, although they are tight.  Comments on process for special elections on referrals.

TAPE 57, A

059

Ted Reutlinger

Advises members that he failed to change the reference in (4) from three members of the committee.  Suggest the committee amend the line 29 on page 4: delete “at lease three” and insert “a majority”.

074

Chair Doyle

Advises members that the bill should have a referral to Ways and Means because of the potential impact.  Asks Reutlinger if he recommends the committee adopt a conceptual amendment.

080

Reutlinger

Comments he is not sure of the rules on conceptual amendments, but this is an easy one, or this committee could wait and have the next committee adopt the amendment.

100

Cara Filsinger

Administrator.  Advises Chair Doyle on parliamentary procedures to conceptually amend the bill.

104

Rep. Doyle

MOTION:  Moves to SUSPEND the rules for the purpose of to conceptually amending the HB 2144-4 amendments.

 

 

VOTE:  7-0-0

 

Chair Doyle

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

 

 

 

108

Reutlinger

Advises the committee that the appropriate amendment would be on page 4 of the HB 2144-4 amendments, line 29, delete “at least three” and insert “a majority”.

124

Rep. Flores

MOTION:  Moves to amend the HB 2144-4 amendments dated 5/5/03 on page 4, line 29, delete “at least three” and insert “a majority”

128

 

VOTE:  7-0-0

 

Chair Doyle

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

 

 

 

120

Rep. Flores

MOTION:  Moves to ADOPT HB  2144-4 amendments dated 5/5/03, AS AMENDED.

138

Rep. Monnes Anderson

Asks why the local government member is being added..

146

Neal

Explains that there were feelings of former financial impact committees that they did not always have expertise in local government finance issues and the fiscal impact committee must estimate the impact on local governments.

163

 

VOTE:  7-0-0

 

Chair Doyle

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

 

 

 

164

Rep. Flores

MOTION:  Moves HB 2144 to the floor with a DO PASS AS AMENDED recommendation and BE REFERRED to the committee on Ways and Means by prior reference.

170

Rep. Close

Explains why she will vote no on this bill. 

180

 

VOTE:  6-1-0

AYE:               6 - Backlund, Barnhart, Flores, Monnes Anderson, Verger, Doyle

NAY:               1 - Close

184

Chair Doyle

The motion CARRIES.

 

 

 

186

Chair Doyle

Closes the work session on HB 2144.

186

Rep. Verger

Asks to be allowed to vote on passage of SB 137 A.

SB 137 A – WORK SESSION

191

Rep. Doyle

MOTION:  Requests unanimous consent that the rules be SUSPENDED to allow REP. VERGER to BE RECORDED as voting AYE on the motion to send SB 137 A to the floor with a DO PASS recommendation.

192

 

VOTE:  7-0-0

 

Chair Doyle

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

 

SB 457 A – WORK SESSION

195

Rep. Doyle

MOTION:  Requests unanimous consent that the rules be SUSPENDED to allow REP. CLOSE to BE RECORDED as voting AYE on motion to send SB 457 A to the floor with a DO PASS recommendation

196

 

VOTE:  7-0-0

 

Chair Doyle

Hearing no objection, declares the motion CARRIED.

 

 

 

197

Chair Doyle

Adjourns meeting at 3:46 p.m.

 

 

EXHIBIT SUMMARY

 

A – HB 3631, HB 3631-1 amendment, Dave Hunnicutt, 1 p

B – HB 3631, prepared statement, Susan Muir, 2 pp

C – SB 457, prepared statement, Michelle Deister, 1 p

D – SB 137, form, Fred Neal, 1 p

E – HB 2144, HB 2144-4 amendments, 7 pp, staff