TAPE/#

Speaker

Comments

TAPE 7, A

003

Chair Garrard

Calls the meeting to order at 1:38 PM and opens a public hearing on HB 2356.  Notes that they will not have a work session as amendments to the bill are expected.

HB 2356 - PUBLIC HEARING

015

Rep. Sal Esquivel

Representative, Sponsor of HB 2356.  Gives personal example exemplifying the necessity of the bill.  Asserts that state law has inadvertently changed the role of county surveyor into land use planner. 

046

Rep. Esquivel

Discusses the increase in expenses and unnecessary complexities in the plat approval process.

056

Rep. Esquivel

Reiterates the role of the surveyor.

062

Rep. Esquivel

Announces support for HB 2356.  Comments he is also open to amendments.

075

Chair Garrard

Reviews the content of the bill.  Confirms that Section 1 will amend ORS 92.100 for clarity.

076

Rep. Esquivel

Agrees.

079

Chair Garrard

Confirms that Section 2 will amend ORS 197.015 and restates language HB 2356 (Page 4, line 2).

080

Rep. Esquivel

Agrees.

081

Chair Garrard

Confirms that Section 3 amends ORS 94.508 for clarity and asks for further explanation.

085

Rep. Esquivel

Asks what the Chair would like specifically clarified. 

087

Chair Garrard

Restates request for clarification of Section 3.

093

Rep. Esquivel

Reads from Section 3 (1) and Section 3 (2). 

098

Chair Garrard

Confirms that the amending will change “shall” to “may”

100

Rep. Esquivel

Agrees.

103

Rep. Greenlick

Wonders about an added “A” (HB 2356 Page 5, Line 3).

105

Sam Litke

Committee Administrator.  Attempts to clarify. 

107

Rep. Greenlick

Wants to know if the “A” refers to one specific item or the entire list.

109

Litke

Answers that it will refer to one specific item. 

117

Rep. Esquivel

Believes it is a “housekeeping issue”. 

123

Chair Garrard

Confirms that in Section 4 (3)(a) the only change is the addition of an “A”.

124

Rep. Esquivel

Confirms.

125

Chair Garrard

Confirms the understanding of what will be amended in Section 5 and asks for an explanation.

127

Rep. Esquivel

Responds that there will be greater flexibility in collecting fees.

136

Rep. Greenlick

References Page 1, Lines 25-32.  Notes the deletion which requires the surveyor to review the plat and wonders if there is another place that the plat will be reviewed to check for applicable provisions. 

145

Rep. Esquivel

Clarifies, speaking to the differences between city surveyor and county surveyor.  Verifies that the plats are thoroughly reviewed and then go through a final process with the county surveyor. 

173

Rep. Ackerman

In reference to Section 1 (2), asks if he is restating correctly when he says that “the surveyor has authority to make decisions here outside of his/her scope of work”.

183

Rep. Esquivel

Replies negatively.  Notes that the surveyor should not be involved in interpretation of land use planning.  Believes the surveyors will support this bill.

196

Chair Garrard

Asks if Section 1, line 23, is the portion which “holds the surveyor to surveying”.

197

Rep. Esquivel

Responds affirmatively.

203

Rep.  Anderson

Asks if this will add another fee and if they were handled privately in the past.

206

Rep. Esquivel

Answers that the fees are long established and it sets a minimum. 

218

Rep. Anderson

Questions if this section is merely stating the fee or adding a fee. 

223

Rep. Esquivel

Believes that if the city has their own surveyor then the city can “sign off” on it.

226

Rep. Greenlick

References Section 1, lines 8-9 verifying that the city surveyor would have the authority.   

227

Rep. Esquivel

Notes that those who don’t have city surveyors must take their claims to the county surveyor.

233

Rep. Sumner

States his support for the concept.  Remarks on the Sections 1 (a) and 1(b).

255

Thomas Gallagher

Professional Land Surveyors of Oregon. 

260

Chair Garrard

Asks if surveyors would have any objection to this bill.

265

Gallagher

Responds they would have no objection in principle.  States 2 issues currently:

• Surveyors’ actions became a land use decision through reference to a surveying statute in a LUBA (Land Use Board of Appeals) case which he believes needs to be corrected.
• County surveyors are concerned about notice on plats. 

310

John Watt

Jackson County.  Submits written testimony on behalf of Jackson County in support of HB 2356 (EXHIBIT A).  Expresses interest in being a part of the work group. 

318

Art Schlack

Association of Oregon Counties.  Says that the “devil is in the detail”.  Recalls that historically, final plats have never been land use decisions.  Discusses the Hammer vs. Clackamas County case (2003).

343

Schlack

Notifies the committee that there is a legislative concept currently with the Legislative Counsel.   Expresses interest in working with Esquivel.  Notes concern with answering technical questions within the bill to avoid future uncertainties with intent.

375

Schlack

Informs the committee that there are parties beyond the surveyor who are required to sign a final plat including: the county assessor, elected officials from the governing body and the planning director.  Wants to assure that all aforementioned parties are not making land use decisions or limited land use decisions.

400

Schlack

Requests more time to create a comprehensive amendment. 

TAPE 8, A

011

Chair Garrard

Asks how much time the work group would require.

013

Schlack

Answers that they would need 30 days.

015

BJ Smith

Government Relations Director, Clackamas County.  Discusses the Hammer vs. Clackamas County case (2003).

021

Smith

Stresses importance in watching language and discusses “limited land use decision”. 

034

Smith

Believes there needs to be an adjustment in the language so that the necessary review comes at the beginning of the development process instead of the end.

048

Smith

Asserts that the county surveyor made a “limited land use decision” and should not have been subject to an appeal for that reason.  Wants to work towards a solution. 

058

Rep. Ackerman

References Page 4, lines 6-8.  Wonders why specific reference to ORS 92.100 was included instead of removal of the entire chapter 92.

073

Smith

Asserts that the particular language has circularity.  Desires clarification in this section.  Worries about future court misinterpretation of intention.

084

Rep. Ackerman

States he wanted to bring the issue up for work group to address.

085

Smith

Agrees.

090

Chair Garrard

Requests Bob Rindy give the position of the Department of Land Conservation and Development.

090

Bob Rindy

Department of Land Conservation and Development.  States that HB 2356 does not directly affect the department and that they have no problem with the bill or with the intent of bill.

098

Chair Garrard

Requests that those who testified work to bring an amended bill back to the committee in 30 days.

108

Rep. Anderson

Questions who the group will report to.

109

Chair Garrard

Responds that they will report to the committee.

110

Chair Garrard

Closes public hearing on HB 2356.

113

Chair Garrard

Adjourns the meeting at 2:13 PM.