Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Strategic Investment Programs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee backs bill narrowing which ports must sign SIP agreements after counties object
Summary
House Bill 2725A would limit which ports must be a party to Strategic Investment Program agreements; supporters said the change fixes an unintended consequence of 2023 law, while several eastern Oregon counties urged delay and broader amendments, arguing the carve-out creates unequal treatment.
The Senate Committee on Finance and Revenue on June 23 heard testimony on House Bill 2725A, which narrows which public ports are required to be signatories to Strategic Investment Program (SIP) intergovernmental agreements distributing community services support fees.
Nut graf: HB 2725A responds to a 2023 change that allowed ports whose districts included a SIP project to be signatories; sponsors say the new language limits required signatories to “affected ports” (ports that own land where any part of the SIP project will be located) and lists specific ports by name to address a problem Hillsboro raised.
Lynn Oliver, staff for Rep. Hai Pham, read sponsor testimony explaining the bill came at the request of the city of Hillsboro and was negotiated with the Oregon Public Ports Association. Rep. Hai Pham’s testimony noted the 2023 changes unintentionally required ports that were not directly involved to be signatories, creating obstacles for some local SIP negotiations.
Andy Smith, representing the city of Hillsboro, told the committee the change is a narrow “fix” and argued adding a third governmental signatory can be “a deterrent to business investment.” Mark Landauer of the Oregon Public Ports Association said ports have long participated in economic development programs and supported the measure as promoting clearer communication among local governments and development partners.
But several eastern Oregon county representatives opposed the measure as written. Morrow County Commissioner Gus (August) Peterson and Morrow County Administrator Matt Jensen said the bill treats Washington County differently than several eastern counties and could force ports to be signatories on projects where they do not bring services or infrastructure to the SIP. Jensen said in Morrow County “the primary use of SIP agreements is for wind turbine projects, which has no association with the Port of Morrow.” Commissioner Peterson said county signers in Gilliam, Hood River, Morrow, Umatilla and Wasco would submit a joint letter opposing the current draft.
Committee action: Vice Chair McLean moved HB 2725A to the Senate floor with a due-pass recommendation; the motion passed on roll call. Chair Meek pledged to work with impacted counties and sponsors in the short session to seek a broader solution.
Ending: Sponsors and opponents agreed the issue arose from HB 2009 (2023); committee members asked for continued negotiations ahead of the short session to address concerns from eastern counties.
