HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

 

 

March 17, 2003   Hearing Room D

1:00 PM  Tapes 27 - 29

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:            Rep. Patti Smith, Chair

Rep. Vicki Berger, Vice-Chair

Rep. Mary Gallegos, Vice-Chair

Rep. Mark Hass

Rep. Dave Hunt

Rep. Steve March

Rep. Dennis Richardson

 

STAFF PRESENT:                  Kimberly A.  Medford, Committee Administrator

Linda K. Gatto, Committee Assistant

 

MEASURE HEARD:                     HB 2689 Public Hearing and Work Session

                                                HB 2300 Public Hearing

 

 

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 27, A

011

Chair Smith

Calls the meeting to order and opens the public hearing on HB 2689.

HB 2689 PUBLIC HEARING

014

Kimberly A. Medford

Committee Administrator. Summarizes HB 2689.

 

020

Harlan Levy

Staff Attorney, Oregon Association of Realtors. Submits and reads testimony in support of HB 2689, (EXHIBIT A). Explains that the largest impediment to economic growth in rural Oregon is Statewide Planning Goal 14, the urbanization goal.

088

Levy

States that HB 2689 is a responsible and necessary land use reform.

117

Levy

Refers to the attachments included in (EXHIBIT A).

152

Rep. March

Asks whether changes in land uses can be appealed through LCDC.

166

Levy

Responds that this bill does not change that. Explains that HB 2689 states that Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) is not permitted to adopt rules regarding rural development zones.

178

Rep. Hunt

Asks what impact HB 2689 would have on counties that do not want to participate.

181

Levy

Responds that counties are not required to participate.

185

Rep. Gallegos

Asks how the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) in Metro counties would be  affected.

190

Levy

Responds that the Metro counties would be allowed to participate if they wanted to, they are not forced to.

195

Rep. March

Asks how many rural development zones a county could adopt.

197

Levy

Responds that the bill does not put a limitation on this but there has to be a findings of fact, an economic analysis; it needs to be shown that it would be an economic benefit to the county.

220

Rep. Richardson

Summarizes that HB 2689 would allow counties to participate without being subject to statewide zoning that controls local options.

230

Levy

Answers affirmatively.

231

Chair Smith

Asks how long the exception process takes.

232

Levy

Responds that in many cases it can take years.

232

John Chandler

Legislative Advocate for the Urban Developers Coalition and Oregon Building Industry Association. Testifies in support of HB 2689. States that current policies were adopted at a time when the perspective was different than the outcome.

290

Chandler

Discusses HB 2691, HB 2961, and HB 2689.

304

John Lindsey

Linn County Commissioner.  Discusses the unemployment problem in the rural areas. Refers to Section 38 and provides examples of restrictions on the size of buildings.

415

Lindsey

Summarizes in support of HB 2689.

TAPE 28, A

010

Lindsey

Explains the Comprehensive Plan process issue.

040

Dale A. Saari

Central Oregon Coast Board of Realtors, Florence OR. Reads submitted testimony in support of HB 2689, (EXHIBIT B).

117

Saari

Continues to read (EXHIBIT B), Economic Ramifications. Summarizes in support of legislation that allows rural Oregonians the tax base for rural needs. Requests passage of HB 2689.

150

Rep. Gallegos

Asks what is the dollar figure to maneuver around the restrictions.

170

Saari

Responds that according to ODOT the exception process takes about three years and approximately $100,000.

187

Ranelle Morris

Former Mayor of Myrtle Point. Testifies that the permit process takes six months to a year and supports passage of HB 2689.

209

Chair Smith

Asks why the permit process is so long.

213

Morris

Answers because these are old mill sites and by the time the permit process is complete the business has gone elsewhere.

268

Bob Rindy

Department of Land Conservation and Development. Summarizes prepared testimony in opposition to HB 2689, (EXHIBIT C). Explains that one of the reasons there are not industrial sites is because when the sewer, water and road infrastructure is built the site tends to convert to commercial use.

385

Rindy

Suggests, if the bill moves forward, working with Legislative Counsel on some of the terms that are confusing.

389

Chair Smith

Asks what is the source for the 750,000 acres of 2 – 5 acre parcels.

393

Rindy

Responds these areas are exception areas in rural Oregon outside the UGB zoned for residential use.

439

Rep. Richardson

Refers to his comments about how HB 2689 will rework a plan that has been worked for thirty years. Asks for his response to the testimony claiming that the process in place is not working.

TAPE 27, B

025

Rindy

Responds that resources for water, sewer and roads are limited.

030

Rep. Richardson

Asks why is the state in a better position to make decisions that affect the counties rather than the counties making the decisions for themselves.

035

Rindy

Responds that this bill is not including the recommendations made from the local economic development officials.

044

Rep. Hunt

Asks would the members of that group oppose this legislation.

047

Rindy

Responds that the conclusion was that there are plenty of commercial sites available but not industrial sites.

067

Rep. Gallegos

Refers to his prior testimony regarding “shovel ready” sites and a 20-year supply of buildable land. Asks how much “shovel ready” land is there.

096

Rindy

Responds that the effort is on a supply of shovel ready industrial sites.

101

Chair Smith

Asks that he comment on the Morrow County situation.

114

Rindy

Responds that LCDC advised the county that they needed better justification; offers to provide details at a later date.

146

Randy Tucker

Legislative Affairs Director, 1000 Friends of Oregon. Submits prepared testimony in opposition to HB 2689, (EXHIBIT D). Refers to the map on page two, (EXHIBIT D). States this is a question of scale and service outside the UGB.

200

Tucker

States that HB 2689 in its current form is very broad.

206

Rep. Hunt

Asks if this bill passed in its current form, how many counties would come forward to avail themselves of this.

230

Tucker

Responds he does not know.

248

Stephen Kafoury

Oregon American Planners Association. Testifies in support of the concept but notes that there is concern about the broadness of the bill. Comments on particular sections of concern and explains.

300

Chair Smith

Asks does he acknowledge that there is a need for economic development in the rural communities.

308

Kafoury

Responds there is support for rural development but believes there needs to be planning.

335

Rep. Berger

States that her interpretation of this bill is that it would ease the process not eliminate the planning process.

345

Kafoury

Responds that in 1973 state-wide guidelines were put in place and explains the purpose UGB’s were put in place.

354

Rep. Berger

Refers to page two of (EXHIBIT D) and asks who pays.

400

Kafoury

Responds that the people in the contiguous areas are paying for the rural area developments.

430

Rep. Gallegos

Comments on how technology has changed the economy and the need to get people back to work.

TAPE 28, B

016

Chair Smith

Inquires that if each county can have goals that are more restrictive,  how is the state implementing land use consistently.

018

Kafoury

Responds that counties must do their planning by state rules.

039

Art Schlack

Association of Oregon Counties. Testifies in support of HB 2689 and notes that this bill is permissive but does not require counties to participate. Discusses the classifications of lands. States that this bill would provide a mix of uses in rural areas.

090

Schlack

States that the problems and issues of rural Oregon are due to the decline in agriculture and forest activities, this is an opportunity for local counties to plan.

116

Judge Mike McArthur

Chair of the Community Development Committee, County Judge of Sherman County. Testifies in support of HB 2689. States that Sherman county would take advantage of this opportunity.

139

Rep. Richardson

Refers to previous testimony that believes HB 2689, if passed, would give local authority the power to destroy land use planning. Asks for his position on local authorities making these decisions.

150

Judge McArthur

Responds that elected officials listen carefully to the public when making comprehensive land use plans. Explains that this would build on what is in place.

156

Rep. Hunt

Asks what initiated support for this bill.

165

Judge McArthur

Responds that this bill allows local empowerment.

180

Burton Weast

Special Districts Association of Oregon. Testifies in support of         HB 2689. Comments that zoning everything for housing is a legitimate concern, notes that the bill states; in an amount sufficient to support the economic development on the land. Explains that this is not an invitation to create residential areas but rather has a direct relationship to the industrial activity planned for the area.

239

Chair Smith

Closes the public hearing on HB 2689 and opens the work session on HB 2689.

 

(EXHIBIT E) Submitted for the record by Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association

HB 2689 WORK SESSION

244

Rep. Gallegos

MOTION:  Moves HB 2689 to the floor with a DO PASS recommendation.

224

Rep. Hass

Recommends amending the bill before sending it out of committee.

256

Rep. March

States that the bill as currently written is too broad and he cannot support it at this time. Explains that there are no limitations on the number of these areas and excluding the LCDC review process has potential problems.

269

Chair Smith

Notes the need for the creation of jobs in rural Oregon.

280

 

VOTE:  5-2

AYE:               5 - Berger, Gallegos, Hunt, Richardson, Smith P.

NAY:               2 - Hass, March

 

Chair Smith

The motion CARRIES.

 REP. T. SMITH will lead discussion on the floor.

290

Chair Smith

Closes the work session on HB 2689 and opens the public hearing on HB 2300.

HB 2300 PUBLIC HEARING

299

Edward (Sandy) Cutler

State Director for Oregon Small Business Development Network. Submits testimony in support of HB 2300-4 amendments,     (EXHIBIT F). Discusses Section 15 regarding community colleges.

323

Cam Preus-Braly

Commission of the Department of Community College and Workforce Development. Adds that community colleges have reduced their budgets for small business development centers by $400,000 in the last 12 – 15 months due to budget constraints.

343

Rep. Richardson

Refers to the broad nature of the language and suggests that the language as written is appropriate and explains why.

366

Judge Mike McArthur

Explains the intention of HB 2300-4 amendments.

TAPE 29, A

011

Chair Smith

States that the public hearing on HB 2300 will continue Wednesday.

024

Rep. Richardson

Asks what is meant by leveraging.

034

Judge McArthur

Explains that using these funds to leverage other funds is one of their best strategies.

039

Mike Burton

Assistant Director, Economic and Community Development Department. Explains the leverage requirements.

052

Rep. Hunt

Ask if there is a reason why the number of jobs and wage levels of those jobs are referenced only in the section on short-term jobs.

056

Burton

Responds it relates to both short-term and long-term jobs.

078

Schlack

Explains further.

092

Chair Smith

Closes the public hearing on HB 2300, announces the agenda plans for Wednesday and adjourns the meeting at  3:00 p.m.

 

 

EXHIBIT SUMMARY

 

A– HB 2689, prepared testimony, Harlan E. Levy, 13 pp pp.

B – HB 2689, prepared testimony, Dale A. Saari, 4 pp.

C – HB 2689, prepared testimony, Bob Rindy, 1 p

D – HB 2689, prepared testimony, Randy Tucker, 2 pp.

E – HB 2689, prepared testimony, Onno Husing OCZMA, 2 pp.

F – HB 2300-4 amendments dated 3/17/03, staff, 13 pp