HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
April 07, 2003 Hearing Room D
1:00 PM Tapes
38 - 39
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
MEASURES HEARD: HB
2299 Public Hearing
HJR 33, HB 2890, HB 3071, HB 2296
and HB 2302 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 38, A |
||
|
003 |
Chair Smith |
Calls the meeting to order at 2:10 p.m. and opens
the public hearing on HB 2299. |
|
HB 2299
PUBLIC HEARING |
||
|
010 |
Mike Burton |
·
Assistant Director,
Oregon Economic and Community Development,
(OECDD). States he will provide an overview of the policy issues and
how they relate to the -3 amendments,
(EXHIBIT A). Reiterates that the
intent of HB 2299 is to reorder the statute and extend the sunset. |
|
034 |
Burton |
Submits (EXHIBIT
B). Explains the Rural Strategic Investment Program proposal. |
|
050 |
Burton |
Explains the annual fee for community services, page
3, (EXHBIT A). |
|
074 |
Rep. Berger |
Asks what is meant by “a code area”. |
|
082 |
Burton |
Responds it is based on the taxing authority. |
|
090 |
Burton |
Continues, discusses the maximum of $2 million on
community service fees and the proposal for a proportionate reduction on the
ceiling for community service fees relative to the proposed $25 million
threshold in rural areas. |
|
107 |
Burton |
Notes that the Strategic Investment Program is a
negotiated process. |
|
|
|
Discusses E-commerce zones and states that the line
has purposely been left blank for the legislature to fill in. |
|
158 |
Burton |
Continues, discusses Construction-in-Process
exemptions. Explains the exception to the exemption. |
|
207 |
Rep. Hass |
Relative to E-commerce zones asks if this is a
statewide effort or is it intended to give rural Oregon an advantage. |
|
225 |
Burton |
Responds there is a policy balance. Suggests an
incremental change. |
|
235 |
Rep. Hass |
Notes that in 2001 he sponsored the E-commerce bill
and the intent was to help rural Oregon achieve an advantage and encourage
growth. |
|
242 |
Burton |
Notes that the program does create a distinction
between urban and rural zones and it could be clarified that it is to be
dedicated for rural zones. |
|
274 |
Rep. Richardson |
Asks about the qualifications for a motel to be
considered subject to these benefits, page 11 (EXHIBIT A). |
|
281 |
Burton |
Responds that at one time tourism was specified by
law as a key industry. Explains that the proposal allows jurisdictions within
an Enterprise Zone to make a one-time election based on the circumstances
unique to their community. |
|
324 |
Rep. Richardson |
Asks where this is located in the amendments. |
|
339 |
Kimberly A. Medford |
Committee Administrator. Refers to Section 17, page
14 of HB 2299 approximately line 18. |
|
345 |
Rep. Richardson |
Asks does this wording make a change to the
jurisdictions that already made that election. |
|
354 |
Burton |
Responds that those jurisdictions were allowed a
period of time to revisit the question. |
|
440 |
Rep. Hass |
Asks if there is a distinction between rural and
non-urban. |
|
443 |
Burton |
States he will research and provide the information. |
|
460 |
Hasina Squires |
Special Districts Association of Oregon. States
support for HB 2299-3 amendments. |
|
465 |
Rep. March |
Brings the -2 amendments to the attention of the
Special Districts, (EXHIBIT C). |
|
TAPE 39, A |
||
|
018 |
Burton |
States that on page 12 there is a definition of
urban Enterprise Zones. Non-urban Enterprise Zones are defined on line 3.
States that the urban zones are those in the metropolitan areas. |
|
036 |
Jim Anderson |
Avista Corp. Describes the Avista Corporation.
States support for HB 2299-3
amendments. Explains that Oregon imports all forms of energy products and is
subject to prices set by others. Provides an overview of Section 34 of HB
2299. |
|
075 |
Bob Hanson |
Avista Corp., Corporate Tax Manager, Spokane.
Discusses the facility underway in Morrow County; notes that when finished it
will be a $250 million plant that operates on natural gas. Comments on the
importance of the Enterprise Zone exemption and the Construction in Progress
exemption. |
|
094 |
Rep. Richardson |
Asks what benefit is there for Oregon to grant the
exemption on a project that has been under development for two years. |
|
107 |
Hanson |
Explains there were delays in the initial
construction period that incurred an unanticipated tax bill last year.
Explains how these amendments will allow an in-lui-of the five year extension
period. |
|
130 |
Rep. Hass |
Asks about rewarding activities that may occur with
or without the incentive. Asks would the project continue without this
exemption. |
|
146 |
Hanson |
Explains the plant will be completed shortly.
Comments on tax responsibility. |
|
205 |
Tom Linhares |
Columbia County Assessor. Testifies in support of
the HB 2299-3 amendments and states that HB 2299 has three goals:
|
|
230 |
Rep. Hunt |
Asks what is the status for those portions of the
state that fall in between the $100 million category and the $25 million
category. |
|
268 |
Linhares |
Responds that the Strategic Investment Exemption
program of today requires a project in excess of $600-$700 million in
property value to make it work. Lowering the threshold to $25 million would
require a project of $200 to $300 million to make it pay off. |
|
279 |
Linhares |
Explains that the options would need to be weighed
by the company. |
|
350 |
Doug Riggs |
Pac/West Communications. Submits (EXHIBIT D) and explains HB 2299-2 amendments, (EXHIBIT C). |
|
370 |
Riggs |
Explains how this is one more tool in the tool kit
for economic development. |
|
429 |
Rep. March |
Asks does this exempt an existing firm with an
existing plant from investing in anything other than hiring. |
|
TAPE 38, B |
||
|
003 |
Riggs |
Responds that the HB 2299-2 amendments do not change
the underlying program. Adds that Special Districts would not have to
participate in this section. |
|
025 |
Rep. Richardson |
Asks about the difference in number of hire/rehire
between (EXHIBIT C) and (EXHIBIT
D). |
|
020 |
Riggs |
Responds that the change to 150 was not incorporated
in the amendment as requested. Adds that the lower number would be reasonable
for the rural areas. |
|
033 |
Greg Baker |
Executive Director, Special Districts Association.
States that the -2 amendments have been reviewed and there are no issues for
Special Districts. |
|
042 |
Chair Smith |
Closes the public hearing on HB 2299 and plans to do
a work session on Wednesday. Opens the public hearing on HJR 33. |
|
HJR 33
PUBLIC HEARING |
||
|
050 |
Chair Smith |
Closes the public hearing on HJR 33 and opens the
public hearing on HB 2890. |
|
HB 2890
PUBLIC HEARING |
||
|
|
Chair Smith |
Closes the public hearing on HB 2890 and opens the
public hearing on HB 3071. |
|
HB 3071
PUBLIC HEARING |
||
|
053 |
Chair Smith |
Closes the public hearing on HB 3071 and opens the
public hearing on HB 2296. |
|
HB 2296
PUBLIC HEARING |
||
|
054 |
Chair Smith |
Closes the public hearing on HB 2296 and opens the
public hearing on HB 2302. |
|
HB 2302
PUBLIC HEARING |
||
|
056 |
Chair Smith |
Closes the public hearing on HB 2302 and adjourns
the meeting at 3:00 p.m. |
EXHIBIT
SUMMARY
A
– HB 2299-3 amendments dated 4/2/03, staff,
12 pp
B
– HB 2299-3 Material Effect Outline, Michael Burton, 2 pp
C
– HB 2299-2 amendments dated 3/20/03, staff, 2 pp
D
– HB 2299, Business Revival Incentives, Doug Riggs, 1 p