TAPE/#

Speaker

Comments

TAPE 81, A

Chair Garrard

Calls the meeting to order at 1:40 p.m. and opens public hearings on HB 3243 and HB 3244.

HB 3243, HB 3244 – PUBLIC HEARINGS

015

Rep. Bob Ackerman

HD 13, sponsor of HB 3243 and HB 3244.  Describes the effect of HB 3243 and explains its intent.  Notes their connection to Ballot Measure 37 (2004).

046

Rep. Ackerman

Explains his concern which led to HB 3244 and explains its provisions.

Chair Garrard

Notes that the compensation issue will be discussed in future weeks.

087

Dave Hunnicutt

Oregonians in Action.  Relays opposition to HB 3243 and neutrality on HB 3244.  Agrees with Rep. Ackerman that there can be excessive appeals but asserts that HB 3243 is not the answer.  Elaborates on reasoning and gives a hypothetical example.

129

Hunnicutt

Begins discussion of HB 3244.  Relays his support of HB 3244 (3) but is opposed to the overall concept of HB 3244 which he asserts will force people to develop their claim immediately. 

163

Chair Garrard

Comments on unlikely agreement on HB 3243.

170

Elon Hasson

1000 Friends of Oregon.  Relays opposition to HB 3243 citing two reasons.

180

Hasson

Speaks in support of HB 3244 and explains his reasoning.

190

Glen Stonebrink

Oregon Cattlemen’s Association.  Remarks he will only testify on HB 3244 and reiterates the earlier testimony of Hunnicutt and discusses other possible application of Ballot Measure 37 beyond land use.  Makes suggestions for trading high value farmland for secondary farmland.. 

Chair Garrard

Closes public hearings on HB 3243 and HB 3244 and opens a public hearing on HB 2652.

HB 2652 – PUBLIC HEARING

245

Sam Litke

Committee Administrator.  Introduces HB 2652 and -1 amendments (EXHIBIT A).

310

Glen Stonebrink

Oregon Cattlemen’s Association.  Submits and summarizes written testimony in support of HB 2652 (EXHIBIT B). 

375

Stonebrink

References Page 2 of his testimony and reads his 27 word legislative concept which resulted in 317 pages of an amendment.  Continues summary of his testimony.

TAPE 82, A

002

Rep. Greenlick

Asks if Stonebrink would be interested in a constitutional amendment that would abolish special interest groups ability to ask the state legislature to overturn unpopular county decisions.  

010

Stonebrink

Responds that would not solve the problem and discusses the political process.

017

Rep. Greenlick

Remarks on special purpose legislation and asks how one mitigates the problem of conflicting state and local government decisions.

Stonebrink

Responds that it depends on the individual doing it.  Discusses regionalization of land use by county.

050

Lane Shetterly

Director, Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD).  Discusses the state interest in land use planning.  Recommends SB 82 as a more thoughtful review of the land use system. 

088

Peggy Lynch

League of Women Voters of Oregon (LWVOR).  Submits and summarizes written testimony in opposition to HB 2652 and reviews LWVOR principles regarding Measure 37 legislative proposals.  (EXHIBIT C).  Supports a broader discussion of land use in SB 82.

170

Rep. Anderson

Asks if Lynch’s statements about public engagement in land use speaking would support the intent of HB 2652.

175

Lynch

Discusses the importance of the statewide land use process and notes the current local involvement.

187

Rep. Sumner

Asks if the LWVOR took a position on Ballot Measure 37 (2004).

Lynch

Responds that they were opposed to Measure 37. 

Chair Garrard

Notes the future discussion of Measure 37 and asks for suggestions for approaches on compensation from the LWVOR.

195

Elon Hasson

1000 Friends of Oregon.  Speaks in opposition to HB 2652. 

265

Jim Welsh

Oregon State Grange.  Submits testimony in support of HB 2652 (EXHIBIT D).

The following was submitted to the record without public testimony:

Don Schellenberg

Oregon Farm Bureau.  Submits written testimony suggesting an alternative to HB 2652 (EXHIBIT K).

Chair Garrard

Closes the public hearing on HB 2652 and opens a public hearing on HB 3312.

HB 3312 – WORK SESSION

290

Chair Garrard

Asks for testimony from 3 representatives of each side of the issue.

321

Sam Litke

Committee Administrator.  Explains the provisions of HB 3312 and discusses the effect of the -2 amendments (EXHIBIT E).

Rep. Phil Barnhart

HD 11.  Submits a cultural resource survey from the city of Eugene and explains his concern with the plan (EXHIBIT F).  Relays support of HB 3312 with the -2 amendments for this reason.

TAPE 81, B

003

Chair Garrard

Invites three speakers in favor of HB 3312 as Al Johnson, Carol Lee Burger and Jenerva Ralph.

009

Jenerva Ralph

Eugene.  Represents 315 property owners who have filed notarized letters of objections to the proposed South University Historic District.  Explains the process of historic district registry and outlines her objections.    

036

Ralph

Speaks in support of the -2 amendments.

050

Carol Lee Burger

Springfield, Property owner and preservationist.  Speaks in favor of HB 3312.  Discusses her property, increases in regulations from the time of purchase, and problems experienced due to them. 

090

Al Johnson

Discusses the distinctions between types of historical district registers. 

130

Johnson

Describes the effect of HB 3312 and the -2 amendments.  Submits chart explaining HB 3312-2 and two letters of support (EXHIBIT G).

212

Rep. Ackerman

Asks the panel what the status of the Eugene South University neighborhood is.

215

Johnson

Explains what has proceeded.

Rep. Ackerman

Asks if property owners have had a legal option to opt out.

270

Johnson

Responds negatively.  Elaborates on the process of opting out.

Rep. Ackerman

Asks what the consequences are to the remaining district or the people that opt out.

Johnson

Explains the distinctions between those in and outside of a historic district.

Rep. Ackerman

Asks what happens to the district if HB 3312-2 passes and more than 51% opt out.

Johnson

Responds that would be a rejection rather than an opt out and the district would not be formed.

Rep. Ackerman

Asks if that can happen without adoption of the -2 amendments.

Johnson

Responds that it could if 51% of the district agreed.

Rep. Ackerman

Asks if there are still tax benefits associated with historic districts and if so, if those opting out of historic districts can retain the benefit.

Johnson

Responds negatively and defers to Ralph.

315

Ralph

Outlines two types of tax incentives and criteria for application. 

Rep. Ackerman

Asks if it is possible to own property within the district, opt out and receive no tax benefit and still be subject to historic regulations.

Ralph

Responds that they are under locally imposed regulations.

Rep. Ackerman

Verifies that it possible not to have the tax benefit but still be subject to the regulations.

Ralph

Responds affirmatively and explains that most properties will not receive tax benefits.

Rep. Ackerman

Verifies that even if the owners do not qualify for tax benefits they will still be subject to the historic district regulations.

Ralph

Confirms this and elaborates on further regulations.

344

Rep. Nolan

Asks the panel if they intend for the -2 amendment to make a retroactive change for districts that have already gone through the process for formation of a historic district.

Ralph

Responds that it is not retroactive.

Burger

Adds criteria.

Rep. Nolan

Verifies that if one objects during the formation of a historic district but a majority forms the district, that owner can withdraw from the district.

375

Ralph

Responds that one cannot withdraw from a district rather they can opt out.  Explains further designations within the historic district and details of opting out.

Rep. Nolan

Comments on the process of historic designation.

Johnson

Makes criticisms of the process.

TAPE 82, B

005

Rep. Nolan

Disagrees with the criticisms of the process and clarifies the question before the committee.

015

Johnson

Explains that the process was designed by congress, not local government and elaborates on the original intent and asserts it is not legitimate process

025

Ralph

Adds comment on the inequity of requirements between the proponents and objectors of a proposed historic district.

060

Rep. Nolan

Relays hesitation in passing statewide legislation on this issue.

095

Karen Bean

Government Relations, City of Portland.  Submits written testimony and speaks in opposition to HB 3312-2 (EXHIBIT H).  Adds that the League of Oregon City also opposes this measure.  Responds to earlier testimony.

148

Bean

Continues reading testimony from Page 2 of (EXHIBIT H). 

170

Marilyn Milne

Eugene.  Submits and summarizes written testimony in opposition to HB 3312-2 (EXHIBIT I).  Responds to earlier testimony.

241

Bob Peters

Chair, South University Neighborhood Association, Eugene.  Submits and summarizes written testimony in opposition to HB 3312 (EXHIBIT J).  Discusses history of the proposed South University districts.  Responds to earlier testimony. 

346

Rep. Ackerman

Asks how long the process has been going on.

Peters

Responds over 7 years.

Rep. Ackerman

Verifies that those opting out would not receive tax benefits but would still be subject to some architectural control consistent with the historic district.

Peters

Disagrees, and explains why.

Rep. Ackerman

Verifies this clarification.

Peters

Confirms this.  Adds that the regulations would not apply.

Rep. Ackerman

Notes his assumption that there would be no change in law when one opts out.

Peters

Responds that if there is no change in the law, a person does not have the right to opt out of a historic designation on the federal register.

Rep. Ackerman

Verifies this person would still be subject to the architectural controls of the historic district.

Milne

Comments on usage of the term “architectural controls” and describes them as guidelines.

400

Rep. Ackerman

Explains his wording.

Rep. Nolan

Asks Bean about different interpretations of tax assessment. Verifies that properties within historic districts can have a beneficial tax assessment even if they are not qualified properties or if they opt out.

Bean

Responds that the response she was given to the same question was that if people were to opt out they would still be able to access the special tax assessment program.

TAPE 83, A

014

Rep. Anderson

Verifies that one could go the process on a single owner basis, not as a district basis.

Bean

Responds that with the district, if you are contributing property, you can obtain special tax assessment.

Rep. Anderson

Asks if this on contribution only.

Bean

Answers on contributing properties.  Gives an example of an effected property. 

028

Rep. Anderson

Asks a hypothetical question.

Bean

Responds affirmatively if the property is contributing.

Rep. Anderson

Gives further criteria.

Bean

Clarifies that the property is contributing to the district.

Peters

Adds that there is no incentive for the program they are talking about.

045

Chair Garrard

Asks for the difference between individual preservation versus district preservation.

Bean

Responds that districts are recognized as a whole.

Rep. Sumner

Refers to and reads from HB 3312 (1)(2), asking what the cited 120 days refers to.

Peters

Responds that that language is part of existing bill, not the -2 amendments being considered today.

Rep. Sumner

Makes a comment on the amount of time provided and asks about the intention of this provision.

Peters

Responds on the intention. 

The following has been submitted for the record without public testimony:

Carl S. Bjerre

Eugene.  Submits written testimony in opposition to HB 3312-2 amendments (EXHIBIT L).

Alice I. Duff

Portland.  Submits written testimony in opposition to HB 3312 (EXHIBIT M).

Al Couper

Eugene.  Submits written testimony in opposition to HB 3312-2 (EXHIBIT N).

Janet Heinonen

Eugene.  Submits written testimony in opposition to HB 3312 (EXHIBIT O).

Gene Humphreys

Eugene.  Submits written testimony regarding HB 3312-2, asking for maintenance of the existing language in state law (EXHIBIT P).

John Czarnecki

Chair, Portland Historic Landmarks Commission.  Submits written testimony raising concerns about HB 3312-2 (EXHIBIT Q).

Hank McDonald

Building Official, City of Portland’s Bureau of Development Services.  Submits written testimony in opposition to HB 3312-2 (EXHIBIT R).

Kitti M. Gale

Historic Coordinator, City of Springfield.  Submits a packet of information including a cover letter and the Springfield Historic Design Guidelines (EXHIBIT S).

075

Rep. Anderson

MOTION:  Moves to ADOPT HB 3312-2 amendments dated 4/22/05.

078

Rep. Ackerman

Gives explanation for his no vote on both the -2 amendments and HB 3312.

092

Rep. Anderson

Gives explanation for his yes vote on HB 3312.

110

VOTE:  4-2-1

AYE:               4 - Anderson, Smith P., Sumner, Garrard

NAY:               2 - Ackerman, Nolan

EXCUSED:     1 - Greenlick

Chair Garrard

The motion CARRIES.

120

Rep. Anderson

MOTION:  Moves HB  3312A to the floor with a DO PASS AS AMENDED recommendation.

VOTE:  4-2-1

AYE:               4 - Anderson, Smith P., Sumner, Garrard

NAY:               2 - Ackerman, Nolan

EXCUSED:     1 - Greenlick

Chair Garrard

The motion CARRIES.

REP. ANDERSON will lead discussion on the floor.

Chair Garrard

Makes announcements and closes the work session on HB 3312. Adjourns the meeting at 3:40 p.m.