|
|
PUBLIC
HEARING ON HB 2656 |
|
|
TAPE 95 A-B,
Tape 96 A |
MARCH 25,
2003 8:30 AM STATE CAPITOL BUILDING
Members Present: Representative Lane Shetterly, Chair
Representative
Wayne Scott, Vice Chair
Representative
Joanne Verger, Vice Chair
Representative
Vicki Berger
Representative
Pat Farr
Representative
Mark Hass
Representative
Elaine Hopson
Representative
Max Williams
Members Excused: Representative Barnhart
Witness Present: Senator Bill Fisher, Senate District
1
Dr.
Robert Barber, Central Oregon Community College
Margaret
Bradford, Rogue Community College
Rep,
Tim Knopp, House District 54
Mike
Gaudette,
Southwestern Oregon Community College
Donald Reeder, Central Oregon
Community College
Dr. Jesus (Jess) Carreon, Portland
Community College
Cam Preus Braley, Commissioner,
Community Colleges
Staff Present: Paul
Warner, Legislative Revenue Officer
Steve
Meyer, Legislative Revenue Office
Kathy
Tooley, Committee Assistant
|
TAPE 95, SIDE A |
||
|
004 |
Chair Shetterly |
Calls meeting to order at 8:35 a.m. |
|
005 |
Steve Meyer |
Gave background of HB 2656 which prohibits commissioner for community
college services from using amounts received from local property taxes in
determining amount of state aid to be distributed to community college
districts and community college services districts. HB 2656 has no revenue impact and has subsequent referral to Ways
and Means Committee. Exhibit 1 |
|
021 |
Senator Fisher |
In theory agrees with HB 2656, however testified in opposition to the
bill. He emphasized that one
community college should not be favored over another. Describes financial concerns of community
colleges in his district and the negative effect of this bill on those
schools. Notes a court case is
pending regarding distribution of funding.
|
|
100 |
Bob Barber |
Testifies in favor of HB 2656.
Summarizes written testimony supporting removing property taxes as a
factor in the community college formula...
Exhibit 2 |
|
335 |
Rep Patridge |
Testifies in support of HB 2656 which was introduced because of
equity argument. His concern is the
funding formula for community colleges.
He terms the formula as fundamentally flawed and asks the committee to
look was what is fair and equitable. |
|
390 |
Margaret Bradford |
Testifies in support of HB 2656.
Reapportionment has meant higher tuition for students and monies
should stay in the community that voted them in. |
|
TAPE 96, SIDE A |
||
|
142 |
Rep. Knopp |
Sponsored HB 2656 to address inequities and begin discussion on
community college funding. |
|
172 |
Mike Gaudette |
Testifies in support of HB 2656.
Discusses lack of equity in the funding formula. |
|
285 |
Don Reader |
Discusses cuts in funding to the Central Oregon Community
College. Summarizes testimony of students
who testified before the community college board. |
|
397 |
|
Questions and discussion |
|
391 |
Rep. Farr |
Voices supports for bill |
|
410 |
|
Questions and discussion. |
|
412 |
Barber |
Discusses historical decision-making process for community colleges
and the advisory role to the commission and then to the state board. |
|
|
|
Questions and discussion |
|
TAPE 95, SIDE B |
||
|
008 |
Rep. Williams |
Expressed concerns relating to passing bond measures for capital
construction. There is a distinction
between a capital bond that passes for bricks and mortar supported by the
local community and the broader issue of operation expenses of a college that
is funded substantially through state college. They are separate approaches in how community college funding
is dealt with. |
|
|
|
Discussion |
|
027 |
Rep. Hass |
Agreed with Rep. Williams’ comments and stressed the need to find a
solution to bring in more revenues rather than take community college funding
from one another. |
|
057 |
Barber |
Responds that community colleges have been good partners and urged
funding from state allocation not from other colleges. |
|
083 |
Donald Reader |
K-12 is based on the equity formula; however, each community college
has special needs. |
|
111 |
Jesus Carreon |
Spoke in opposition to the bill and stressed the existing funding
mechanism does not work for all agencies.
Urged putting all funding on the table. Should not look at one portion
when whole needs to be addressed. |
|
186 |
|
Emphasized the public policy issue of parity. |
|
|
|
Questions and discussion. |
|
275 |
Cam Preus Braley |
Does not support this legislation.
The Community College Board realizes the formula is not working and
requests a review of the formula.
Urged a new formula to pay community colleges for the students
served. Continues that this bill
removes one factor, the formula needs to look at all the factors. Looking at one diminishes possibility of a
finding answer for all. |
|
308 |
Chair Shetterly |
Clarified the committees Intention to revisit the formula. |
|
|
|
Discussion |
|
324 |
Rep. Hopson |
What is the composition of rest of the community college board? |
|
330 |
Braley |
Responds five community college presidents and himself. . |
|
333 |
Rep. Verger |
If there was a plan, why would we have all this legislation? |
|
342 |
Braley |
Can’t address impetus for legislation. Community College Board has been looking into funding formula
since last April. Noted the need to
build a new proposal. |
|
|
|
Questions and discussion |
|
Closes Public Hearing on HB 2656 |
||
|
389 |
Chair Shetterly |
Meeting adjourned at 9:50 a.m. |
Tape Log Submitted by,
Kathy Tooley, Committee
Assistant Summarized by Kim Taylor James
Exhibit Summary:
1. HB 2656, Meyer, Revenue Impact Statement, 2/14/03, 1 page
2. HB 2656, Barber/Reeder, Written Testimony 3/25/03, 7 pages
3. HB 2656, Levine, Written Testimony, 3/25/03, 2 pages
4. HB 2656, Gaudette, Written Testimony, 3/25/03, 2 pages
5. HB 2656, Carreon, Written Testimony, 3/25/03, 2 pages