|
|
WORK
SESSION SB 550-A, SB 819-A |
|
|
TAPE 158-159,
A |
MAY 7,
2003 8:30 AM STATE CAPITOL BUILDING
Members Present: Representative Lane Shetterly, Chair
Representative
Joanne Verger, Vice Chair
Representative
Phil Barnhart
Representative
Vicki Berger
Representative
Elaine Hopson
Representative
Max Williams
Members Excused: Representative Wayne Scott, Vice
Chair
Representative
Pat Farr
Representative
Mark Hass
Witness Present: Representative Jerry Krummel,
District 26
Rob
Saxton, Sherwood School District
Connie
Hansen, Sherwood United for Schools
George
Lanning, Oregon Small Schools Association
Staff Present: Paul
Warner, Legislative Revenue Officer
Steve
Meyer, Legislative Revenue Office
Kathy
Tooley, Committee Assistant
TAPE 158, SIDE A
|
004 |
Chair Shetterly |
Calls meeting to order at 8:42
a.m. |
OPENS WORK SESSION ON SB 550A AND 819A
|
025 |
Rep. Krummel |
Introduces SB 819-A7 amendments (Exhibit 1), which creates a high growth
grant. Offers support for the amendments and discusses the Sherwood school
district. |
|
|
|
|
|
050 |
Rob Saxton |
Discusses Sherwood school district growth and spending per student, which
is less than any district in Oregon. Discusses executive report developed
last year (Exhibit 2). Gives history of local option in Sherwood. |
|
|
|
|
|
200 |
Rep. Barnhart |
Asks what the minimum amount per student to fund Sherwood school
district is. |
|
|
|
|
|
210 |
Saxton |
Responds that last session they were allotted 5181 per student, which
they didn’t feel was adequate. States that there are exceptions to the
formula for various circumstances and Sherwood does not qualify for any of
them, even though they cannot adequately fund their schools. |
|
|
|
|
|
238 |
Rep. Barnhart |
Asks if Sherwood qualifies for capital matching funds. |
|
|
|
|
|
241 |
Saxton |
Responds that he is not aware of capital matching funds. |
|
|
|
|
|
248 |
Rep. Barnhart |
Asks about increasing numbers of younger children. |
|
|
|
|
|
252 |
Saxton |
Responds that kindergarten classes are growing larger each year. |
|
|
|
|
|
259 |
Rep. Barnhart |
Asks if the district is holding these kids or if the families move to
a more established district as they get older, putting less stress on the
high schools. |
|
|
|
|
|
262 |
Saxton |
Responds that he doesn’t know because they are such a young
community, but that right now it looks like they are holding them. |
|
|
|
|
|
255 |
Rep. Barnhart |
Asks how are Sherwood is paying for hard assets such as property. |
|
|
|
|
|
270 |
Saxton |
Responds that the last construction was done with facility grant
dollars, but they have used operating dollars. |
|
|
|
|
|
287 |
Connie Hansen |
Testifies in support of SB 819-A7 amendments. Discusses cuts being
made in Sherwood school district. Discusses the history of local options in
Sherwood and the problems created by high growth in the area. |
|
|
|
|
|
402 |
Rep. Verger |
States that she is envious of growth and doesn’t believe that a
cookie cutter approach to school funding problems will work because each
district is different and has different problems. |
|
|
|
|
|
421 |
Rep. Krummel |
States that the amendments would fit in SB 550 or SB 819. |
TAPE 159, SIDE A
|
012 |
Rep. Krummel |
States that there are flaws in funding formula, particularly with
high growth, and that this bill is a way to meet the demands of the school
districts. |
|
|
|
|
|
024 |
Rep. Hopson |
Asks how many schools could receive high growth grants. |
|
|
|
|
|
028 |
Steve Meyer |
Responds that he has only identified Sherwood. |
|
|
|
|
|
033 |
Rep. Barnhart |
Asks if Sherwood expects this growth rate into the future. |
|
|
|
|
|
035 |
Saxton |
Responds that they expect an increase in growth by 30% over next 5
years. Discussion follows. |
|
|
|
|
|
053 |
George Lanning |
Testifies in support of SB 550 because it benefits small rural
districts. Discusses Harney and
Malheur county and their difficulties in providing transportation. Discusses
connection to high cost special education. |
|
|
|
|
|
120 |
Rep. Hopson |
Asks if boarding costs come out of transportation monies. |
|
|
|
|
|
123 |
Meyer |
Nods affirmatively. |
|
|
|
|
|
125 |
Rep. Hopson |
Asks for information on distances between schools. |
|
|
|
|
|
132 |
Meyer |
Responds that he does not have that information, but the Department
of Education may. |
|
|
|
|
|
137 |
Rep. Barnhart |
Asks if this change in transportation funding formula would apply to
boarding costs. |
|
|
|
|
|
141 |
Meyer |
Responds affirmatively. |
|
|
|
|
|
150 |
Steve Meyer |
Discusses SB 819-A10 amendments (exhibit 3). |
|
|
|
|
|
160 |
Meyer |
Discusses the “High Cost Special Education” table (Exhibit 4), which
estimates costs per student. Clarifying questions and answers interspersed. |
|
|
|
|
|
220 |
Chair Shetterly |
Asks if districts that have a higher proportion of lower cost
students would see a decrease in their average per student. |
|
|
|
|
|
224 |
Meyer |
Responds that it is the other way around and that districts that have
a lot around the $25,000 - $35,000 tend to be better off with the $20,000 reduction. |
|
|
|
|
|
232 |
Rep. Berger |
Asks how many districts did not report. |
|
|
|
|
|
235 |
Meyer |
Responds that 9 did not respond. Discussion follows. |
|
|
|
|
|
245 |
Meyer |
Discusses “Local Option Tax Excluded from School Formula Local
Revenue” (Exhibit 5). |
|
|
|
|
|
276 |
Chair Shetterly |
Asks for example using Gilliam school district. Discussion follows. |
|
|
|
|
|
294 |
Meyer |
Gives example using Multnomah school district. |
|
|
|
|
|
301 |
Rep. Verger |
Expresses confusion about the number under current law. |
|
|
|
|
|
303 |
Meyer |
Responds that under current law the amount of local option that can
be excluded is the lesser of 10 percent or $500 per student. |
|
|
|
|
|
311 |
Rep. Barnhart |
States that it looks as though there are at least 2 districts that are
flowing money into the formula. |
|
|
|
|
|
320 |
Meyer |
Responds that the numbers may indicate that, but it is not the case
because the local option number is the amount imposed and not collected. Discussion follows. |
|
|
|
|
|
365 |
Meyer |
Discusses “School Finance Distribution” (Exhibit 6). Discussion follows. |
|
|
|
|
|
412 |
Rep. Hopson |
Asks about the Neah-Kah-Nie district. |
|
|
|
|
|
416 |
Meyer |
Responds that Neah-Kah-Nie has typically been in the situation where local
revenue is greater than their formula allocation, so that they don’t receive
any school funds, but that with this change they would qualify for additional
formula revenue. Discussion follows. |
|
456 |
Rep. Barnhart |
Asks if redistributing funds would modify the table. |
|
|
|
|
|
458 |
Meyer |
Responds negatively. |
CLOSES WORK SESSION ON SB 550 A AND SB 819 A
|
462 |
Chair Shetterly |
Meeting adjourned at 9:40 a.m. |
Tape Log Submitted by,
Kathy Tooley, Committee
Assistant Tara Lantz, Committee Assistant
Exhibit Summary:
1.
SB
819 A, Representative Krummel, Proposed SB 819-A7 Amendments, 3pp.
2.
SB
819 A, Rob Saxton, Executive Summary, 1p.
3.
SB
819 A, Steve Meyer, Proposed SB 819-A10 Amendments, 19pp.
4.
SB
550 A, Steve Meyer, High Cost Special Education, 6pp.
5.
SB
819 A, Steve Meyer, Local Option Tax Excluded from School Formula Local
Revenue, 6pp.
6.
SB
550 A, Steve Meyer, School Finance Distribution, 6pp.