TAPE/#

Speaker

Comments

TAPE 124, A

002

Chair Garrard

Calls the meeting to order at 1:34 p.m. and announces the committee will receive an update from Rich Angstrom.

012

Rich Angstrom

Oregon Concrete and Aggregate Producers Association.  Discusses mediation process during the interim on aggregate interests and explains that part of the mediation prohibits land use legislation that would effect either side.  Reports that his interest in Measure 37 (M37) issues is that it should not benefit or hurt business.

HB 3120 – WORK SESSION

044

Chair Garrard

Makes announcements about their timeline and the delay of the replacement -3 amendments.

070

Rep. Ackerman

Relays his desire to form a single amendment from the committee.

Chair Garrard

Comments that any amendment from the committee is welcome at anytime. 

Rep. Ackerman

Asks about the timeline.

Chair Garrard

Announces when he would like to have a final product.

Rep. Ackerman

Comments on the timeline.

Chair Garrard

Announces the committee will go through the -7 amendments  (EXHIBIT A) today.

110

Bob Stacey

1000 Friends of Oregon.  Notes he has highlighted the changes made from the HB 3120 -1 amendments.

Chair Garrard

Announces that he and Rep. Nolan must meet with the governor’s staff and will return.

135

Stacey

Notes intention to focus on the changes made to the -1 amendments and first directs them to the top of (Page 2, EXHIBIT A).

Rep. Greenlick

Asks if this version if based on the -1 amendments.

Stacey

Confirms the changes are from the -1 amendments.

Stacey

Discusses a provision which establishes a threshold of 25% to trigger loss under M37.  Elaborates on the concept and makes comparisons with other states.  Asserts it will give leeway to counties and cities to enact new regulations.

185

Stacey

References lines 6-7 (Page 3, EXHIBIT A) which adds new exemptions from M37 to include coastal goal protections and explains its intent.

207

Stacey

Discusses lines 4-14 (Page 5, EXHIBIT A) which deal with a compensation mechanism.  Adds that when waivers are given, the use allowed should be proportional to the loss. 

238

Rep. Greenlick

Asks if the 25% threshold would apply here as well.

Stacey

Responds affirmatively and adds it applies prospectively and retroactively.

Rep. Greenlick

Asks about the 25% in regards to impairing neighbors property in response to Stacey’s usage of the term “significantly” impaired.

Stacey

Accepts the clarification.

250

Rep. Anderson

Asks if this related to residential or farming interests that they are trying to protect.

Stacey

Explains that the impetus is to protect agriculture although because it is a general rule, it would have impacts within UGBs as well.

265

Stacey

Continues testimony on Subsection 8 (Page 5, EXHIBIT A) dealing with allowed development on farm and forest land.

280

Stacey

Discusses lines 22-25 (Page 11, EXHIBIT A) which directs the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) to adopt a system for determining loss of value.

303

Stacey

Outlines (Page 14, EXHIBIT A) detailing provisions on deed restrictions.

320

Stacey

Discusses (Pages 20-21, EXHIBIT A) and their concept to distinguish between high value farmland and applying two levels of protection or waiver opportunities, outlines provisions for each.

400

Stacey

Talks about (Pages 22-23, EXHIBIT A) and notes the effect of Section 13a (1) on non high value farmland.

TAPE 125, A

050

Rep. Greenlick

Asks for clarification about which provision they are discussing.

Stacey

Directs the committee to Section 13a and continues discussion of its provisions.

020

Rep. Anderson

Asks for the location of this provision.

Stacey

Refers to Section 13a (1)(a),(b), (c) and reports that Section 13b contains a provision for forest land.

032

Stacey

Notes (Page 25, EXHIBIT A) gives directions to DAS on how to do appraisals for determination of loss of value.

037

Stacey

Points to Section (44) – (57) (Pages 67-73, EXHIBIT A) which detail the “Development Rights Equalization Assessment” and provide for additional sources of revenue. Explains how the mechanism would work and urges addressing this issue in a later session.

100

Stacey

Addresses Section 58 (Page 73-74, EXHIBIT A) and notes the effective date.

105

Rep. Greenlick

Asks for an explanation of what conceptual differences the -7 amendments have between M37 and the -3 amendments.

Stacey

Notes their different approach in limitations on development on agricultural land.  Acknowledges lack of funds for compensation and the potential impacts of proposed amendments on agricultural land.

145

Stacey

Discusses the role of compensation and the possibility of using the Portland UGB as part of the mechanism.

161

Rep. P. Smith

References Stacey’s statistic of 16 million acres of agricultural lands and asks how much of that is considered high value farm land.

Stacey

Responds that under current law it is less than 25% and notes that their amendment would include important ranch lands under that category as well.

170

Rep. Anderson

Wonders about the number of possible homes and asks if there are any statistics about claims that are asking for single or few homes.

Stacey

Defers to the representatives of Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) but points out that they would not know at the county level.

Rep. Anderson

Speculates on possible numbers of dwellings created by M37 claims and asserts that compared with the population of Oregon, the impact will not be too great.

200

Bob Rindy

Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD).  Reports they can get the requested information.  Reports that most claims are requesting subdivisions or partitions.

Litke

Adds that Director Shetterly previously quoted around 84-85% of claims were for subdivisions rather than single family dwellings.

214

Rep. Anderson

Asks if that was from at the last meeting.

Litke

Reports it was a few meetings ago.

Rep. P. Smith

Asks if the 20% revenue would apply to everyone pulled into the UGB.

Stacey

Responds affirmatively and states it would apply to every UGB expansion that occurs from now on and that it would be based on a net differential not an assessment on the entire property.

Rep. P. Smith

Asks if it would apply regardless of whether or not the property had a M37 claim.

Stacey

Responds affirmatively.

Rep. Anderson

States that owners are already paying a 9% capital gains tax and asks if it would be 29% tax.

Stacey

Comments it is a fee and gives an example of how the fee would apply in addition to the state 9%.

245

Rep. Anderson

Verifies that a 1031 is not an avoidance of tax rather a deferral.

Stacey

Agrees.

Rep. Greenlick

Verifies that Stacey’s concept is that if a government action reduces the value of property the owner should be compensated and if government increases value a share should be given back.

Stacey

Responds that if one group of property owners wins big and one losses, it is rational to look to some of that gain as a source of revenue.

270

Rep. Anderson

Asks Stacey for a discussion of development rights.  Notes new concepts in this issue.

Stacey

Comments that the -7 amendments do not impair development rights as they exist today and discusses prospectively assessing the land.

Rep. Anderson

Asks if this is related to future transactions.

Stacey

Responds affirmatively.

330

Rep. Greenlick

Asks Stacey if he would be in support of HB 3120 with the -7 amendments.

Stacey

Responds affirmatively and reports the importance of finding a mechanism for implementing the intention of the voters.  Would support some waivers and some compensation.

360

Rep. Anderson

Asks if Stacey feels implementing compensation or implementing changes in land division are most important.

Stacey

Responds that they would support the compensation approach and elaborates on reasoning.

390

Rep. Sumner

Asks if M37 drew value from classes of land.

Stacey

Responds negatively, and notes the amendments depart from the general concept of pay or not apply.

408

Harlan Levy

Oregon Association of Realtors.  Comments on the proposed development rights equalization assessment . 

TAPE 124, B

005

Levy

Speaks in opposition to new capital gains tax.  Asserts it is based on a faulty premise and elaborates on criticisms of the proposed source of revenue.

040

Levy

Discusses undeveloped land inside UGB and a low inventory of available housing.

052

Rep. Greenlick

Corrects Levy on a point in his testimony.

Levy

Corrects the point and asserts that new taxes or fees are a departure from the voter’s intent.

073

Rep. Anderson

Comments on differences between land prices inside and outside UGBs.

Levy

States that when land has increased uses, the value of land goes up. 

Rep. Anderson

Notes that in Southern Oregon people are buying available land and then holding it for profit, not allowing the land to be developed.

Levy

Comments this is also a factor and discusses land speculators.

Rep. Anderson

Discusses the difficulty caused by the speculation.

Levy

Agrees and notes this is driving the price of land up.

115

Lynn Lundquist

Oregon Business Association (OBA).  Stresses the importance of adding a threshold clause to limit future impacts on the planning process.

144

Rep. Sumner

Asks about what would limit future planning.

Lundquist

Gives an example and asserts that M37 was not to preclude any type of future planning.

163

Rep. P. Smith

Asks if any M37 claims have been filed on regulations that have been enacted since November 2, 2005.

Lundquist

Responds negatively but that people are considering it.

Rep. Greenlick

Gives an example from the City of Portland who are hesitant to change zones for fear of triggering M37 claims.

Rep. P. Smith

Asks about a solution.

Lundquist

Comments on addressing issues which will be accepted by both parties and discusses the potential future impact.

200

Rep. Greenlick

Expresses his concern about M37 impacts in the future and asserts there needs to be clarification about what triggers a future claim and that zoning should not be a M37 issue.

222

Rep. Anderson

Comments on past initiatives and his desire to stick closely to M37 and take time to look at larger issues at a later time.

Lundquist

Agrees but urges caution in how the committee responds to M37 noting that polling shows that Oregonians want personal property rights protected but also value planning.

300

Rep. Greenlick

Comments on difficulties in making adjustments to M37.

321

Lundquist

Urges the committee to pass legislation to make the initiative work better.

Rep. Greenlick

Comments on voter intent.

357

Rep. Anderson

Asks if Lundquist has any suggestions on compensation.

Lundquist

Responds there has not been much discussion on compensation in the business community.

Chair Garrard

Adjourns the meeting at 3:12 p.m.