TAPE/#

Speaker

Comments

TAPE 77, A

002

Chair Garrard

Calls the meeting to order at 1:37 p.m. and opens a public hearing on HB 3463.

HB 3463 – PUBLIC HEARING

018

Rep. Kitts

HD 30.  As sponsor of HB 3463, speaks in support of HB 3463.  Passes around photos of the Pat’s Acres Raceway in Canby and explains the photos.  Explains that the problem is that the race track is zoned for go-carts only and describes their intention to extend the use the allow the operation of vehicles conducive to the existing track.

056

Chris Egger

Owner, Pat’s Acres Raceway.  Explains their need to expand the use of their track and discusses the people who use their track.

075

Rep. Ackerman

Asks if the raceway is operating under a conditional use permit now.

Egger

Responds affirmatively.

Rep. Ackerman

Verifies that it restricts them to the one current use.

Egger

Confirms this.

Rep. Ackerman

Asks if they want to expand to include motorcycles.

Egger

Responds they wish to include motorcycles and other vehicle conducive to the track.

Rep. Kitts

Adds other vehicles that would apply and explains the reason for the broadness of the language.

Rep. Ackerman

Asks if the constituents have gone to the County to seek this expansion under the conditional use permit and if so, for the result.

Rep. Kitts

Explains that they have and defers to Egger.

100

Egger

Outlines the situation leading to the County’s involvement.

Rep. Kitts

Elaborates and references the aerial photo.

Rep. Ackerman

Asks them if they have asked the county to expand the conditional use permit to allow what they are seeking today.

Rep. Kitts

Responds that they have.

Rep. Ackerman

Asks if this bill will overturn the county commissioner decision.

Rep. Kitts

Responds negatively and elaborates.

137

Rep. Greenlick

Comments that the definition of “racing vehicle” is broad and asks what it means to be suitable for the type of track.

Rep. Kitts

References the aerial photo of the track asserting that it is very limited in what would be considered conducive.  Gives examples.

157

Rep. Greenlick

Comments that it may be ambiguous in the statute.  Asks why specific cars couldn’t run on the track.

Rep. Kitts

Responds that they are too big to run on the track.

Egger

Adds that full size cars will not fit and gives dimensions of the tracks.

171

Rep. Greenlick

Begins to add that if they are suggesting that any type of vehicle that is conducive.

Rep. Kitts

Interjects that is what they are suggesting.

Rep. Nolan

Clarifies that the statute is silent on who determines what is compatible on the track.

Rep. Kitts

Responds that the track decides that.

Rep. Nolan

Adds that the statute is also silent on any improvements to the track which may change its compatibility.

Egger

Discusses previous expansions.

Rep. Kitts

Reiterates that the track is the determining factor.

204

Rep. Nolan

Asks who is the deciding party when there is disagreement between the operator and the county.

Rep. Kitts

States that they are discussing the existing track.  References a prior track.

Egger

Adds that another limiting factor is the insurance company.

Rep. Kitts

Elaborates in Section 1 on existing tracks and explains the intention of bill.

238

Rep. Nolan

Verifies that the term existing “motorsports race track” refers to the physical layout of the course, not the business operation.

Rep. Kitts

Confirms this.

246

Rep. Ackerman

Asks if using the track until 10 pm subject to suitable lighting, provided for in the bill, is an expanded use.

Rep. Kitts

Responds that there is currently lighting there and explains the county’s response.

Egger

Adds the county’s explanation.

Rep. Kitts

Explains existing rules.

Rep. Ackerman

Asks if the track is currently operating with lumination.

Rep. Kitts

Responds negatively.

Rep. Ackerman

Asks if this would be an expanded use.

Rep. Kitts

Responds affirmatively.

Rep. Greenlick

Verifies it would expand the use for vehicles and for time.

Rep. Kitts

Explains that they are asking to be allowed to use the lights which would allow them to be open to the currently allowed time.

278

Rep. Greenlick

Notes from a neighbors perspective, it would be an expansion of the type of vehicles used and the hours of operation.

Rep. Kitts

Agrees but adds current possibility for expanded usage.

Rep. Greenlick

Verifies their testimony that the track has been changed twice since 1969.

Egger

Responds that it has been added to twice.

Rep. Greenlick

Asserts they have a different physical track.

Egger

Explains the original track is still there.

Rep. Greenlick

Asks if they are not running on the original track.

Egger

Responds that the original track is a portion of the existing track.

Rep. Greenlick

Asks if more extensions would be covered under the bill.

Rep. Kitts

Responds that any expansions must go through the appropriate process.

Rep. Greenlick

Verifies Rep. Kitt’s testimony.

Rep. Kitts

Clarifies his testimony.

Rep. Greenlick

Verifies Rep. Kitt’s testimony of the existing track.

Rep. Kitts

Clarifies that the existing track as is, is the track that was there in 1969.

Chair Garrard

Closes the public hearing on HB 3463 and opens a work session on HB 3463.

HB 3463 – WORK SESSION

360

Rep. Anderson

MOTION:  Moves HB 3463 to the floor with a DO PASS recommendation.

Rep. Ackerman

Explains his vote in opposition discussing the expanded use of the facility and lack of thorough discussion from neighbors and the county.

Rep. Greenlick

Explains his vote in opposition.  Agrees with Rep. Ackerman and discusses preemption of the local decision.

Rep. Anderson

Explains his vote in favor discussing the established business. 

Rep. Sumner

Explains his vote in favor discussing the property and merits of the facility.

TAPE 78, A

011

VOTE:  5-2-0

AYE:               5 - Anderson, Nolan, Smith P., Sumner, Garrard

NAY:               2 - Ackerman, Greenlick

Chair Garrard

The motion CARRIES.

REP. KITTS will lead discussion on the floor.

Chair Garrard

Closes the work session on HB 3463 and opens a work session on HB 3286.

HB 3286 – WORK SESSION

025

Sam Litke

Committee Administrator.  Reviews the background of HB 3463 and the Uniform Environmental Covenants Act.  Introduces the -1 amendments (EXHIBIT A).

Joe Willis

Uniform Law Commission.  Discusses the Uniform Law Conference and actions after the public hearing on HB 3286.  Urges the committee to pass HB 3286 with the -1 amendments.

128

Micheal Kerr

Deputy Executive Director, National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform Law.  Discusses actions of other states on this legislation and compares Oregon’s provisions.  Gives hypothetical problems and explains that the reason that properties aren’t being “cleaned up”.

200

Kerr

Submits and references a packet of information (EXHIBIT B).  Lists  groups and states supporting the Uniform Environmental Covenants Act.  Reiterates benefits of the uniform language and urges passage of HB 3286.

260

Bob Danko

Department of Environmental Quality.  Suggests time during the interim to review HB 3286 with stake holders and environmental attorneys.  States it is not appropriate to pass out HB 3286 at this time.

278

Rep. Greenlick

Asks if they are voting on this today.

Chair Garrard

Remarks they have just received the amendments.

Danko

Reviews the effect of the amendments and does not believe there is the urgency to move the bill now.

293

Willis

Makes comments on uniformity.

Chair Garrard

Remarks that they are not prepared to move the bill and need to look at the amendments. 

Chair Garrard

Closes the work session on HB 3286 and opens a work session on HB 3313.

HB 3313 – WORK SESSION

342

Dave Hunnicutt

Oregonians in Action.  Speaks in support of HB 3313 with the -1 amendments (EXHIBIT C).  Discusses the history of the forest template test, gives the criteria and describes the case where this issue arose in Multnomah County. 

425

Kathleen Worman

Multnomah County.  Explains her situation.

TAPE 77, B

015

Rep. Greenlick

Asks what the consequence of the change is on Line 4 of Page 3 in -1 amendments.

Hunnicutt

Responds that he does not know the origin of the change and explains that it is a distinction without a difference.

Rep. Greenlick

Asks a question relating to DLCD.

Hunnicutt

Responds no.

040

Rep. P. Smith

MOTION:  Moves to ADOPT HB 3313-1 amendments dated 4/25/05.

VOTE:  7-0-0

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

Chair Garrard

The motion CARRIES.

045

Rep. P. Smith

MOTION:  Moves HB 3313A to the floor with a DO PASS AS AMENDED recommendation.

VOTE:  7-0-0

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

Chair Garrard

The motion CARRIES.

REP. SUMNER will lead discussion on the floor.

Chair Garrard

Closes the work session on HB 3313 and opens a work session on HB 3135.

HB 3135 – WORK SESSION

062

Lisa Arkin

Explains the role of the Energy Facility Siting Council and explains the -4 (EXHIBIT D) and -5 amendments (EXHIBIT E).  Explains Page 4, lines 9-16 and reviews the provisions of -4 amendments. 

115

Arkin

Continues explanation of amendments and notes the distinction between the -4 and -5 amendments.  Discusses Section 9 which creates a task force.

Rep. Ackerman

Asks for the distinction between the -4 and -5 amendments.

Arkin

Explains the difference is on Page 2, line 27-28 of either amendment. Recommends a do-pass for the -4 amendments.

Chair Garrard

Verifies that the -4 amendments are her preference.

Arkin

Prefers the -4 amendments.

160

Rep. Nolan

MOTION:  Moves to ADOPT HB 3135-4 amendments dated 4/27/05.

VOTE:  6-1-0

AYE:               6 - Ackerman, Anderson, Greenlick, Smith P., Sumner, Garrard

NAY:               1 - Nolan

Chair Garrard

The motion CARRIES.

170

Rep. Nolan

MOTION:  Moves HB 3135A to the floor WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION as to passage and BE REFERRED to the committee on Environment by prior reference.

VOTE:  6-1-0

AYE:               6 - Ackerman, Anderson, Greenlick, Nolan, Sumner, Garrard

NAY:               1 - Smith P.

Chair Garrard

The motion CARRIES.

Closes the work session on HB 3135 and opens a work session on HB 2963.

HB 2963 – WORK SESSION

Sam Litke

Committee Administrator.  Explains the effect of the -2 amendments (EXHIBIT G) and reviews the public hearing and work group.

200

Tom Gallagher

Urban Developers Coalition.  Submits -2 amendments (EXHIBIT G).  Stresses the purpose of the -2 amendments and explains how they are achieved in sections 3 and 4. 

250

Gallagher

Explains two new concepts from  Page 1 (3) and notes the definition of industrial land found on Page 2, line 14. 

268

Gallagher

Stresses the narrowing of the industrial land language.  Explains Page 2, Section 4, line 23.

275

Gallagher

Continues explanation of -2 amendments, Page 3 (4).

314

Gallagher

Continues explanation on Page 4, line 10 and notes subsection 6 is an “opt out” provision.  Discusses an ability to move urban growth boundary in page 4 (7).

369

Gallagher

References the fiscal impact statement (EXHIBIT H).  Explains Section 5 as the “bird in the hand” provision.  Notes narrow criteria found in Page 5, Line 15. 

TAPE 78, B

020

Chair Garrard

Asks who was involved in the work group.

Gallagher

Lists members present as Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), Oregon Economic and Community Development Department (OECDD), representatives of cities and counties and Metro. 

Rep. Greenlick

Asks about “traded sector” and asks if a previous example would qualify.

Gallagher

Responds he is not qualified to answer.  Makes comment on origin of the term “traded sector”.

Rep. Greenlick

Reads definition of “traded sector” and asks if it is intended to narrow the definition.

050

Gallagher

Responds that it is narrowed and explains its intention.

Bob Rindy

LCDC.  Supports the intention of the bill.  Submits a letter from Lane Shetterly supporting efforts to provide industrial land but raising concerns about the -2 amendments (EXHIBIT H). 

100

Rindy

References the concerns of the department in letter.  Announces support of HB 2963 as it stands today.

120

Kimberly Grygebski

OECDD.  Reports interest in seeing the bill move forward and the department’s interest in providing industrial trends.  Raises concerns about the bill as drafted including the definition of industrial trends analysis.  Outlines specific points in sections.

187

Linda Ludwig

League Of Oregon Cities.  Notes her view of the language in HB 2956 as a work in progress.  Discusses lack of infrastructure funding.  Believes the bill should move forward.

215

Art Schlack

Association of Oregon Counties.  Discusses the potentially significant fiscal impact.  Suggests moving the bill to Ways and Means to address the funding as well as final details.  States they will not support the bill without a source of new funds.  Discusses the special section dealing with the “bird in the hand” concept. 

Chair Garrard

Asks Gallagher about fiscal impact, as the fiscal statement issued is for the original bill.

Gallagher

Recommends sending it to Ways and Means.

300

Rep. Jerry Krummel

HD 26.  Discusses ambiguity in definition of “serviceable”, assuming it means infrastructure, and comments on who might provide the infrastructure.  References Section 4, lines 23-30 and raises concerns.

368

Rep. Krummel

Points out concern on Page 3, (4) (A), lines 22 -27.  Question what incentive there is for cities and counties in provision on Page 4, lines 4-9.  Suggests that HB 2963-2 is not yet ready.

TAPE 79, A

005

Charlotte Lehan

Mayor, Wilsonville.  Submits collage of pictures showing evidence of distribution centers in Wilsonville as a response to previous testimony (EXHIBIT I).  Discusses problems with the amendments to HB 2963 and outlines barriers to development including the lack of infrastructure.  Notes amount of land Wilsonville currently has within the urban growth boundary (UGB).  Submits written testimony outlining criticism of HB 2963 (EXHIBIT L).

082

Lehan

References Section 5 and addresses the criteria specified for the number and type of jobs. 

115

CK Patterson

Discusses his previous testimony on HB 2963 as written and his current disagreement that the bill is ready to go to Ways and Means.  Gives reasons why the bill is not ready to move.

146

Alex McPhail

Coalition to Save the Valley.  Submits written testimony raising concerns about HB 2963 (EXHIBIT J)

165

Tony Holt

Charbonneau.  Submits and summarizes written testimony raising concerns about HB 2963 (EXHIBIT K).

210

Debbie Smith

Wilsonville, Coalition to Save the Valley.  Asserts that HB 2963-2 will hurt farmland in the Willamette Valley by extending industry south of the Willamette Valley and elaborates.  Urges no vote on HB 2963.  Submits copy of her statement (EXHIBIT M).

Danielle Cowan

Public Affairs Director, City of Wilsonville.  Submits and summarizes written testimony in opposition to HB 2963 (EXHIBIT N) and an article from the Oregonian (EXHIBIT O). 

319

Rep. Anderson

Asks if land currently in Wilsonville’s UGB was not farm land at one point.

Cowan

Responds that some was and some was not and discusses the quality of the farm land.

Rep. Nolan

Asks Smith if her family still farms.

Smith

Responds negatively and discusses their prior farming.

Rep. Nolan

Asks what kind of job her children are likely to have.

Smith

Discusses the viability of farming.

365

Rep. Nolan

Asks for clarification from Gallagher on Section 5, specifically about his intention on the 250 high wage jobs per 100 acre minimum.

Gallagher

Defers to Bob Rindy and explains about developable acreage.

TAPE 80, A

018

Rindy

Explains their intention with the number and notes difficulty in predicting future jobs rather than investment.

Rep. Nolan

Notes the emphasis on the value of facility and asks if there is anything that requires that investment be on property tax rolls.

046

Gallagher

Stresses the focus of section 5.

065

Rep. Anderson

MOTION:  Moves to ADOPT HB 2963-2 amendments dated 4/29/05.

Rep. P. Smith

Notes intention to vote no and explains.

VOTE:  2-4-1

AYE:               2 - Ackerman, Garrard

NAY:               4 - Anderson, Nolan, Smith P., Sumner

EXCUSED:     1 - Greenlick

Chair Garrard

The motion FAILS.

085

Rep. Anderson

MOTION:  Moves HB 2963 to the floor WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION as to passage and BE REFERRED to the committee on Ways and Means by prior reference.

VOTE:  3-3-1

AYE:               3 - Ackerman, Anderson, Garrard

NAY:               3 - Nolan, Smith P., Sumner

EXCUSED:     1 - Greenlick

Chair Garrard

The motion FAILS.

090

Chair Garrard

Closes the work session on HB 2963 and adjourns the meeting at 4:03 p.m.