TAPE/#

Speaker

Comments

TAPE 28, A

002

Chair Garrard

Calls the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. and opens an informational meeting on Measure 37 appraisals.

MEASURE 37 APPRAISALS – INFORMATIONAL MEETING

006

Matthew Larrabee

Real Estate Services Group, Inc.  Submits written testimony (EXHIBIT A).  Gives overview of appraisals and the role of appraisers.  Specifies three approaches to appraisals of vacant land as “Cost Approach”, “Sales Comparison Approach” and “Income Approach” (EXHIBIT A, Pages 1-2).

050

Larrabee

Reports on who may offer an “expert opinion of value” under Oregon law and the levels of licensing (EXHIBIT A, Pages 2-3).

062

Larrabee

Outlines the role of the appraiser (EXHIBIT A, Pages 3-4).

083

Larrabee

Describes Measure 37 appraisals as “before and after” valuations and outlines considerations in this process.   

102

Larrabee

Discusses determining the “Highest and Best Use” and the questions involved (EXHIBIT A, Page 5).  Points out the importance of market characteristics.  Lists sub-consultants needed for appraisal work.

130

Larrabee

Describes the process and importance of “review appraisals” (EXHIBIT A, Page 6).   

147

Larrabee

Discusses the Appraisers Coalition and contact information (EXHIBIT A, Page 7).

162

Larrabee

References excerpts from Oregon Administrative Rules on scope of practice and procedures for appraiser certification (EXHIBIT A, Page 8-10).

168

Rep. Anderson

Asks for the relationship of the MIA designation to state general certified appraisers.

172

Larrabee

Responds that the “MIA” designation is awarded by the Appraisal Institute and describes requirements.

180

Rep. Anderson

Asks if any of the three licensing levels can receive the MIA designation.

181

Larrabee

Responds that only General Certified Appraiser can receive the MIA designation.

183

Rep Ackerman

Asks if Larrabee has an opinion as to whether a statement of a property owner’s opinioned value of the property is sufficient to determine fair market value under Measure 37.

190

Larrabee

Responds that in most cases it is unlikely a reflection of market value especially in dealing with vacant land.

195

Chair Garrard

Asks if in the “best use” valuation it is assumed that everything would be approved on the land in question.

204

Larrabee

Responds that it is dangerous to assume too much and remarks on the practice of meeting with city experts to gather information on the subject and regulations in the area.

213

Chair Garrard

Asks if one requirement is missing, if the whole process would be effected.

218

Larrabee

References their pre-application process as one way of dealing with those issues but that some production costs would come off the value of the land.

227

Chair Garrard

Asks the minimum number of homes that constitute a subdivision.

133

Larrabee

Comments that it varies by jurisdiction.  Notes that some use “Lot line adjustment minor partition” for up to four or five lots and beyond that go through the subdivision process which is more likely to hold a public hearing.

249

Chair Garrard

Closes the informational meeting on Measure 37 Appraisals and opens the public hearing on HB 2484.

HB 2484 – PUBLIC HEARING

320

Phil Decker

Tigard.  Testifies in support of HB 2484.  Comments that with a single majority vote, those to be annexed in practice only receive a fractional voting capability.  Urges double majority voting for a full vote. 

TAPE 29, A

014

Rep. Jerry Krummel

HD 26.  States, as one of the chief sponsors of HB 2484, his opposition to any amendments which would water down or eliminate the double majority.  References -1 amendments (EXHIBIT B).

039

Chair Garrard

Notes that the committee has not yet accepted any amendments

042

Rep. Dave Hunt

HD 40.  Speaks in support of HB 2484 and asserts its statewide relevance.  Commends the legislation as written or in close form. 

066

Jim Thompson

Chairperson, Oregon Communities for a Voice in Annexations (OCVA).  Submits and reads from written testimony in support of HB 2484 (EXHIBIT C).  

111

Jack Hoffman

Member, Lake Oswego City Council.  Submits written testimony in opposition to HB 2484 (EXHIBIT D).  References SB 122 (1993) and its intent of addressing long range planning with the urban growth boundary (UGB).  Asserts that the fractional voting argument does not apply and cites representative elected officials.

150

Rep. Greenlick

Asks if Hoffman is suggesting that people to be annexed had the ability to vote for elected officials who would represent them using fire districts as an example.

160

Hoffman

States it raises several concerns.  References the SB 122 (1993) requirement for governmental agreements and a vote.

170

Rep. Greenlick

Asks if he’s referring to ORS 268.

172

Hoffman

Answers that he is referring to ORS 195 and ORS 215.

176

Rep. Greenlick

Questions if in the metropolitan area they are governed by ORS 222.

177

Hoffman

Responds that they are governed by ORS 268 and notes ambiguity in the statutes.  Continues that the concept is the same within a metro district or not.  Discusses Lake Oswego’s comprehensive plan and its influence outside the urban service boundary (USB). 

197

Rep. Greenlick

Asks if the input from the unincorporated residents of Lake Oswego was through elected representatives.

200

Hoffman

Responds that is his assumption.

203

Rep. Greenlick

Asks who their elected representatives would be.

205

Hoffman

Responds that for those within the USB their officials would be Clackamas County for water and fire districts.

208

Rep. Greenlick

Asks if there is a provision in ORS 195 that says the county can trump the double majority vote.

209

Hoffman

Responds he doesn’t know.

213

Rep. Greenlick

Asserts that many in unincorporated areas do not have elected officials directly representing them in agreements between certain agencies. 

223

Hoffman

Continues describing the Lake Oswego situation and balancing the interests of citizens within and outside of city limits.  Contends that HB 2484 takes away a tool and would negatively effect infrastructure and facilities.

292

Chair Garrard

Asks what role the county is playing since they are the responsible party in unincorporated areas.

295

Hoffman

Responds that Clackamas County is “getting out of the urban services business”.

300

Rep. Greenlick

Comments on the possibility of large service districts providing efficient services to those within and outside of cities and asks if Hoffman believes this is feasible.

325

Hoffman

Responds that it is feasible if there are sufficient funds available and a mechanism for services to unincorporated areas.  Reiterates the complexity of the issue and urges more time to deal with it.

347

Rep. Greenlick

Asks if Hoffman thinks cities could have a moratorium on all annexations while they take a comprehensive look at annexation.

358

Hoffman

Responds that he is not comfortable representing all the cities.  Reiterates that the best solution would be thoughtful debate.

373

Rep. Anderson

Asks if Hoffman thinks there is a difference in urgency between islands within city limits and those outside the UGB or USB.

379

Hoffman

Responds that they are different and outlines discrepancies.

TAPE 28, B

006

Rep. Ackerman

References earlier testimony that city residents would pay higher property taxes than county residents within an UGB.  Asks if is it because the city residents are still paying the county real property taxes for services they no longer need.

009

Hoffman

Responds he doesn’t know.  Adds that city and county residents pay similar taxes.

021

Rep. Ackerman

Asserts that under land use planning goals the city should be the provider of urban services, but notes that many unincorporated areas are urbanized.  Asks if Hoffman believes annexation is moot under these circumstances.

030

Hoffman

Responds that it may be if all services are provided and in accordance with regional vision.  Notes it depends on specifics of the situation. 

040

Rep. Greenlick

Discusses the concern that cities are subsidizing those outside the city.  References a report that showed most services provided by the county were not duplicated by the city and expresses interest in hearing counties’ perspective on this issue.  Identifies common goal of making sure people are paying their “fair share.”

042

Chair Garrard

Adds that in some cases the county provides an exclusive service which both county and city residents use.

055

Rep. Nolan

Points out that all properties are within counties and therefore all properties pay county property taxes while not all pay for city services.

075

Rep. Greenlick

Reiterates that many functions of counties are not duplicated within the city.

077

Rep. Nolan

Shares Rep. Greenlick’s interest in hearing objective analysis of the question of “contributing to fair share of services” .

079

Linda Ludwig

League of Oregon Cities.  Introduces Andy Parks.

082

Andy Parks

President/CEO, GEL Oregon.  Submits and reads from written testimony in opposition to HB 2484 (EXHIBIT E). 

114

Parks

Continues reading from (EXHIBIT E, Page 2) discussing Bend’s annexation.

134

Rep. Greenlick

References statistic given by Parks of a 6-4 margin of vote passage and asks what percentage of the total voters were living in the city versus those to be annexed.

136

Parks

Responds that in the Redmond annexation it was 10%, in Bend it was 30% and in Bend Metro Parks and Rec Districts it was a small percentage.

143

Rep. Greenlick

Asks if he knows how the people in that area voted.  References the Bull Mountain case.

146

Parks

Reports that in the Bend annexation vote, 1/3 of voters in the unincorporated area and 2/3 within the city voted for the annexation.  Continues reading from written testimony (EXHIBIT E, Page 3). 

200

Parks

Urges the committee not to pass HB 2484.

235

Chair Garrard

Makes a comparison between facilities used without paying, such as parks and rest-stops, and what Parks is saying.

245

Parks

Points out that the parks and rest-stops wouldn’t exist without someone to pay for them and asserts that improvements in infrastructure should be a community-wide decision.

255

Chair Garrard

Continues his example pointing out that while people may not pay for the services they use directly, they pay for them in other ways.

260

Parks

Specifies his concern about inequities between services provided between neighbors.

285

Chair Garrard

Gives a hypothetical example of a piece of land within the UGB which when rezoned increases the land’s value dramatically, asks if its fair to hold the increase to under 3% as mandated by Measure 5.

295

Parks

Responds that he doesn’t see why it wouldn’t go above 3%.

305

Doug Riggs

Central Oregon Cities Organizations.  Submits written testimony for himself and on behalf of Mike Morgan commenting on annexation practices and concerns about “double majority” annexation. (EXHIBIT F).  Cites two points:

• In order to promote economic development within cities, cities must be allowed to annex enough land for the 20 year supply
• Notes the level of public involvement and representation in planning in the majority of the state.

370

Rep. Greenlick

Asks for comment on the balance of democracy and efficiency.

388

Riggs

Makes the analogy of a state voting for governor.

TAPE 29, B

018

Rep. Greenlick

Responds that a more analogous situation would if  60% of the people got to vote for governor and the other 40% did not.

021

Riggs

Restates his point that everyone gets the opportunity to vote but some are unhappy with the results.  Also notes the role of the elected County commissioner.

032

Burton Weast

Special Districts Association of Oregon.  Discusses the creation of his association as a response to annexation.  States the special districts’ position that those in an area to be annexed should have some form of say but wants to raise concerns about HB 2484. 

073

Weast

Describes bill approved last session on behalf of Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue and the situation surrounding it.   Urges committee to think through the issue of a double vote requirement and to consider that the annexation being discussed is atypical.  Asserts that the double majority vote does not solve fairness issues and may hinder economic development.

113

Weast

Explains the origins of ORS 195 and explains its provisions.  Emphasizes the special district’s support of having an interim group to look comprehensively at all annexation processes.

188

Chair Garrard

States that ORS 195 and ORS 222 have  no minimum parcel size with regard to consented annexation and asks if Weast would recommend one and if so, what size he would recommend.

195

Weast

Asks what type of annexation the chair is asking about.

205

Chair Garrard

Responds he’s asking about “island” annexation and asks what minimum or maximum size should qualify for annexation without a vote.

210

Weast

Responds that in reference to “island” annexations there are two ways to approach the issue:

• set a certain size to require the vote or
• set up a remonstrance or petition procedure 

Notes reluctance to give a minimum number or acreage.

215

Chair Garrard

Remarks on Weast’s reference to using the number of people rather than size of the parcel as the determining factor.

220

Weast

Continues that using the number of voters could be better in terms of a potential court appeal.  Comments on the previous triple majority annexations and notes benefits of the petition or remonstrance system.

225

Chair Garrard

Asks if Weast would be happy with a single vote of the area to be annexed.

230

Weast

Responds affirmatively, notwithstanding the other opportunities. 

235

Chair Garrard

Asks if people already within the city are affected through tax rates.

257

Weast

Notes the significance of the issue before Measure 50 (1997) but notes the current flat tax rate.  Refers to West Linn example.

283

Rep. Nolan

Asks if it was his testimony that it would be okay for 5000 people to decide something that may be against the will of 400,000 people.

290

Weast

Responds negatively and elaborates on his example.

300

Rep. Nolan

Comments on putting the onus on a majority to create a ballot measure to assert their interest.  Suggests ramifications of annexations beyond taxes.

316

Weast

States his issue is taxation without representation and discusses the role of elected officials within cities.

338

Rep. Nolan

Summarizes that Weast’s testimony is that representative  government, rather than direct democracy, is adequate for making certain decisions.

343

Weast

Confirms.

347

Linda Ludwig

Notes complexity of issue and requests an interim work group to look comprehensively and bring something back for next session.

360

Doug Riggs

Makes reference to Rep. Greenlick’s discussion of putting a moratorium on all annexation.  Comments on fast growing cities and the requirement for keeping a 20 year supply of land for development.  Expresses openness to further discussions. 

398

Rep. Greenlick

Responds that he and the committee do not want to slow down  voluntary annexations but expresses worry with delaying to the point of inaction.

TAPE 30, A

033

Kathy Sayles

Washington County resident.  Notes her residence lies within the area targeted by Tualatin Park and Recreation district for an ORS 195 single majority annexation.  Discusses successive annexation attempts and urges fixing the law, not delaying the issue.  Speaks to the issue of efficiency and asserts that in some cases counties provide better services than cities.  Notes misinformation surrounding the annexation issue.  Asks for representation from legislature and urges passage of HB 2484 as written.

173

Julie Russell

Bull Mountain resident.  Disputes some previous testimony including information referencing:

• the county commission’s ability to veto annexations at any time 
• low voter turnout, noting that Bull Mountain had an 86% turnout 
• the level of citizen involvement

Discusses opposition to single majority vote. Reports that while she does not oppose annexation, she does not agree with the methods Tigard has employed.  Cites efforts of Bull Mountain in seeking alternative annexation or formation of a special district. Urges passage of HB 2484 as written.

293

Ken Henschel

Washington County resident.  States agreement with previous two speakers.  Submits and reads written testimony in support of HB 2484 (EXHIBIT G).  Urges expedient passage of HB 2484 without amendments.

433

Isador W. Morgavi

Bull Mountain resident.  Refers to Chair Garrard’s question about city taxes being effected by annexation and responds that they will in the case of bond issues voted on by the city. 

TAPE 31, A

002

Morgavi

Reports on a recent annexation symposium.  Submits packet of information including written testimony and letters in support of the double majority vote, previous resolutions and  newspaper articles surrounding the Bull Mountain situation. (EXHIBIT H).  Notes editorial change and reads from written testimony (EXHIBIT H, Pages 1-3).

062

Charles B. Ormsby

Birdshill CPO.  Urges committee to pass HB 2484 unanimously to the floor.  Discusses ORS 195 annexation process and his experience with it in Lake Oswego urban growth management area.  Notes the lack of citizen participation.

091

Jim Long

Washington County resident.   Submits and reads written testimony in support of HB 2484 (EXHIBIT I).  Notes specifics of North Plains situation. 

134

Lisa Hamilton-Treich

Bull Mountain resident.  Submits and summarizes written testimony on behalf of Keshmira McVey (EXHIBIT J) urging clarification of ORS 195 to require a double majority vote.  Reports misdirection of fees collected from Bull Mountain residents.

180

Hamilton-Treich

Submits a memorandum of review of the Urban Service Agreement and the Bull Mountain annexation plan on behalf of Richard Franzke (EXHIBIT K).  Outlines problems in Bull Mountain situation.  Urges expedient passage of HB 2484 as written.

291

Rep. Greenlick

Assures understanding of the problem and commitment to reaching objective but notes compromise involved in the process.

300

Chair Garrard

Closes the public hearing on HB 2484 and adjourns the meeting at 4:10 p.m.