CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON HB 3143 #2
July 21, 2005 Hearing Room C
8:00 A.M. Tapes 3 - 4
MEMBERS PRESENT: Rep. John Lim, Chair
Rep. Mike Schaufler
Rep. Greg Smith
Sen. Betsy Johnson
Sen. Rick Metsger
Sen. Ben Westlund
STAFF PRESENT: Janet
Adkins, Committee Administrator
Erin Seiler, Committee Assistant
MEASURES/ISSUES HEARD:
HB 3143C – Work Session
These minutes are in
compliance with Senate and House Rules.
Only text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker’s exact
words. For complete contents,
please refer to the tapes.
|
TAPE/# |
Speaker |
Comments |
|
TAPE 3, A |
||
|
001 |
Chair Lim |
Opens the meeting at 8:02 a.m. Opens a work session
on HB 3143C. |
|
HB 3143C
– WORK SESSION |
||
|
010 |
Janet Adkins |
Committee Administrator. Summarizes the measure
history. Submits and summarizes –C20
amendments (EXHIBIT A). Submits
and summarizes –C21 amendments (EXHIBIT
B). Submits and summarizes –C22 amendments (EXHIBIT C). |
|
032 |
Rep. G. Smith |
Discusses –C22 amendments, identifying the language
relating to reciprocal communication responsibilities associated with
applying for enterprise zone designation. |
|
060 |
Rep. G. Smith |
Cites language in –C22 amendments that gives the Oregon
Economic and Community Development Department (OECDD) the authority to adopt
rules relating to consent requirements for enterprise zone designations. |
|
076 |
Sen. Johnson |
Explains why special districts “need to be at the
table” when discussing designating an enterprise zone. |
|
102 |
Rep. G. Smith |
Comments that if a project has merit, it should be
able to withstand the scrutiny of all governmental entities affected by
implementation of an enterprise zone. |
|
123 |
Doris Penwell |
Policy Specialist, Association of Oregon Counties. Referring
to –C22 amendments, asks that counties be given consultation and consent authority
when the jurisdiction of a ports’ enterprise zone overlaps into a county. |
|
160 |
Penwell |
Explains possible conceptual amendments. |
|
175 |
Dexter Johnson |
Deputy Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative
Counsel. Asks if the goal is to require any local government seeking an
enterprise zone designation to have consent of effected municipalities. |
|
195 |
Arthur Fish |
Business Incentives Coordinator, OECDD. States that OECDD could resolve consent and
consultation concerns by adopting administrative rules. |
|
205 |
Sen. Johnson |
Explains why there is an affirmative obligation to
consult with special districts before approving an enterprise zone. |
|
225 |
Fish |
Speaks to the efforts of OECDD to notify and consult
with all municipalities who could be impacted by an enterprise zone. |
|
255 |
Sen. Johnson |
States that because the an opt-out for special
districts is not a supported option, there needs to be an affirmative
consultation obligation. |
|
260 |
Chair Lim |
Expresses support for the conceptual amendment to
include counties. |
|
270 |
D. Johnson |
Clarifies the intent of the conceptual amendment. |
|
277 |
Rep. Schaufler |
Questions if a promise by OECDD is sufficient to
ensure the inclusion of special districts. |
|
285 |
Fish |
In reference to –C22 amendments, points out the
additional requirements placed on OECDD to consult with special districts. |
|
290 |
Rep. Schaufler |
Comments that consults “is still just a promise.” |
|
295 |
D. Johnson |
Explains why the addition of the word “county” does
not give a county “veto” authority. |
|
310 |
Hasina Squires |
Representative, Special Districts Association of
Oregon. Discusses why special districts want to be able to opt-out of an
enterprise zone. |
|
340 |
Squires |
Discusses why one local government should not be
able to override the authority of another government. |
|
365 |
Rep. G. Smith |
Questions the extent of including special districts
in enterprise zone negotiations. |
|
375 |
Squires |
States that when there is a potential for the abatement
of property tax revenue, any effected special districts should be involved in
negotiations. |
|
380 |
Rep. G. Smith |
Asks how a community attracts new industry if
negotiations for an enterprise zone involve a multitude of municipalities. |
|
385 |
Squires |
Responds. |
|
400 |
Rep. G. Smith |
Comments that negotiating with small special
districts, many who do not trust the county or city government, is “not a
prudent method” of attracting economic development. |
|
TAPE 4, A |
||
|
003 |
Sen. Johnson |
Asks what the best way is to include special
districts in negotiations process. |
|
010 |
Squires |
Clarifies that the intention is not to hamper
economic development, but to allow special districts to opt-out of an
enterprise zone. |
|
020 |
Sen. Johnson |
Points out that there is no support for opt-out or
veto authority, thus the focus needs to be on finding a “meaningful point of
consultation for special districts.” |
|
025 |
Squires |
Citing –C22 amendments, confirms that the language
relating to consultation of local taxing districts is adequate. |
|
030 |
Rep. Schaufler |
Comments on the potential budgetary impact that the
abatement of property tax revenue could have on a fire district. |
|
040 |
Fish |
States that it is only new property being exempted
and the property tax exemption is only for three or five years. |
|
055 |
Sen. Metsger |
Discusses the responsibilities of OECDD to ensure
that consultation occurs with all effected municipalities and all concerns
are appropriately addressed. |
|
080 |
Chair Lim |
Asks whether the word “county” needs to be inserted
into the language of –C22 amendments. |
|
085 |
D. Johnson |
Recommends the addition of the phrase “a port shall
obtain prior consent of a county, prior to applying.” Asks if the intention
is to require cities to get prior consent from ports and counties before
applying to OECDD. |
|
102 |
Fish |
Explains why a similar requirement for cities would
be logical. |
|
111 |
Rep. G. Smith |
Verifies the language of the conceptual amendment. |
|
121 |
D. Johnson |
Repeats the language of the conceptual amendment. |
|
125 |
Sen. Johnson |
Asks, if the port is coming to the county prior to
designation, what does a port gain with this legislation. |
|
130 |
Rep. G. Smith |
Explains that the intention is to ensure that
cities, ports, and counties are all working together when seeking an
enterprise zone designation. |
|
135 |
Sen. Westlund |
Points out that the –C22 amendments will require the
submission of one application. |
|
140 |
Rep. G. Smith |
Comments on the improvement in the ability to market
enterprise zones. |
|
145 |
Ken Armstrong |
Representative, Oregon Ports Group. States that
Oregon Ports Groups supports the amendments. |
|
150 |
D. Johnson |
Repeats the language for the conceptual amendments. |
|
180 |
Rep. Lim |
MOTION: Moves to AMEND HB 3143C on page 1, in line
15, after "enterprise zone." insert "A port shall obtain the
consent of the governing body of the county prior to applying to the
department for designation of an area as an enterprise zone," and on
page 3, in line 9, after "a city," insert ", county". |
|
|
|
VOTE:
6-0-0 |
|
|
Chair Lim |
Hearing no objection, declares the
motion CARRIED. |
|
190 |
Rep. G.
Smith |
MOTION: Moves to ADOPT HB 3143-C22 amendments dated 07/20/05. |
|
199 |
Rep. Schaufler |
Comments on displeasure if fire firefighters are not
consulted. |
|
205 |
Chair Lim |
Acknowledges the importance of special districts and
that if special districts are not being adequately consulted the provisions
can be amended. |
|
225 |
|
VOTE:
6-0-0 |
|
|
Chair Lim |
Hearing no objection, declares the
motion CARRIED. |
|
230 |
Adkins |
Submits a revenue chart on HB 3143C (EXHIBIT D). |
|
237 |
Mary Ayala |
Economist, Legislative Revenue Office. Summarizes the
revenue chart, noting that there will not be any additional increase on the revenue
impact by allowing reservation lands held in trust by the federal government
to be an enterprise zone. |
|
260 |
Ted Hughes |
Representative, Cow Creek Band of the Umpqua Tribe. Explains
why Cow Creek sponsored –C21 amendments. |
|
300 |
Sen. Westlund |
Asks whether there would be any restrictions as to
where the Cow Creek Tribe could purchase land. |
|
312 |
Hughes |
States that the only restriction would be that it has
to be land purchased and put in trust by the federal government. |
|
320 |
Sen. Westlund |
Verifies that the federal government must put the
land in trust. Asks if the federal government has ever denied a request to
put land in trust. |
|
330 |
Hughes |
States uncertainty of denial by federal government. |
|
338 |
Sen. Johnson |
Questions the ability of OECDD to deal with sovereign
nations inside this framework. |
|
345 |
Fish |
Discusses the criteria for designating reservation land
an as enterprise zone. |
|
360 |
Sen. Johnson |
Questions the point where it is not possible to
require a sovereign nation to consult with anybody. |
|
370 |
Fish |
Explains how tribal enterprise zones are designated.
|
|
377 |
Sen. Johnson |
Comments on the complicated nature of –C21
amendments and the need to consult with other tribes. |
|
390 |
Sen. Metsger |
Discusses the importance of consulting with other
tribal entities and why this bill is not the appropriate way to extend
enterprise zone authority. |
|
TAPE 3, B |
||
|
007 |
Rep. G.
Smith |
MOTION: Moves HB 3143C to the floor with the
recommendation that the House CONCUR in Senate amendments dated 07/05/05 and
that the bill be FURTHER AMENDED by –C22 amendments dated 07/20/05 and the
measure be REPASSED. |
|
022 |
|
VOTE:
6-0-0 AYE: In a roll call vote, all members present vote Aye. |
|
|
Chair Lim |
The motion CARRIES. REP. G. SMITH AND SEN. JOHNSON will
lead discussion on the floor. |
|
026 |
Chair Lim |
Closes the work session on HB 3143C. Adjourns the
meeting at 8:58 a.m. |
EXHIBIT
SUMMARY