|
|
WORK SESSION: HB 3051 A |
|
|
PUBLIC HEARING: SJR 30, HB 2217 A |
|
|
TAPES 147-148,
A-B |
JUNE 19,
2003 1:00 PM STATE CAPITOL BUILDING
Members Present: Senator Ryan Deckert, Chair
Senator Ted
Ferrioli, Vice Chair
Senator
Tony Corcoran
Senator
Lenn Hannon
Senator
Charlie Ringo
Senator
Bruce Starr
Witnesses Present: Representative Jeff Merkley,
District 47
Edward
Schmitt, Multnomah ESD
John
Marshall, Oregon School Boards Association
Heidi
Franklin, Portland Public Schools
Steve
Novick, Department of Education
Lynn
Lundquist, Oregon Business Association
Harvey
Mathew, Associated Oregon Industries
Jessica
Stevens, SEIU Local 503
David
Williams, Oregon School Educators Association
Barbara
Rommel, David Douglas School District
Laurie
Wimmer Whelan, Oregon Education Association
Gregg
Dal Ponte, Oregon Department of Transportation
Jean
Wilkinson, Oregon Farm Bureau
Bob
Russell, Oregon Trucking Association
Staff Present: Paul
Warner, Legislative Revenue Office
Steve
Meyer, Legislative Revenue Office
Lizbeth
Martin-Mahar, Legislative Revenue Office
Tara
Lantz, Committee Assistant
TAPE
147, SIDE A
|
004 |
Chair Deckert |
Calls meeting
to order at 1:16 pm. |
|
|
|
|
|
009 |
Sen. Deckert |
States that he
will hold off on HB 2188 until amendments are ready. |
OPENS WORK SESSION ON HB
3051 A
|
018 |
Lizbeth Martin-Mahar |
Explains HB 3051 A and discusses
revenue impact. Refer to minutes from 5/20/03. |
|
|
|
|
|
036 |
Sen. Ringo |
Asks if part of this would go to
support the Insurance Guarantees Association to cover losses if insurance
companies go under. |
|
|
|
|
|
042 |
Martin-Mahar |
Responds affirmatively. |
|
|
|
|
|
061 |
Sen. Ringo |
Asks how much the assessment might
be for typical auto insurance. |
|
|
|
|
|
065 |
Martin-Mahar |
Responds that she has not broken it
down to insurance types. |
|
|
|
|
|
078 |
Sen. Corcoran |
MOTION: MOVES HB 3051 A TO THE
SENATE FLOOR WITH A DO PASS RECOMMENDATION. |
|
|
|
|
|
085 |
Sen. Deckert |
ORDER: ROLL CALL VOTE: MOTION
PASSES: 6-0-0. SENATORS ANSWERING AYE: CORCORAN,
HANNON, RINGO, STARR, FERRIOLI, DECKERT. Sen. Ringo will carry the bill on
the Senate Floor. |
OPENS PUBLIC HEARING ON SJR
30
|
108 |
Rep. Merkley |
Testifies in support of SJR 30-3
amendments (Exhibit 1) because it would provide a floor and ceiling for
school funding and would provide stability for public schools. Discusses
current problems with school funding. Refer to written testimony (Exhibit 2).
|
|
|
|
|
|
175 |
Sen. Ringo |
Asks if California has a model like
this. |
|
|
|
|
|
178 |
Rep. Merkley |
Responds that in California there
was a citizen’s initiative that resulted in a complicated system with
multiple triggers and ups and downs. States that he has heard that people are
glad they have the law now that the economy is so bad. |
|
|
|
|
|
189 |
Rep. Hopson |
Asks how this helps to achieve
equity among poor and wealthy communities. |
|
|
|
|
|
195 |
Rep. Merkley |
Responds that Oregon has come a long
way in achieving equity among schools and that with the current fiscal crisis
are moving away from that. States that this would help prevent that by
providing a floor. |
|
|
|
|
|
214 |
Rep. Hopson |
Asks if this is a high enough floor
that any flexibility above this amount would still remain equitable. |
|
|
|
|
|
218 |
Rep. Merkley |
Responds that it would provide an
average base over several years to capture a reasonable and stable reference
point. States that it would help but is not a cure. |
|
|
|
|
|
240 |
Sen. Starr |
Asks about the role in the
Superintendent of public education in being an economist or forecaster and if
there would be a better way to do it. |
|
|
|
|
|
251 |
Rep. Merkley |
Responds that in California they
left it open as to who would run the calculations which created a situation
in which different people calculated the amount for the floor and then
disputed with each other. States that this plan lays out a detailed way to
find the calculation so there is little room to manipulate it politically and
that the Superintendent seemed like a logical person. |
|
|
|
|
|
285 |
Sen. Ferrioli |
Discusses interim committee that
determines the cost of education and the level of funding necessary and
reports to the Legislature. States that determining the number is a policy
decision and questions why they need another organization to add to the mix. |
|
|
|
|
|
312 |
Rep. Merkley |
Responds that this bill doesn’t just
give a recommendation, it creates a long-term contract with the public for
school funding levels that takes a super-majority to decrease it. |
|
|
|
|
|
336 |
Sen. Ferrioli |
Asks how it will bind a future
legislation. |
|
|
|
|
|
338 |
Rep. Merkley |
Responds that it is a constitutional
amendment that lays out that the Legislature is required to provide a certain
level of funding. |
|
|
|
|
|
347 |
Sen. Ferrioli |
Asserts that we have a
Constitutional kicker and it doesn’t keep the Legislature from changing it
and that the interim committee is enough to determine the level of spending. |
|
|
|
|
|
370 |
Sen. Ringo |
Asks if this dictates certain
funding and what happens if it does not happen. |
|
|
|
|
|
384 |
Rep. Merkley |
Responds that it is binding on the
legislature and that they are obliged to meet the funding. States that he
doesn’t know what would happen if they didn’t meet the funding floor and
suggests asking counsel. |
|
|
|
|
|
393 |
Sen. Ringo |
Replies that in other states, the
legislature has been subject to lawsuits for not meeting required levels of
funding and that the courts could require the state to fund at that level. |
|
|
|
|
|
411 |
Rep. Merkley |
Responds that that is his
understanding. |
TAPE 148, SIDE A
|
003 |
Sen. Starr |
Discusses previous funding levels
and argues that k-12 has taken less of a hit than any other budget and that it
has been stable over the last decade. |
|
|
|
|
|
021 |
Rep. Merkley |
Responds that three years in a row
the spending level was exactly the same in and that in ’01-’02 the level
dropped. |
|
|
|
|
|
040 |
Edward Schmitt |
Testifies in support of the SJR 30-3
amendments because providing adequate funding is necessary for providing
quality education. |
|
|
|
|
|
061 |
John Marshall |
Testifies in support of SJR 30-3
amendments because nobody wants to go through the budget cuts they have had
to go through in the last two years and that in some point the economy will
take a downturn again and they need to prepare for the stabilization of
education funding. |
|
|
|
|
|
116 |
Sen. Deckert |
Asks if the complex language of the
bill would detract from the political viability on the ballot. |
|
|
|
|
|
125 |
Marshall |
Responds that he doesn’t know but
doesn’t think that it is a key factor in voter consideration. |
|
|
|
|
|
143 |
Heidi Franklin |
Testifies in support of SJR 30-3
amendments because it contains ideas for stabilizing k-12 funding that are
worthy of consideration. Suggests looking at the minimum amount formula and discussing
what goals want to be achieved and how much it costs to get there. |
|
|
|
|
|
179 |
Steve Novick |
Testifies in support of SJR 30-3
amendments on behalf of Susan Castillo, the Superintendent of Public
Instruction. Expresses concern with the super-majority requirement. Addresses
concerns regarding the calculation process. Discusses recent calculations
from the Quality Education Model. |
|
|
|
|
|
229 |
Harvey Mathews |
Testifies in support of SJR 30-3
because it provides a mechanism to define a stable school funding level.
Discusses current Constitutional requirements for the appropriation to public
education. |
|
|
|
|
|
306 |
Lynn Lundquist |
Testifies in support of SJR 30-3
amendments because there needs to be a level of school funding at which the
Legislature will not go below. Discusses the importance of education. Expresses
concern that the floor could become a cap. |
|
|
|
|
|
367 |
Sen. Starr |
Asks if dedicating 50 percent of the
general budget to public education is a good idea. |
|
|
|
|
|
376 |
Lundquist |
Responds that as time changes that
system wouldn’t work because of the changing responsibilities of the state. |
|
|
|
|
|
396 |
Mathews |
Responds that it is a good solution
with the rainy day fund, but they are lacking the definition of what
stability is. |
TAPE 147, SIDE B
|
002 |
Sen. Starr |
Submits that they have had a stable
level of funding for schools and that any stable funding source will not be
able to adequately fund schools during a recession. Points out that the
Legislature has protected the K-12 budget more than any other during this
recession and that they will do so in the future. |
|
|
|
|
|
027 |
Sen. Corcoran |
Points out that a property tax
dedicated to school funding is more stable than income or sales taxes. Adds
that he dislikes this idea because it doesn’t take other services into
account. |
|
|
|
|
|
053 |
Lundquist |
Responds that the only way to
provide stability during a recession is through a rainy day fund and that
this bill is only part of the package. |
|
|
|
|
|
065 |
Sen. Starr |
Discusses the one-time revenues
found in the last two years that have been used but still have not prevented
budget cuts. |
|
|
|
|
|
082 |
Sen. Ferrioli |
States that the Legislature created
reserves to be saved for a rainy day and then spent them immediately so the
idea that they will develop restraint is not realistic. |
|
|
|
|
|
110 |
Mathews |
Responds that the Legislature has
done a great job at continually raising the bar for K-12 funding, but that
the bill deals with the real problem of providing a baseline. |
|
|
|
|
|
123 |
Sen. Deckert |
Asks if the panel supports the -3
amendments. Affirmative nods from the panel. |
|
|
|
|
|
126 |
Novick |
States that one budget not looked at
by the Legislature has been the payments to video poker taverns. |
|
|
|
|
|
137 |
Sen. Ringo |
Asks if Associated Oregon Industries
as a group supports the amendments. |
|
|
|
|
|
140 |
Mathews |
Responds affirmatively. |
|
|
|
|
|
152 |
David Williams |
Testifies in support of the SJR 30-3
amendments because it provides stabilization and continues to follow the
quality education model. Expresses concern that the floor may become a cap. |
|
|
|
|
|
172 |
Jessica Stevens |
Testifies in support of the SJR 30-3
amendments because a strong educational model is vital for Oregon. States that
they believe that there should be a funding floor for all services, but adds
that what is needed is more revenues and suggests eliminating unnecessary tax
expenditures. |
|
|
|
|
|
192 |
Barbara Rommel |
Testifies in support of the SJR 30-3
amendments. Discusses the budget writing process in the community. Refer to
written testimony (Exhibit 3). |
|
|
|
|
|
228 |
Sen. Corcoran |
Asks how Washington funds its
schools. |
|
|
|
|
|
231 |
Rommel |
Responds that it is mostly through a
sales tax and that they have a fund education first priority. Discussion follows. |
|
|
|
|
|
242 |
Laurie Wimmer Whelan |
Testifies in support of the SJR 30-3
amendments because stability is important. States that the first priority is
to raise revenues and tax reform. Expresses concern that with this bill K-12 may
be pitted against other services. States that the recommendation given by the
interim committee referred to by Sen. Ferrioli (refer to tape 147, side A,
meter 285) is not what is used as the floor in the Ways and Means process. |
OPENS PUBLIC HEARING ON HB
2217 A
|
361 |
Richard Yates |
Explains HB 2217 A which modifies
truck safety statutes to bring Oregon into compliance with federal law. Refer
to staff measure summary (Exhibit 5). |
TAPE 148, SIDE B
|
005 |
Gregg Dal Ponte |
Offers support and provides
description for HB 2217 A. Refer to written testimony (Exhibit 6). Discusses
opposition from the farmers and introduces the –A3 amendments (Exhibit 7)
which suggests that all law enforcement agencies should follow the general
guidance contained in the commercial vehicle safety plan prepared by ODOT and
use it to direct their efforts. |
|
|
|
|
|
061 |
Jean Wilkinson |
Testifies in opposition to HB 2217 A
because it could require farmers to add new equipment even though they are
involved in very few accidents. States that if the bill is going to pass, the
Farm Bureau would ask for the –A3 amendments because it provides them
reassurance. |
|
|
|
|
|
085 |
Sen. Hannon |
Asks what is reassuring about the
–A3 amendments. |
|
|
|
|
|
094 |
Wilkinson |
Responds that the safety plan looks
at where in the state and what trucks are causing accidents and prioritizes
where inspections should take place based on that data. |
|
|
|
|
|
111 |
Sen. Hannon |
Asks if Dal Ponte is okay with the
amendment. |
|
|
|
|
|
114 |
Dal Ponte |
Responds affirmatively. |
|
|
|
|
|
123 |
Sen. Hannon |
Asks for clarification on the –A3
amendments. Discussion follows. |
OPENS WORK SESSION ON HB
2217 A
|
141 |
Sen. Hannon |
MOTION: MOVES HB 2217-A3 AMENDMENTS
DATED 6/4/03 BE ADOPTED. |
|
|
|
|
|
145 |
Sen. Starr |
ORDER: HEARING NO OBJECTION, MOTION
PASSES: 4-0-2. SENATORS EXCUSED: FERRIOLI, DECKERT. |
|
|
|
|
|
155 |
Sen. Hannon |
MOTION: MOVES HB 2217 A TO THE
SENATE FLOOR WITH A DO PASS AS AMENDED RECOMMENDATION. |
|
|
|
|
|
158 |
Sen. Starr |
ORDER: HEARING NO OBJECTION, MOTION
PASSES: 4-0-2. SENATORS EXCUSED: FERRIOLI, DECKERT. Sen. Hannon will carry the bill on
the Senate Floor. |
|
|
|
|
|
164 |
Sen. Starr |
Adjourns meeting at 2:50 pm. |
Tape Log Submitted by,
Tara Lantz, Committee
Assistant
Exhibit Summary: