|
|
PUBLIC HEARING: SB 391, HB 2197A |
|
|
TAPES 50-51,
A-B |
March 5,
2003 1:00 PM STATE CAPITOL BUILDING
Members Present: Senator Ryan Deckert, Chair
Senator Ted
Ferrioli, Vice Chair
Senator
Tony Corcoran
Senator
Lenn Hannon
Members Excused: Senator Charlie Ringo
Senator
Bruce Starr
Witnesses Present: Senator Frank Shields, District 24
Carl
Myers, Keizer Municipal Judge
Charles
Stern, Yamhill County Clerk
Norm
Miller, Department of Revenue
Wally
Rutledge, Department of Forestry
Kristina
McNitt, Oregon Small Woodlands Association
Neil
Westfall, Oregon Small Woodlands Association
Staff Present: Richard
Yates, Legislative Revenue Office
Paul
Warner, Legislative Revenue Office
Tara
Lantz, Committee Assistant
TAPE
50, SIDE A
|
004 |
Vice-Chair Ferrioli |
Calls meeting to order at 1:10pm |
OPENS PUBLIC HEARING ON SB
391
|
012 |
Sen. Frank Shields |
Testifies in support of SB 391
because it would cover the costs of the public service of processing and
performing weddings and would be a revenue source in these tight budget
times. |
|
|
|
|
|
052 |
Sen. Ferrioli |
Asks about the current small
honorarium fee. |
|
|
|
|
|
055 |
Sen. Shields |
Responds that he has heard from
Judges that they don’t even collect the small fee because it costs more to
process the fee than it brings in. States that a judge can only charge a fee
if the service is performed after hours or outside of the courthouse. |
|
|
|
|
|
079 |
Sen. Ferrioli |
Asks if there is a fiscal or revenue
impact issued. |
|
|
|
|
|
086 |
Paul Warner |
Responds that there is no revenue
impact and that a fiscal impact is in the process of being issued. |
|
|
|
|
|
092 |
Carl Myers |
Testifies in support of the idea of
SB 391, but believes it breaks down as it reaches local judges because they
often work part-time as judges and process weddings through their own law
firms which leads to the question of where the money should go. Suggests that
the bill be amended to only include state court judges. |
|
|
|
|
|
143 |
Sen. Ferrioli |
Refers members to the possible
amendments in the written testimony from Judge Wittmayer. Exhibit 3. Asks if it would solve the problem if the
money collected from the fee was retained for the jurisdiction that provided
the service. |
|
|
|
|
|
155 |
Myers |
Responds that it would be appropriate,
but for his own situation doesn’t feel that it is necessary to charge a fee
to cover government services because no staff time is involved other than
what is covered by the honorarium fee. States that it would be appropriate if
a municipality had full time judges that perform weddings to charge a fee for
staff time. |
|
190 |
Charles Stern |
Points out that if a wedding is
performed after hours there is already a fee issued by law and that SB 391
would enforce the $25 fee on top of that for after hour weddings, creating a
double tax. |
|
|
|
|
|
215 |
Sen. Shields |
Responds to Stern’s concern that
even if the wedding is performed after hours it is appropriate because the work
is still done and the money is still coming from the taxpayers. |
CLOSES PUBLIC HEARING ON SB
391
OPENS PUBLIC HEARING ON HB
2197A
|
256 |
Dick Yates |
Discusses the background on HB
2197A. Exhibit 4. Gives brief overview of sections covered in the bill.
Exhibit 7, slide 1. |
|
|
|
|
|
333 |
Yates |
Discusses the extension of the 80-20
program. Exhibit 7, slide 2. |
|
|
|
|
|
378 |
Corcoran |
Asks if there was a revenue impact issued
on this part of the program. |
|
|
|
|
|
380 |
Yates |
Responds negatively, but points out
there is a revenue impact issued for the entire bill (Exhibit 5). |
|
|
|
|
|
383 |
Yates |
Discusses small tract forestland.
Exhibit 7, slide 3. |
|
|
|
|
|
402 |
Yates |
Discusses property tax relating to
HB 2197A. Exhibit 7, slide 4. Questions and answers interspersed. |
TAPE 51, SIDE A
|
003 |
Yates |
Discusses severance tax relating to
HB 2197A. Exhibit 7, slide 5. |
|
|
|
|
|
022 |
Yates |
Discusses the application process
and requirements for qualification. Exhibit 7, slides 6-7. |
|
|
|
|
|
058 |
Yates |
Discusses situations in which the
owner needs to notify the assessor and disqualifications for the program.
Exhibit 7, slides 8-9. |
|
|
|
|
|
080 |
Yates |
Discusses additional taxes from the
small tract forestland program. Exhibit 7, slide 10. |
|
|
|
|
|
104 |
Yates |
Discusses severance tax
administration and distribution. Exhibit 7, slides 11-14. |
|
|
|
|
|
153 |
Yates |
Discusses amendments and other
miscellaneous sections to the bill. Exhibit 7, slides 15-18. Clarifying questions and answers
interspersed. |
|
|
|
|
|
236 |
Yates |
Discusses example showing that
penalties will prevent exiting of the program prior to harvest. Exhibit 8. |
|
|
|
|
|
331 |
Sen. Hannon |
Asks if the application goes to the
Department of Forestry. |
|
|
|
|
|
341 |
Yates |
Responds that it goes to the County
Assessor and not the Department of Forestry. Discussion follows. |
|
|
|
|
|
424 |
Norm Miller |
Testifies in support of HB 2197A
because it decreases administrative costs and brings small forestland taxes
into conformity with Measure 50. Discusses the process of drafting the bill
and points out key issues of the bill. Exhibit 9. Discusses what the bill
involves for the Department of Revenue and how the administrative costs are
being reduced. Questions and answers interspersed. |
TAPE 50, SIDE B
|
051 |
Sen. Ferrioli |
Asks if the fiscal impact (Exhibit
6) is anticipated in the Governor’s budget. |
|
|
|
|
|
065 |
Miller |
Responds affirmatively. Discussion follows. |
|
|
|
|
|
072 |
Sen. Ferrioli |
Asks if the Department of Revenue
feels that there is only one class of forestland in Eastern Oregon but not in
Western Oregon as reflected in the fact that Western Oregon has 8 different
classifications, while Eastern Oregon has only one. |
|
|
|
|
|
078 |
Miller |
Responds that the Department of
Revenue follows the orders of the Legislature for determining rates and
doesn’t know why they determined that Eastern Oregon should have one rate. |
|
|
|
|
|
086 |
Sen. Ferrioli |
Asks why there are eight classes in
Western Oregon. |
|
|
|
|
|
089 |
Miller |
Responds that it is the ability of
that land to grow timber and that there are major differences between Eastern
and Western Oregon methodology. |
|
|
|
|
|
101 |
Sen. Ferrioli |
Points out that there have been
several studies in Western Oregon to develop different site classes that
haven’t been done in Eastern Oregon, and that the issue might be revisited at
a later time. |
|
|
|
|
|
115 |
Wally Rutledge |
Discusses the issue brought up by
Sen. Ferrioli and what is currently being done about it. Discusses issues
from report done by a working group over the interim on small tract
forestland taxes. Urges the support of HB 2197A because it is cost efficient
and encourages the growth of small timber forestlands. Exhibit 10. |
|
|
|
|
|
240 |
Kristina McNitt |
Discusses the small tract forestland
task force established by the 2001 Legislature and its recommendations. Testifies
in support of HB 2197A. Refer to written testimony. Exhibit 11. |
|
|
|
|
|
277 |
Neil Westfall |
Testifies in support of HB 2197A. |
CLOSES PUBLIC HEARING ON HB
2197A
|
302 |
Sen. Ferrioli |
Adjourns meeting at 2:19pm |
Tape Log Submitted by,
Tara Lantz, Committee Assistant Reviewed
by Kim Taylor James
Exhibit Summary:
1.
SB 391, Paul Warner, Staff Measure Summary, 1p.
2.
SB 391, Sen. Frank Shields, Written Testimony, 1p.
3.
SB 391, John A. Wittmayer, Written Testimony, 3pp.
4.
HB 2197A, Richard Yates, Staff Measure Summary, 1p.
5.
HB 2197A, Richard Yates, Revenue Impact Statement, 2pp.
6.
HB 2197A, Richard Yates, Fiscal Impact Statement, 2pp.
7.
HB 2197A, Richard Yates, PowerPoint Presentation, 9pp.
8.
HB 2197A, Richard Yates, Penalty Example, 1p.
9.
HB 2197A, Norm Miller, Written Testimony, 8pp.
10.
HB 2197A, Wally Rutledge, Written Testimony, 4pp.
11.
HB 2197A, Kristina McNitt, Written Testimony, 2pp.