TAPE/#

Speaker

Comments

TAPE 20, A

002

Chair Garrard

Calls the meeting to order at 1:37 p.m. and opens a public hearing on HB 2458.

HB 2458 – PUBLIC HEARING

011

Sam Litke

Committee Administrator. Describes HB 2458.

020

Rep. Bob Jensen

HD 58.  Testifies in support of HB 2458.  Describes origin of bill stemming from problem expanding development in Hermiston and defers to Harlan Levy for further details.

067

Harlan Levy

Staff Attorney, Oregon Association of Realtors.  Discusses the impact of HB 2458 on rural communities in Oregon.  Submits written testimony in support of HB 2458 (EXHIBIT A).

122

Levy

Outlines the necessity of HB 2458 (Page 2, EXHIBIT A).  Comments on the problems associated with periodic review and imposing maximum building sizes. 

140

Levy

Refers to support of HB 2458 from the Boards of County Commissioners from Klamath County, Umatilla County, and Josephine County and a newspaper article (Page 4-7, EXHIBIT A).

150

Levy

Refers to HB 2614 (2003) which addressed this issue but only partially and temporarily.  Reiterates case for HB 2458.  Discusses the provision which increases the population threshold.

198

Rep. Greenlick

Asks if that is found in Section 1 (2)(a).

202

Levy

Confirms that the change in population is found on Page 1, lines 19-21.

204

Rep. Greenlick

Asks if it is intended to apply only to cities larger than 25,000.

210

Levy

Responds negatively.  Clarifies the origin of this provision.

222

Rep. Greenlick

Seeks clarification as it seems that Section 1(2)(a) and (b) are contradictory.

234

Levy

Explains that counties cannot approve a building size within 3 miles within the urban growth boundary (UGB) of a city of 25,000 or more but can permit it anywhere outside the UGB of a city less than 25,000.

242

Rep. Nolan

Asks if there is an outer limit to the second part of the area.

258

Levy

Responds that there is no outer limit but notes that the bill does not apply to the Willamette Valley.

271

Rep. Nolan

Contends that territory within 3 miles of the UGB of a city of 25,000 could also be anywhere outside the UGB of another city.

280

Levy

Responds that the provisions are supposed to be exclusive and agrees to clarification language if necessary.

292

Levy

Reiterates points in support of HB 2458 which are summarized on (Page 3, EXHIBIT A) and urges the passage of HB 2458.

353

Rep. Nolan

Asks if an inventory of land that stands to benefit from HB 2458 has been done.

360

Levy

Responds that it has not.  Elaborates that his statistics come from information from Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) in reference to HB 2614 (2003).

373

Rep. Nolan

Comments that it may be beneficial to produce a map highlighting targeted areas.

383

Levy

Agrees that it would be beneficial and defers to counties.

400

Tamra Mabbott

Planning Director, Umatilla County and President, Association of Oregon County Planning Directors.  Refers to Nolan’s question about inventory.  Has asked all the counties for that information and is in the process of compiling it.  Believes that passage of HB 2458 will not undermine the state land use program.  Describes issues related to Goal 14.

TAPE 21, A

002

Mabbott

Speaks in support of HB 2458 on behalf of Umatilla County and expresses openness to amendments for clarifying language.

013

Mabbott

Asserts that HB 2458 will help to preserve integrity of the land use program and property rights while helping with the periodic review process and facilitating economic development. 

061

Mabbott

Offers to provide information and references subcommittee work, which she believes support of HB 2458 would complement.

083

Rep. Anderson

Asks for her comment on the limitation of HB 2458 that says they cannot extend sewer or infrastructure to the properties.

087

Mabbott

Responds that Goal 11 on public utilities provides necessary growth limitations within city limits.

100

Art Schlack

Association of Oregon Counties.  Speaks in favor on HB 2458 with one possible amendment.  Discusses HB 2162 which removes the sunset clause established in HB 2614 (2003).  Supports addition of commercial uses with recognition of criteria established in HB 2614.

159

Linda Ludwig

League of Oregon Cities.  Speaks in support of HB 2458 with amendments.  References a work group with Department of Land Conservation and Development and suggests adding a sunset for the commercial provision.

174

Chair Garrard

Expresses disinterest in a sunset provision as it hampers businesses planning.

179

Ludwig

Submits written testimony (EXHIBIT B). 

196

Randy Tucker

Legislative Affairs, Metro.  Reports his participation with the DLCD workgroup.

204

Chair Garrard

Asks why Metro is on the work group for a bill that targets eastern Oregon.

205

Tucker

Speculates that DLCD is discussing issues beyond eastern Oregon while HB 2458 deals specifically with eastern Oregon.

218

Tucker

States that Metro is neutral on the bill and references HB 2458 Page 1, lines 22-23 which specify that the bill does not apply to the Willamette Valley.

235

Chair Garrard

Reports information provided that the population of Hermiston is over 14,000 explaining their concern for the population limit of 15,000.

246

Rep. Greenlick

Asks what population measure is being used.

250

Ludwig

Speculates that it is the Portland State University population census.

260

Stephen Kafoury

Oregon Chapter of the American Planning Association (OAPA).  Comments on involvement with previous bill and complications in moving the bill.  States the benefit of considering actual impacts the bill would have before making a decision.

360

Kafoury

Speaks to the positive effects of the urbanization goal.

379

Rep. Avakian

Comments on the possibility of containing development to main thoroughfares in rural areas rather than expansion laterally.  Points to differences between urbanization in eastern and western Oregon.

393

Kafoury

Gives an example from Bend and Redmond to illustrate lack of planning.

TAPE 20, B

003

Chair Garrard

Comments that it is growth.

004

Kafoury

Responds that growth can be “sprawl” or planned growth.

007

Chair Garrard

Points to those who receive jobs from “sprawl”.

009

Kafoury

Contends that jobs are moved not added.

016

Rep. Avakian

Returns to earlier point and speaks to the expanding along thoroughfares rather than into prime lands in specific areas.

027

Kafoury

Comments on the State’s role in planning.

034

Chair Garrard

Expresses his belief that local government should have more authority.

040

Bob Rindy

Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD).  Describes the work group and their actions.  Submits written testimony  on behalf of Lane Shetterly in opposition to HB 2458 (EXHIBIT C).  Submits that a consensus can be reached to address the issues in the work group.

083

Chair Garrard

Reads from (Page 1, EXHIBIT C) “the enactment of HB 2458 would complicate LCDC’s effort to address these already complex issues.”  Comments that steps need to be taken now to help the people of Oregon.

097

Rindy

Clarifies their intent and assures that they are dealing with the issue.  Refers to the earlier question about the appointment of Metro to the work group.  States that policy issues dealing with retail and industrial uses outside cities effect the whole state.

113

Elon Hasson

1000 Friends of Oregon.  Submits written testimony on behalf of Mary Kyle McCurdy (EXHIBIT D).  States that 1000 Friends of Oregon opposes HB 2458.  Would like to allow the work group to finish and outlines concerns.

145

Chair Garrard

Asks if OAPA has a position on the bill.

151

Kafoury

Responds that they are opposed at this time and would like to see the results of the LCDC group.

160

Chair Garrard

Asks Rindy how many times the work group has met.

163

Rindy

Responds that the first meeting was about a month ago. 

170

 Chair Garrard

Asks if they have a time estimate for the work group to finish.

174

Rindy

Responds that there isn’t a deadline.

183

Chair Garrard

Comments on inefficiency of the agency in the past.

187

Rindy

Responds that this is the last issue among a list raised by the Curry County case.

195

Rep. P. Smith

Wonders why the work group has not started to meet until recently.

199

Rindy

Responds that LCDC had four or five major policy efforts under way.  Lists other issues that consumed time. 

214

Chair Garrard

References previous “track record”.

228

Rindy

Comments on the significant number of issues solved.

244

Rep. Anderson

Comments on Hasson’s remark about increased travel due to work siting.  Believes HB 2458 gives flexibility to put people to work.

274

Hasson

Agrees with Rep. Anderson but believes the HB 2458 doesn’t do exactly what was claimed.

290

Rep. Avakian

Remarks that local communities are the most qualified to make decisions about the location of work sites.

298

Rep. Sumner

Refers to Levy’s testimony and comments on the small percentage of private land effected.

311

Rindy

Responds that they are unsure of how far reaching the effects will be and that is something the work group wants to determine.

322

Chair Garrard

Requests the formation of a work group and for the bill to be heard again on March 2, 2005.  Closes the public hearing on HB 2458 and opens a public hearing on HB 2484.

HB 2484 – PUBLIC HEARING

350

Sam Litke

Committee Administrator.  Explains HB 2484.

380

Bob Clay

Supervising Planner, City of Portland.  Submits written testimony and map (EXHIBIT E).  Refers to map which shows unincorporated areas around Portland (EXHIBIT E, Page 3).  Outlines cooperation agreements with neighboring jurisdictions.

TAPE 21, B

030

Clay

Asserts that they don’t want to see existing tools taken from the city and begins outlining areas of concern including (EXHIBIT E, Page 2):

• Assuring orderly development and service delivery
• Cost and timing issues
• Ability for city to meet future city and regional planning and service delivery requirements

059

Rep. Greenlick

Wonders if the mayor agrees with the notion of democracy.

061

Clay

Responds affirmatively.

062

Rep. Greenlick

Cites the cooperation agreements and asks if the people effected have had a vote or representation in the outcome.

065

Clay

Responds affirmatively and elaborates on the public opportunity for involvement through the comprehensive planning process.

075

Rep. Greenlick

Notes constituents in HD 33 and asks if it is the position of Portland that people in unincorporated areas should not be able to have a vote on what city they live in.

096

Clay

Responds that he can’t speak for the mayor but was asked to testify against HB 2484 as written and adds that in practice they go through annexations as a matter of property owner consent. 

104

Rep. Greenlick

Asks if it is the position of Portland that they might accept a bill that would allow a continuation of current policy but eliminate things not in the current policy.

108

Clay

Responds that the city does not want to preclude options under state law with respect to annexation. 

113

Jerry J. Ritter

Oregon Communities for a Voice in Annexations.  Submits and reads written testimony (EXHIBIT F).  In response to Rep. Greenlick’s earlier concerns, comments on the lack of citizen involvement in “195 plans”.

135

Ritter

Explains the unclear language of ORS 205 and gives examples of unfair usage.

180

Ritter

Urges support of HB 2484 without amendments.

192

Isador. W. Morgavi

Tigard, OR.  Reads from written testimony (EXHIBIT G) and speaks in support of preserving the double majority vote.

250

Rep. Greenlick

Asks if he is opposed to people taken into a governance form without vote.

255

Morgavi

Responds affirmatively.

300

Rep. Jerry Krummel

HD 26.  Comments on the Bull Mountain-Tigard annexation issue.  Speaks in favor of  the double majority vote.

374

Mitch Rohse

Interim Urban Planning Administrator, City of Salem. Relays that the City of Salem is concerned about HB 2484 and the companion bills HB 3211, SB 380 and SB 491 that all deal with this issue. 

TAPE 22, A

005

Rohse

Lists the four main reasons they’re concerned:

• ·         prohibits the city from having orderly annexation of land that has been designated for urban use and required under state statute
• ·         defeats statewide planning program and local planning provisions designed to provide efficient facilities and public services
• ·         problems servicing areas outside the UGB without the tax revenue to support it
• ·         democratic efforts of citizens involved in planning will be thwarted.

040

Rep. Ackerman

Asks about the county’s role in annexation cases and how that effects the City of Salem’s planning.

045

Rohse

Asks for clarification of the question.

050

Rep. Ackerman

Restates wondering why planning would be more difficult if planning agencies are still involved at the local level.

055

Rohse

Agrees that the city enters into interagency agreements and gives an example.

066

Rep. Ackerman

Contends that many unincorporated areas are fully urbanized by counties or other public entities and that the argument for annexation based on provision of services becomes moot.

078

Rep. Greenlick

Asks for comment on the balance of efficiency and democracy.

090

Rohse

Comments on history of advocacy for citizen involvement but also notes the values of planning. 

118

Rep. Nolan

Clarifies that the city has coordinated planning efforts with the county and asks what the counties’ participation has been.

124

Rohse

Responds that he doesn’t know.

130

Rep. Nolan

Confirms that the county commission, elected by people who live in the county, has participated in work with the city through official channels.

135

Rohse

Responds affirmatively.

140

Rep. Nolan

Continues that representatives of people in unincorporated areas have had representation in this process.

141

Rohse

Responds affirmatively.

143

Rep. Nolan

Refers to earlier comment that some counties are providing services to unincorporated areas within the UGB but outside of a city.  Asks if this is funded through the counties’ general fund.

153

Rohse

Confirms.

156

Rep. Nolan

Asks if the property owners within city limits pay into that general fund.

158

Rohse

Responds that the city pays into the county fund but not the reverse.

160

Rep. Nolan

Asks if the county provides any planning services or zoning services for properties within the city limits

161

Rohse

Responds negatively.

162

Rep. Nolan

Concludes that some property owners within the city are paying property taxes to the county which are used to provide services in unincorporated areas.

167

Rohse

Provides an example of urban areas outside the Salem city limits that receive city services without paying taxes for them.

178

Rep. Avakian

Asks if the City of Salem wanted to annex an unincorporated area within the county, if the county has the authority to veto that decision.

183

Rohse

Responds he’s not sure but doesn’t believe there are any mechanisms for that. 

185

Rep. Avakian

States that the effort is collaborative but counties do not have the authority to stop the city.  Asserts that county commissioners would have no greater authority than individual homeowners.

192

Rohse

Agrees and notes wording of agreements that state counties “should” support annexation.

198

Rep. Anderson

Comments on the areas of contention at city limits rather than “islands” and asks for comment on the issue of efficiency.

215

Rohse

Responds that there are varying degrees of efficiency in special districts.

232

Rep. Anderson

Asserts that cities contribute to the problem by continually annexing small portions.

235

Rohse

Responds that it is in part a problem with annexation laws which are in disconnect with planning laws.

244

Ken Henschel

Citizen Participation Organization 4B.  Submits resolution urging support and preservation of “double majority” voting requirements (EXHIBIT H).

288

Eugene Schoenheit

Oak Grove, OR.  Speaks in support of double majority vote. 

341

Lisa Hamilton-Treich

Friends of Bull Mountain.  Submits written testimony on behalf of Richard Franzke (EXHIBIT I).  Speaks in opposition of single majority voting annexation methods.   Discusses efforts by Bull Mountain to plan annexation made more difficult by ill will created by previous annexations attempts.  Urges support of HB 2484.

TAPE 23, A

025

Charles B. Ormsby

Birdshill Community Planning Organization.  Describes principles he believes important to the process of annexation summarized on Powerpoint presentation (EXHIBIT J, Page 2) including requiring a double majority vote.

064

Ormsby

Summarizes (EXHIBIT J, Page 3-6) describing the details of the Birdshill issue.

120

Rep. Greenlick

Reads written testimony on behalf of the Rob Gordon, Washington County Sheriff in support of HB 2484 (EXHIBIT K).

135

Randy Tucker

Legislative Affairs Manager, Metro.  Expresses interest in broad look at issues relating to annexation. 

186

Rep. Greenlick

Comments that his constituents are worried about holding off the process and wonders about having the large discussions now.

200

Tucker

Defers to Linda Ludwig but also comments it may not be enough time to deal with all the elements of this issue. 

224

Linda Ludwig

League of Oregon Cities.  Submits chart of Oregon’s annexation methods (EXHIBIT L) and expresses concern about fewer forms of annexation.  Reiterates that land use planning system and annexation are not compatible and doesn’t believe statewide fixes are necessarily the answer.

264

Ludwig

Gives history of SB 122 (1993).

324

Ludwig

Comments on the public processes held but concedes there have been glitches.  Gives examples of some annexation attempts.  

349

Rep. Greenlick

Asks Ludwig to comment on larger problems of annexation in regards to Beaverton.

365

Ludwig

Responds that she’s giving an overview of the state and that Beaverton is not using ORS 195 annexation methods as she was discussing.

396

Ludwig

Gives the League’s recommendation to take a comprehensive look at annexation and expresses openness to dealing with specific issues in the short term.

410

Rep. Greenlick

Asks if the League would support a moratorium on any annexations while discussing the larger issue.

TAPE 22, B

021

Ludwig

Expresses hesitation toward a moratorium on all annexations but openness towards a solution.

027

Rep. Greenlick

Asserts interest in comprehensive solution but doesn’t want to delay.

043

Ludwig

Will take the request back to the League.

045

Chair Garrard

Ask what period of time she would require.

046

Ludwig

Responds one week.

The following prepared testimony is submitted for the record without public testimony:

James Seaberry

River Road/Santa Clara Property Owner’s Association.  Submits written testimony in support of HB 2484 (EXHIBIT M).

Pat Whiting

Tigard.  Submits written testimony in support of HB 2484 (EXHIBIT N).

Mark Ulrich

Lake Oswego.  Submits written testimony in support of HB 2484 (EXHIBIT O).

055

Chair Garrard

Closes the public hearing on HB 2484 and opens a work session for the purpose of introduction of committee measures.

INTRODUCTION OF COMMITTEE MEASURES – WORK SESSION

060

Sam Litke

Briefly describes LC drafts 1836 (EXHIBIT P), 1838 (EXHIBIT Q), 1839 (EXHIBIT R), 1840 (EXHIBIT S), 1842 (EXHIBIT T) and 1843 (EXHIBIT U).

083

Rep Nolan

Asks if these will be introduced at the request of Oregonians in Action.

085

Chair Garrard

Confirms.

088

Rep. Sumner

MOTION:  Moves LC's:  1836, 1838, 1839, 1840, 1842, 1843 BE INTRODUCED as committee bills.

090

Rep. Greenlick

Notes that support of introduction of committee measures does not represent individual positions in opposition or support of the measures.

VOTE:  6-0-1

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

EXCUSED:  1 - Rep. Ackerman

098

Chair Garrard

The motion CARRIES.

100

Chair Garrard

Closes the work session on introduction on committee measures and adjourns the meeting at 4:27 p.m.