TAPE/#

Speaker

Comments

TAPE 40, A

003

Sen. Whitsett

Calls the committee to order at 3:20 p.m.  Opens a public hearing on SB 77.  Remarks he will be chairing the committee until Sen. Verger’s arrival.

SB 77 – PUBLIC HEARING

013

Judith Callens

Committee Administrator.  Describes the provisions of SB 77.  Observes that copies of the proposed -1 amendment are before the committee members (EXHIBIT A).

027

John Jackley

Highway Division, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT).  Testifies in favor of SB 77.  Mentions the money saving implications of the measure.

047

Dennis Wiegal

Right of Way Section, ODOT.  Testifies in favor of SB 77.  Offers additional description of the measure and its function. 

077

Wiegal

Describes that this measure would in no way endanger the value of property.  Remarks that this is a better use of taxpayer dollars.

090

Sen. Whitsett

Asks if it would eliminate the need for the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) to be applied in these particular cases.

095

Wiegal

Replies that it would not fall under the governance of USPAP standards.

110

Sen. Whitsett

Solicits their thoughts on the application of USPAP guidelines.

115

Wiegal

Observes that the standards would not apply in this scenario. 

127

Sen. Prozanski

Considers the workload for ODOT being contracted out to other agencies.  Asks what would happen to the staff.

131

Wiegal

Discusses the use of staff on other projects.

159

Lawrence Ofner

Appraiser.  Presents a letter in opposition to SB 77 (EXHIBIT B).

190

Ofner

Explains his concerns with SB 77.

230

Ofner

Feels the measure is unnecessary.

260

Ofner

Describes the uniform act not being intended for appraisers. 

267

Brian Glanville

Appraiser.  Testifies in opposition to SB 77.  Mentions the drafting of the appraisal laws.

295

Glanville

Mentions that property owners do not have the same options as appraisers. 

325

Roxanne Gillespie

Appraiser.  Testifies in opposition to SB 77.  Relays her involvement with the creation of the original law.  Voices her feelings that sufficient laws are already in place. 

370

Sen. Whitsett

Considers a scenario where an appraiser would be prohibited from appraising a property.  Asks who else could perform the appraisal in that situation.

375

Ofner

Replies that agency staff and attorneys could offer opinions.

383

Sen. Whitsett

Requests an approximation of the cost for a “non-appraisal” as opposed to a USPAP appraisal.

387

Ofner

Feels the cost would not be much different.

TAPE 41, A

005

Glanville

Mentions they can design a scope of work that is less than the full appraisal process.

013

Sen. Prozanski

Asks Ms. Gillespie to cite the section that defines who can perform that work.

015

Gillespie

Notes the section.

020

John Brown

Licensed Fee Appraiser, Eugene, Oregon.  Testifies in support of SB 77.  Offers a different perspective on the process of appraising property.  Notes the cost of appraising a property

050

Brown

Relates some professional experiences where this change would have been helpful.

070

Sen. Prozanski

Wonders if there is concern to prevent awkward bidding situations over these small “non-appraisal” situations.

085

Brown

Replies that he doesn’t see this as a problem with the industry, just a better way to provide service to the consumer.

105

Jon Oshel

Association of Oregon Counties.  Testifies in favor of SB 77.  Discusses the need for a change to the existing laws to allow hiring of qualified appraisers. 

136

Bob Keith

Administrator, Oregon Appraiser and Certification Licensure Board (ACLB).  Discusses the ACLB’s support of the concept.  Notes their conditions for approval of the bill.  States they are neutral on the bill as drafted.

150

Chair Verger

Closes public hearing on SB 77.  Opens a public hearing on SB 894.

SB 894 – PUBLIC HEARING

170

Bob Russell

President, Oregon Trucking Associations (OTA).  Testifies in favor of SB 894.  Clarifies and explains the -1 (EXHIBIT C), -2 (EXHIBIT D), and -4 amendments (EXHIBIT E) before the committee.

215

Sen. Prozanski

Requests clarification regarding his comments on the -2 amendments.

220

Russell

Clarifies his comments.

230

Sen. Betsy Johnson

Senate District 16.  Discusses resolving the initial confusion over the classification of a “freight route”.  

243

Rep. Phil Barnhart

House District 11.  Talks about the ongoing discussion and interest in this issue.

273

Rep. Barnhart

Expresses his opinions on the various amendments.

310

Rep. Barnhart

Relates concerns over control of the process being shifted to the legislature.

320

Chair Verger

Clarifies which freight route he was talking about.

323

Rep. Barnhart

Thanks the chair for the clarification.

337

Russell

Describes the meaning of a “freight route”.  Provides a historical overview of the highway system established under President Eisenhower.

375

Russell

Talks about the process of designating a freight route and what occurs when that designation is made.

405

Russell

Details an exclusion in the statute.

TAPE 40, B

005

Russell

Feels the -2 amendments solve the “hole in the air” problem.  Notes the implications of the -4 amendments.

017

Sen. Johnson

Offers that she wants to make sure that what one amendment gives, another doesn’t take away. 

027

Rep. Barnhart

States that the -2 amendments are making a significant change to the statute.  Relates additional concerns.

051

Sen. Whitsett

Comments on the highway concerns of constituents in Prineville.

057

Russell

References a map handed out at the previous meeting showing the state and federal freight routes.

077

Sen. Prozanski

Comments on a change in the -4s about adding in a “freight route”. 

087

Russell

Remarks on the change.

090

Sen. Whitsett

Questions other areas of the highway system being removed from the freight route system.

095

Russell

Notes he has not heard of any plans.

100

Sen. Whitsett

Asks if the potential is there for requests for exclusions.

102

Russell

Discusses the misconceptions of what a “freight route” entails. 

115

Rodger Bennett

Florence City Manager.  Submits written testimony in favor of including Highway 101 south of Florence as a “freight route” (EXHIBIT F).

183

Randy Tucker

Legislative Affairs Manager, Metro.  Presents a letter on the potential impact of SB 894 (EXHIBIT G).

230

Chair Verger

Explains that she will have to leave the committee at this time.

240

Tucker

Continues discussing his concerns with SB 894.

270

Tucker

Expresses his hope that his concerns will be addressed. 

280

Sen. B. Starr

Asks if he has had any input from Hillsboro, Cornelius, or Forest Grove.

290

Tucker

Replies that he has not heard any specific criticism.

293

Sen. B. Starr

Voices that he has heard no objections from constituents.  Talks about the letter Mr. Tucker received. 

307

Tucker

Makes additional comments.

315

Sen. Whitsett

Remarks that they will not take action on the other bills before them today.

337

Anthony Bieda

Intergovernmental Relations, Lane County.  Testifies in favor of SB 894.

353

Chris Smith

Citizen Representative, Transportation Policy Alternatives Committee (TPAC).  Testifies in opposition to SB 894 (EXHIBIT H).

405

Smith

Elaborates on his concerns.

TAPE 41, B

019

Bricker

Bicycle Transportation Alliance.  Present written testimony on his concerns with the measure (EXHIBIT I).  Discusses his concerns over the wording of the legislation. 

040

Sen. B. Starr

Feels the amendments to the bill take care of the concerns he is raising.

048

Bricker

Replies in regards to his understanding of the -2 and -4 amendments.

050

Sen. B. Starr

Asks if the bottom line is defining the so called “hole in the air” portion of the measure.

055

Bricker

States that is one of his primary concerns. 

073

Leonard Goodwin

Assistant Public Works Director, City of Springfield.  Expresses concern for freight mobility.  Feel this measure has unintended consequences.

130

Goodwin

Expands upon the anticipated expansion of traffic.

143

Sen. Whitsett

Clarifies the point Mr. Goodwin is making.

145

Goodwin

Summarizes his concerns with this bill.

170

Christopher Henry

Transportation Planning Engineer, City of Eugene.  Presents written testimony in opposition to SB 894. (EXHIBIT J)

200

Henry

Explains the problems he perceives with the -2 amendments.

215

Sen. Prozanski

Considers the definition of “vehicle capacity”.

220

Henry

Defines “vehicle capacity”.  Notes it is not easily measured.

233

Sen. Prozanski

Offers if there is a concept that defines the capability for movement of cargo vehicles.

245

Henry

Replies that indirectly it may be defined.

257

John Jackley

Department of Transportation, Highway Division.  Submits written testimony (EXHIBIT K).   Notes the reasons this bill is before them today. 

295

Jackley

Relates vehicle size and clearance calculations.

330

Jackley

Discusses the design of structures to accommodate freight vehicles.

370

Jackley

Points out there is a prominent roll for Oregon Transportation Commission in SB 894.

383

Sen. Prozanski

Clarifies Mr. Jackley’s statements that previous legislation used terms that are not currently defined.

393

Jackley

Concurs.

397

Sen. Prozanski

Wonders if Mr. Jackley can point out the previous legislation that is now in statute.

400

Jackley

Replies he will find out and report back to him.

The following material is submitted for the record without public testimony:

Sen. Bill Morrisette

Senate District 6.  Submits written testimony on SB 894 (EXHIBIT L).

405

Sen. Whitsett

Closes the public hearing on SB 894.  Adjourns the committee at 5:07 p.m.