TAPE/#

Speaker

Comments

TAPE 132, A

003

Chair Garrard

Calls the meeting to order at 8:41 a.m. and opens a work session on HB 3120.

HB 3120 – WORK SESSION

013

Chair Garrard

Announces the new amendments are not ready so the committee will continue reviewing the proposed amendments that would replace the -3 amendments (EXHIBIT A).

018

Sam Litke

Committee Administrator.  Advises that the committee left off at Sections 12 and 13.  Summarizes the discussion from the previous meeting.

027

Rep. Greenlick

Expresses his concern with language that significantly expands the scope of Measure 37 (M37) rather than simply clarifies.

036

Chair Garrard

Comments on the consensus agreements reached in the amendments.

045

Bob Stacey

1000 Friends of Oregon.  Notes his organization did not participate in the drafting of the -3 amendments.  Raises questions about how much certainty should be provided to the landowners who obtain waivers under M37, and M37 as amended by the legislature. 

082

Stacey

Urges caution about the effects of M37 in the future and suggests changing the waiver option from the “later” of two choices to the “earlier.”  Suggests other changes to provide certainty. 

124

Rep. Anderson

Submits that Mr. Stacey’s suggestions will force immediate development rather than it happening over time.

129

Stacey

Describes this as a trade-off and outlines why he prefers limiting the waiver time period including creating certainty about land uses for property owners.

138

Rep. Ackerman

Asks for other possible tests beyond recordation of the final partition or subdivision.  Notes concern with waiver deadline.

148

Stacey

Suggests using the concept of “vesting” and elaborates.

160

Rep. Ackerman

States he was looking for something more specific such as issuance of a building permit.

165

Stacey

Addresses that a building permit would be a more substantial step in reliance on a subdivision plat than recordation but still recommends using vesting as it is broader.

176

Rep. Anderson

States that SB 100 (1973) locked land into exclusive farm use (EFU) permanently.

184

Stacey

Submits that EFU land is not locked in permanently and outlines possible changes in accepted uses.

211

Lane Shetterly

Director, Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD).  Advocates for the amendments that will replace the -3 amendments and lists the parties involved in the drafting.  Discusses the agreed-to balance in the package so does not support discrete changes.

240

Glenn Klein

Attorney, Eugene, Oregon.  Agrees with Mr. Shetterly’s comments on the discussions on the scope of claims filing.  Describes the amendments as a package and therefore cannot recommend small changes.

270

Rep. Greenlick

Discusses the narrowness of the work group and the parties who were excluded from participating.  Remarks on objectives other than maintaining consensus within the work group.

303

Rep. Ackerman

Asks if the work group considered alternatives on the duration of waivers.

310

Klein

Recounts deliberations on this issue and explains the reasoning behind their decision.

353

Rep. Ackerman

Inquires if they considered that using recordation could have the long-term effect of granting wavers into perpetuity.

355

Klein

Responds that there was little discussion of this issue among the work group.

366

Chair Garrard

Refers to the Department of Justice (DOJ) position on the issue of transferability.

370

Klein

Comments on DOJ involvement in drafting and notes the decision would not be valid if the text of M37 is replaced by the draft.

391

Shetterly

Confirms this.

392

Chair Garrard

Asks if there is room for negotiation in the area of transferability.

400

Stacey

Raises concerns and cites criteria that would be sufficient to support the proposal.

TAPE 133, A

004

Klein

Adds that including some of the criteria mentioned is not a part of the work group consensus.

012

Chair Garrard

Requests contacting the parties involved to see if there is agreement in this area.

015

Rep. Greenlick

Notes the Attorney General (AG) opinion that states there was not transferability in M37 as written and asserts this draft is a clear expansion of M37.

023

Chair Garrard

Disagrees and states it is a clarification of the intent of M37.

027

Rep. Greenlick

Reiterates that the AG opinion says this is an expansion.

032

Chair Garrard

Responds they are not trying to change the intent but attempting to interpret the intent.

035

Rep. Greenlick

Doesn’t believe that is feasible. 

037

Chair Garrard

Seeks clarification that everyone who voted for M37 knew that there wasn’t transferability.

039

Rep. Greenlick

Replies he does not think most of the voters even thought about transferability.  Cites examples of attempts to clarify intent to suit their interests.

054

Chair Garrard

Asks if he believes the voters for M37 did not anticipate that they could sell their property. 

061

Rep. Greenlick

Cites that many of those voting on M37 do not own property and voted for the measure for a variety of reasons.    

087

Rep. Anderson

Disagrees with Rep. Greenlick’s interpretation and comments on the wide representation on the work group and his comfort in following their guidelines.

100

Rep. Greenlick

Responds to a point in Rep. Anderson’s testimony on the past and future uses of M37.

112

Chair Garrard

Directs the committee to concentrate on the areas of concern and discusses the process for reaching a final version. 

133

Klein

Explains the provisions of Section 14 (EXHIBIT A) dealing with M37 claims inside urban growth boundaries (UGB).

170

Rep. P. Smith

Asks if any of these provisions were in M37.

171

Klein

Responds negatively.

172

Rep. P. Smith

Submits it is an expansion.

173

Klein

Replies that it was not in the measure.

174

Chair Garrard

Inquires if this section is a part of the compromise.

176

Klein

Answers this ties to the local government support of transferability.

190

Stacey

Discusses opposition to this section which allows for “special treatment” of some property owners in UGB.  Elaborates on their concern.

201

Rep. P. Smith

Asks what is meant by “restricts the residential use of residentially zoned land.”

210

Klein

Explains that the provisions specify residentially zoned property rather than industrial or commercially zoned land and the desired use would have to be residential as well. 

217

Rep. P. Smith

Verifies that this provision is aimed at residential property within the UGB.

220

Klein

Replies correct.  Confirms this is intended to allow development of property for residential purposes.

223

Rep. Greenlick

Asks what it would mean if language read “restricts any use of residentially zoned property” instead of “residential use.” 

229

Klein

Gives criteria for a claim under this section.

235

Rep. Greenlick

Provides a scenario under this provision if zoning were changed in the future.

243

Klein

Does not agree with the interpretation and clarifies what is allowed under this section.

257

Rep. Greenlick

Reads part of Section 15 and asks if a certain type of claim could be filed.

262

Klein

Responds that was not intended.  Restates the criteria for use under this section.

276

Rep. Greenlick

Verifies that no claims may be filed under M37 within the UGB and gives exceptions.

282

Klein

Confirms this interpretation for regulations existing as of the effective date but not true prospectively.

289

Tom Gallagher

Urban Developers Coalition.  Reports that commercial and industrial interests did not participate in the work group. 

311

Chair Garrard

Notes difficulty in reaching compromise.

314

Gallagher

Reiterates suggestion to withdraw Section 14 (EXHIBIT A).

324

Rep. Ackerman

Describes a concern with the criteria that can disqualify claims within UGBs.

332

Klein

Elaborates on the process and the criteria to be demonstrated.

349

Rep. Ackerman

Raises concern that a claim may be denied with no adjudication.

356

Klein

Clarifies the intent in the section.  Offers clarifying language.

370

Rep. Ackerman

Suggests including language to insure the protection of the claimant and to clarify the adjudication process.

376

Rep. Nolan

Raises concern with a possible claims scenario.

401

Klein

Responds and proposes clarifying language.  Details Section 15 (EXHIBIT A) on claims in a proposed UGB study area.  

TAPE 132, B

016

Chair Garrard

Asks for DLCD’s opinion on how Section 15 would affect cities’ response to expanding UGBs.

025

Shetterly

Explains that the proposal allows time to study those questions.

032

Rep. Nolan

Expresses interest in a map displaying UGBs.  Asks if there is a minimum size of city before an UGB is required.

049

Shetterly

Responds that every city has an UGB.

071

Rep. Ackerman

Asks for the rationale behind Section 15(5) on Page 18 of EXHIBIT A.

080

Klein

Explains that offers an immediate option rather than a M37 claim.

090

Rep. Ackerman

Suggests that this provision grants more than what is allowed under M37.

100

Klein

Describes the intent.  Suggests that clarification may be needed.

115

Rep. Ackerman

Agrees a language change is needed.

120

Rep. Greenlick

Asks about the consequences after 2015 if property is in an UGB and there is a valid claim. 

129

Klein

Answers if the decision included the property in the UGB, the waiver was never effective.

133

Shetterly

Explains that the act of bringing property into an UGB substantially increases the property value.

144

Klein

Suggests delaying discussions on Sections 17 and 18 (EXHIBIT A). Explains that Sections 19 and 20 are conforming amendments and gives their corresponding sections.

175

Rep. Nolan

Asks if the Appraiser Certification and Licensure Board rules or statutes direct appraisers on calculations.

185

Klein

Replies the statutes direct adoption of administrative rules for appraiser responsibilities. 

190

Rep. Nolan

Inquires about mechanisms in place to insure accurate, fair appraisals.

201

Klein

Comments on standards for appraisals and refers to Section 4 of HB 3120 which would direct the Department of Administrative Services to adopt fair and uniform administrative rules.

220

Rep. P. Smith

Inquires about a timeline for rule adoption.

222

Klein

Responds that there is nothing specific in HB 3120.

225

Klein

Advises Sections 22 through 24 (EXHIBIT A) are related and specify that if property owners apply to the government to change zoning they agree to abide by the rules in effect.

260

Rep. Ackerman

Asks how this applies to annexation.

261

Klein

Provides an example. 

272

Rep. Ackerman

Clarifies that a request for a zone change or annexation affects property for which an individual has a M37 claim.

280

Klein

Answers correct.

282

Rep. Ackerman

Believes that clarification is needed to ensure reference to M37.

290

Rep. Greenlick

Inquires if there is any other kind of annexation.

293

Klein

Replies it does not apply to a forced annexation.

295

Klein

Describes Section 26 (EXHIBIT A). 

325

Chair Garrard

Advises that the afternoon meeting will start with Section 17. 

342

Chair Garrard

Recesses the work session on HB 3120 at 10:02 a.m.

343

Chair Garrard

Reconvenes the work session on HB 3120 at 1:15 p.m.

347

Harold Haugen

Retired Josephine County Commissioner.  Testifies and submits written testimony in opposition to HB 3120 (EXHIBIT B).

394

Chair Garrard

Assures that all actions will take place publicly in the committee.

402

Haugen

Cautions the members to act responsibly.

TAPE 133, B

008

Chair Garrard

Advises discussion is need on Sections 4, 17 and 18 (EXHIBIT A).  States that the committee is seriously considering eliminating Sections 17 and 18.

027

Klein

Begins review of Section 4 and details each subsection. 

038

Chair Garrard

Cites the subsections that will possibly be eliminated and asks what changes would be needed if they were.

041

Klein

Reads the language to be deleted.  Continues with review of the exemptions that are primarily the same as those in M37. 

053

Klein

Details Subsections 4(3), (4), (5) and (6) (EXHIBIT A).

091

Chair Garrard

Suggests replacing “the date that the instrument conveying ownership is recorded“ with the word “verifiable” in Subsection (6).

099

Shetterly

Offers the language can use some work.    

109

Rep. P. Smith

Notes that older contracts didn’t even have to be notarized.

112

Shetterly

Agrees. 

125

Chair Garrard

Proposes “the date of acquisition shall be verifiable” language.

133

Klein

Notes that in the next version, the issue of death of the property owner before a final decision, is addressed.

144

Shetterly

Discusses the “federal law exemption” issue. 

157

Chair Garrard

Asks if the cities and counties are being given the responsibility rather than the state.

150

Shetterly

Indicates that there are statutes that also conform to federal law.

160

Klein

Refers to discussions to remove “conform to” language.

177

Chair Garrard

Asks Mr. Litke about his conversation with Legislative Counsel on the delay of the next version of the amendments.

181

Litke

Reports that Legislative Counsel was working diligently.

190

Klein

Believes the concept should be ready today.

194

Rep. Ackerman

Inquires if there were any exemptions considered that did not make it into the text of the agreement. 

198

Klein

Answers there were two additional exemptions in SB 1037 that dealt with mountains and wild and scenic rivers, and those are not in here.

201

Rep. Ackerman

Asks about roads and highways.

202

Klein

Responds that view corridors were not part of the exemptions but also not in here.

210

Shetterly

Discusses the definition of coastal shore lands which may include land east and west of Highway 101. 

219

Chair Garrard

Refers to testimony from John Griffith, Coos County Commissioner, discussing federal grants and whether or not to keep that section in.

233

Shetterly

Doesn’t believe that was ever inserted at the request of DLCD but was in SB 1037.

240

Rep. P. Smith

Asks about Subsection 4(3)(b) (EXHIBIT A).

242

Chair Garrard

Comments there was discussion about changing the date.  

246

Klein

Outlines the intention was to allow sufficient time for filing claims. 

272

Dave Hunnicutt

Oregonians in Action (OIA).  Describes this section will force people to act immediately to preserve those claims.  Understands the concern and agrees that there should be a cut-off date but believes 2006 is too early. 

300

Stacey

Suggests moving the date closer to allow the 2007 Legislative Assembly an opportunity for funding.  Supports the cut-off date so that everyone is aware of the obligation and scope.

340

Rep. P. Smith

Asks if there was a date in M37 by which a claim should be filed.

343

Hunnicutt

Cites the dates based on regulations in effect prior to the effective date of M37. 

358

Chair Garrard

Believes there are many claims being held back to see what this legislature will do. 

368

Rep. Nolan

Indicates work will be completed prior to September 1, 2005, so people will have a full year to explore their options and still be able to submit and have considered timely. 

396

Rep. Ackerman

Inquires about data on pending filings based on retroactive regulations.

404

Shetterly

Responds that numbers are increasing and they are receiving about 100 claims per month.  Expects to see a spike in claims filed after the end of session. 

420

Chair Garrard

Assumes that with the 2006 date there will be a big influx between now and the 2006 date.  Asks if they can handle the workload.

440

Shetterly

Points to Section 17 (EXHIBIT A) which creates an “off ramp” for someone who wants to develop a dwelling on a tract of record.  Informs that HB 3120 would take them out of the M37 process.  Believes most are anticipating the December 2, 2006, date and plan to file by that date.

TAPE 134, A

018

Chair Garrard

Asks if an amendment can be made once a claim is filed.

020

Shetterly

Responds that M37 allows separate claims to be filed on the same property. 

026

Rep. Anderson

Offers that if the initiative says two years, a full two years should be allowed.

031

Hunnicutt

References (5) from the text of M37 (EXHIBIT B) and notes the difference between retrospective and prospective claims.

042

Rep. Anderson

Asks why it was made less than years. 

048

Klein

Explains that using a December 2 filing deadline would not allow sufficient time for evaluation.   

057

Stacey

Offers a suggestion for Section 4 of EXHIBIT A to have a minimum amount of loss to “trigger” a M37 claim.  Supports 25 percent for both prospective and retrospective claims. 

081

Klein

Describes Section 17 in EXHIBIT A as the tract of record provision.

090

Rep P. Smith

Asks about the 250-foot setback in Section 17(f) (EXHIBIT A).

100

Shetterly

Explains the intent of this provision is to limit conflicts of use.  Recognizes it may not be feasible in all cases.  

110

Rep. P. Smith

Inquires about county ordinances which require 130 feet.

112

Shetterly

Believes the 250 feet in statute would probably pre-empt county standards.

123

Chair Garrard

Comments it appears the majority of the committee does not favor the tract of record concept as it changes M37.

125

Hunnicutt

Reports that OIA have taken a position in opposition to Sections 17 and 18.

130

Stacey

Distributes proposed amendment language to Sections 17 and 18 (EXHIBIT C) that would utilize both the tract of record concept and the high-value farmland concept.  Proposes three levels of development authorization and references the highlighted portions of amendments (EXHIBIT C). 

177

Chair Garrard

Comments that denies rights given under M37.

179

Stacey

Asserts it provides certainty of development in exchange for rights that a property owner has under M37, which may or may not be utilized and believes that under M37 these are not transferable.

184

Chair Garrard

Restates the difficulty interpreting the intent on everything.

200

Rep. Greenlick

Comments that he thought the -3 amendments were a compromise and asks about the effect of their opposition to Sections 17 and 18. 

203

Hunnicutt

Discusses the negotiation process.  Continues that before there was no tract of record or limitations on zoning of farm land, and expresses concern that amendments and decisions are being made quickly. 

241

Rep. Greenlick

Asks if OIA is comfortable with everything except Sections 17 and 18.  Inquires of the work group members about the balance of HB 3120 without Sections 17 and 18.

254

Hunnicutt

Advises of need to check on the remainder of the sections so cannot commit publicly to a position.

270

Art Schlack

Association of Oregon Counties (AOC).  Advises that they have been active in the work group preparing the replacement -3 amendments over the last six months.  Reports that the AOC legislative committee conceptually supports the replacement -3 amendments but did not review in detail.  Continues they are comfortable with most of the sections but did not spend a lot of time on Section 18 because of discussion on rural lands.  Supports the process, procedures, claims requirements of the judicial review, and definitions.  Adds that Section 17 is an option and does not replace a M37 claim.  Explains the reason certain dates were picked, but the legislature has the ability to adjust if deemed appropriate.  Concludes that AOC is supportive of the direction and content of the replacement -3 amendments with minor modifications.

351

Chair Garrard

Asks if the Farm Bureau has an opinion on Sections 17 and 18.

354

Don Schellenberg

Oregon Farm Bureau Federation.  Agrees with Section 17 as written and Section 18 with some changes.

364

Rep. Ackerman

Has a problem understanding what triggers the tract of record. 

381

Shetterly

Points to Section 17(1)(c) (EXHIBIT A) about removal of tract of record from the M37 process.  Explains the criteria.

400

Rep. Anderson

Asks for the definition of “tract.”

404

Shetterly

Answers a single unit of land that may be composed of separate lots, if contiguous under common ownership.

415

Rep. Sumner

Seeks clarification that strict interpretation of M37 would allow the owner of those lots to build on each lot.

424

Shetterly

Replies yes.

428

Rep. Sumner

Inquires if this option allows, without filing a M37 claim, one house only on the tract.

434

Shetterly

Answers if the owner elects this way, correct.

437

Rep. Sumner

Continues that the owner is not precluded from filing a M37 claim for all the lots.

440

Shetterly

Replies correct.

442

Chair Garrard

Asks how this would affect M37 claims being filed now.

TAPE 135, A

015

Shetterly

Responds that at least five percent of claims deal with a single dwelling. 

028

Chair Garrard

Asks if those who elect to use the tract would not be under time constraints as long as they held the property.

030

Shetterly

Answers correct.

031

Rep. Greenlick

Inquires if after the M37 time frame is up, one can still use tract of record to build a single-family dwelling.

036

Shetterly

Responds yes as this is not limited to the filing deadline. 

041

Rep. Greenlick

Comments that they no longer have a valid M37 claim. 

043

Shetterly

Replies this is not predicated on having a valid M37 claim but on having the right to have built a house when the property was acquired.

044

Chair Garrard

Acknowledges clarification.  Suggests putting Section 17 “back on the table” for discussion based on this information. 

050

Schellenberg

Understands Section 18 covers parceling and subdivisions.  Suggests changes in Subsection (4) (EXHIBIT A). 

084

Chair Garrard

Asserts the county planning commission will determine the location of a septic tank.

091

Schellenberg

Believes that county health provisions would be pre-eminent. 

100

Chair Garrard

Notes other considerations in siting utilities and suggests adding “if possible” rather than dictating to local governments.

106

Schellenberg

Has no problem with that.

114

Klein

Clarifies the suggestion is to add into Subsection (4) the kind of limitation that is in Subsection (1). 

119

Rep. P. Smith

Asks why public water couldn’t be used under Section 18. 

124

Schellenberg

Answers they would not discount that if a public water system was available.

135

Rep. Nolan

Seeks clarification on the intended process for dealing with comments. 

139

Chair Garrard

Replies that when the initial review is completed, he plans to work on inserting sections of the -3 amendments into the -1 amendments to compose the final bill.  Continues that suggestions from committee members will be considered and voted on if necessary. 

144

Rep. Nolan

Asks if these “informal amendments” would be placed into one amendment for committee action.

150

Chair Garrard

States that the intent is to create one amendment including all the sections and their changes to create the -12 amendments, the final bill.

154

Rep. Nolan

Requests a “marked up” version to see all the changes.

161

Litke

Advises of the availability of the latest version which should be the -12 amendments to be provided to members.

165

Rep. Nolan

Clarifies that the -12 amendments will amend HB 3120 as it stands now, which contains the -1 amendments, so the -12 amendments will amend HB 3120 as amended.

168

Rep. Ackerman

Raises concern on how to use the -1 amendments unless the suggestions are incorporated.  Continues with a question on how to eliminate language in the -1 amendments not wanted.

172

Chair Garrard

Believes the intent was to go through the -3 amendments to see what was wanted and not wanted.  Indicates the next step is to eliminate from the -1 amendments what is not wanted.

180

Rep. Ackerman

Offers it would be easier to use the -3 replacement as the vehicle.

184

Rep. Nolan

Raises concern about the amount of time spent coming up with a package and now looking at pieces in isolation.

200

Chair Garrard

Reminds of the criteria at the beginning that there should be nothing in HB 3120 that undermines the intent of those who voted for M37.  Continues that if HB 3120 changed M37, it would not be considered.

205

Rep. Greenlick

Indicates he thought that their charge was to only clarify M37.

208

Chair Garrard

Agrees.  States that as his reason for initially eliminating Section 17 as being outside the boundaries of M37. 

234

Harrison Conley

Deputy Legislative Counsel.  Informs that the -1 amendments were similar to SB 1037A in terms of the claims process and judicial review provision.  States that the -3 amendments are a different track.  Advises that all amendments prepared have been either to the -1 amendments or to the original HB 3120 including the -1 amendments, or to the original HB 3120 with the -3 amendments.  Suggests that if moving down the path of the -3 amendments, restore HB 3120 to its original status and adopt the -3 amendments with changes. 

252

Chair Garrard

Offers that was Rep. Ackerman’s suggestion.

256

Conley

Answers yes.  Restates the two options. 

271

Chair Garrard

Confirms that they need to simply move the -3 amendments into HB 3120 and remove the -1 amendments.  Asks for a deadline for the committee to finish their work.

236

Conley

Advises of the status of the -11 amendments. 

308

Chair Garrard

Clarifies that the -11 amendments are a “remake” of the -3 amendments.

311

Rep. Nolan

Expresses she thought the committee would have an opportunity for further review before a formal amendment was prepared.  Believes it is premature to be drafting an amendment at this time.

325

Conley

Responds that it is in everyone’s best interest to review a Legislative Counsel draft rather than any other document.

340

Rep. Greenlick

Suggests Mr. Conley participate in future committee discussion.

351

Conley

Indicates he is available. 

358

Chair Garrard

Has concern about the timeline to complete HB 3120.

367

Rep. Greenlick

Suggests the possibility of a “gut and stuff” to SB 1037 and then refer to a conference committee.

383

Rep. P. Smith

Wants to continue doing work in this committee.

389

Rep. Greenlick

Responds that if the committee has their work ready, it could be “gut and stuffed” into SB 1037 if received. 

400

Chair Garrard

Requests Mr. Conley attend the committee meetings.

420

Rep. Ackerman

Inquires about the -11 amendments.

424

Chair Garrard

Answers they are the work group amendments to the -3 amendments.

430

Rep. Ackerman

Seeks clarification on the review process.

TAPE 134, B

001

Chair Garrard

Believes each committee member is making own amendment changes to the -3 amendments. 

002

Litke

Points out changes that will be reflected in the -11 amendments. 

010

Rep. Ackerman

Clarifies that as a committee, amendments can still be submitted, and that the -11 amendments are not the last work product.  

015

Chair Garrard

Replies that the -11 amendments will be the last product from the work group.

019

Klein

Concurs the -11 amendments are the last version from the work group, plus some consensus items.  Plans to highlight the differences between the -11 amendments and the version the committee has been using.

030

Rep. Ackerman

Believes there will be one more review.

033

Chair Garrard

Agrees.

035

Rep. Anderson

Asks if the work group has had contact with the Senate.

037

Klein

Answers yes up until the time the Senate decided not to act on SB 1037. 

044

Rep. P. Smith

Inquires if there will be a vote on the -3 amendments.

045

Chair Garrard

Responds no. 

052

Conley

Plans to have the -11 amendments available for the next committee meeting.

056

Chair Garrard

Closes the work session on HB 3120 and adjourns the meeting at 3:00 p.m.