OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING

January 21, 2000

Chairman Messerle described the purpose of the Oversight Subcommittee. Proposed committee rules were discussed and adopted by the subcommittee.

Louise Solliday, Governor’s Natural Resources Office, reviewed comments addressing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) rule changes proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Dick Peterson, Department of Environmental Quality, responded to members questions about the TMDL process, connection with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process, and how the agency addresses non-point sources of contaminants under these processes.

Dr. Logan Norris, Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (IMST) Chair, discussed the need for an IMST budget adjustment to fulfill work plans. Dr. Norris replied to questions about the scope of work, expected products, and report timeframes. Members pointed out a need to identify research gaps. Geoff Huntington, Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board Director, explained that the IMST budget request would go before the Emergency Board in April. Subcommittee members that were present supported the IMST budget request without objection.

Dr. Don McIsaac, Freshwater Resources Programs Director, ODWF, testified on the implementation of House Bill 3609 (1999) related to State and Tribal hatchery co-management plans in the Columbia River basin. Tribal representatives shared their experience of working with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) on a Memorandum of Agreement to implement the measure. The Joint Committee on Stream Restoration and Species Recovery appointed a work group to facilitate discussions between ODFW and Tribal governments.

Neil Conan, Marine Program Manager, ODFW, reported on the status of research positions, Commercial Fisheries Fund revenues, and the groundfish fishery. Jim Goldan, ODFW, reviewed planned research projects.

Mike Burton, Metro Executive Officer, explained Metro’s approach to address species listings under the federal Endangered Species Act. Mr. Burton and David Moskowitz, Metro Salmon Recovery Coordinator, responded to questions regarding that approach and negotiations with the National Marine Fisheries Service about Section 4(d) rule application and exceptions.

Jim Brown, State Forester, Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF), provided information about development of the Habitat Conservation Plan. Mr. Brown responded to questions about specific forests and trust land deeds.

Wayne Giesy, citizen, provided comments in opposition to the proposed Section 4(d) rules and in support of tribal hatchery programs. Phil Donovan, Northwest Sport Fishing Industry and Northwest Steelheaders, testified about the removal of dams on the Sandy River.

Jim Greer, Director, ODFW, updated the Committee on a proposal to list the Washington ground squirrel under the State Endangered Species Act. Mr. Greer reviewed and responded to questions about the Department’s strategic plan, new controlled hunt personnel policies, cost reduction plan, surplus property plan, and the Fish Endowment Fund balances. Mr. Greer also submitted the Salmon Trout Enhancement Program annual report.

Representative Susan Morgan, Willamette Restoration Board member, and Jeannette Holman, Willamette Restoration Initiative (WRI) Coordinator, described issue and strategy discussions by the Board at their recent retreat. Ms. Holman commented that the WRI Board would form their own response to the proposed Section 4(d) rules. Representative Morgan and Ms. Holman responded to questions about WRI workgroup deliberations and restoration benchmarks to measure strategy success.

Garth Griffin, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), reviewed three proposed rules pursuant to Section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act. Mr. Griffin responded to questions about rule contents, public comment processes, third-party lawsuits, recovery planning and differential treatment of federal activities.

Mike Tehan, NMFS, testified on the Endangered Species Act and federal road access permits. Members cited examples demonstrating how the federal permit process resulted in more road construction. Mr. Tehan noted that NMFS is working with Congress to streamline permits and address coordination problems with other federal entities. Ann Hanus, Assistant State Forester, ODF, stressed the seriousness of road access problems on timber harvest operations.

January 21, 2000

The House Special Committee on School Finance opened its first meeting of the 1999-2000 Interim by adopting its Interim committee rules. Representative Ken Strobeck, chair, indicated that the committee would narrow its focus during the interim to avoid duplicating the efforts of other groups considering the issue of education funding.

Jim Robinson, Superintendent and Steve Williams, Assistant Superintendent of the Lebanon School District, presented the committee with information regarding the deterioration of school facilities within their district. Mr. Williams explained that the district has not approved a bond levy for additional funds in several years and that mounting costs for building repairs and modular classrooms are beginning to encroach on the district’s operating budget, forcing elimination of programs and reduction of staff. Ozzie Rose, Confederation of School Administrators (COSA), acknowledged that Lebanon’s situation is more dire than most, but schools throughout the state are deteriorating and are coming to the end of their useful life span. Committee members discussed several alternatives for both state and local governments to address the problem.

Nancy Heligman, Oregon Department of Education (ODE) provided a demonstration of the user interface for the Database Initiative Project. She indicated that the database would make education data accessible to all levels of government and the public, and would simplify the task of comparing schools and students in different regions of the state.

Jim Scherzinger, Portland Public Schools, and Walter Koscher, ODE, reviewed the history of state funding for education in the State of Oregon. They explained that the passage of Ballot Measure 5 in 1990 necessitated an increase in the percentage of state funding from 30 percent in 1989 to over 70 percent today. Mr. Scherzinger noted that prior to 1989, state funds granted to local districts were related primarily to equalization, while today the state provides a significant portion of districts’ operating budgets.

Yvonne Katz, Superintendent of the Beaverton School District, informed the committee of the problem that rapid population growth in the Beaverton area has created for her district. She explained that despite passing a series of bond measures, the district is unable to keep pace with the burgeoning student population through the construction of new schools, and is proposing a $149 million bond issue for the May 2000 election. Superintendent Katz said that the primary barrier to school expansion is a lack of available space due to restrictive land use rules. Suggestions were considered for possible solutions to the school facility dilemma, including split schedules, multi-track year-round schedules, state assistance with the payment of local bond levies, and a small statewide property tax.

Delna Jones, former State Representative, provided perspective on the state of school funding immediately following passage of Ballot Measure 5 in 1990 and the origins of the current school funding formula. John Marshall, Oregon School Boards Association (OSBA) explains why the state undertook the unification of school districts during the 1990s that led to a reduction in the number of districts from 298 to 199. Ozzie Rose noted that all but one district in Oregon will be fully funded by the 2000-2001 school year, but adjustments will need to be made soon, especially with regard to facility costs. Mr. Rose also fielded questions from the committee regarding funding weights for special education students and regional cost differences. He acknowledged that redistribution to compensate for regional differences would likely require allocation of additional dollars, rather than taking from one district to give to another. Mr. Marshall expressed hope that the Quality Education Model project could make it possible to identify the cost of student achievement and allow the creation of a more equitable funding system for education.

John Myers, representing Augenblick and Myers (A & M), provided the committee with a national perspective on efforts to create a more accountable school funding formula. He indicated that Oregon ranks near the top with regard to the percentage of school funds provided by the state, however New Mexico leads the way at nearly 95 percent. Mr. Myers also noted that several states have undertaken studies of the school facilities issue and that these studies have often been far more expensive than necessary. He also stressed the need to have an objective evaluation of the financial needs of districts prior to allocating additional funds.

January 24, 2000

The committee began its final meeting of the 1999-2000 Interim with a presentation by John Myers, a representative of Augenblick and Myers (A & M). He presented a draft version of a report being prepared by A & M regarding the Oregon Quality Education Model (QEM), as well as informational materials on similar programs underway in other states. Mr. Myers indicated that the QEM represents a promising start toward systemic school reform, but that the model should reflect only those variables that can be directly tied to student success. The four steps Oregon must take to implement performance-based education funding are to identify a funding model, refine that model by tying specific goals to student performance, set standards in relation to those goals, and hold school districts accountable to those standards.

John Myers also described other types of funding models used by states to restructure their school finance systems as a result of litigation. There are four primary approaches:

• The "market basket" or "professional judgement approach. Similar to the approach used by the QEM, a panel of education experts determines the "inputs" that make up a basic education, such as class size and teacher quality.
• The statistical analysis approach. Economists use data from districts to correlate acceptable levels of pupil performance with dollar amounts necessary to fund those levels.
• The "successful schools" approach. The spending of existing schools that meet the state’s performance standards are analyzed.
• The specific curriculum approach. The cost of a curriculum, such as the New American Schools, is used to set the funding level.

The committee discussed at length the strength and weaknesses of the QEM as well as Mr. Myers’ analysis of the model.

Following the presentation, the committee discussed the findings made by work groups at the December 16 meeting. Issues discussed included coordination between state education agencies, professional development, tax incentives for parents of good students, disparities between teacher education programs within higher education, foreign language assessment for the Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM) and Certificate of Advanced Mastery (CAM), the possibility of repealing the CIM and CAM, and public attitudes toward teachers.

Representative Jackie Winters, Chair indicated that the final report by the committee would be sent to members for their consideration, and that it will also be forwarded to the Governor’s Quality Education Task Force and the Education Leadership Team. Finally, she expressed gratitude to the members of the committee for giving their time to help improve education in the State of Oregon.

February 4, 2000

The Public Purchasing and Contracting Subcommittee reviewed the long-term public purchasing and contracting list compiled by the 1997-98 Interim Subcommittee

The subcommittee selected the following issues for consideration and possible action:

• Review/rewrite ORS Chapter 279 – ensure consistency among sections; simplify, add flexibility, modernize, improve process for bidders and public agencies
• Clarify and standardize bid protest procedures
• Alternative contract award processes – provide fair process; allocate risk; pre-qualification of subcontractors; consideration of quality
• Least cost determinations – structure for public/private competition; how to include all costs of contracting; independent evaluation; public hearing requirement
• Legal sufficiency review – some procedural issues may be resolved with experience under HB 2321 (1999); others may require further review
• Minority contracting requirements – clarify, simplify, provide consistency ; difficult for contractors and subcontractors to know what is expected under different federal, state, and local rules; exemptions for nonprofits
• Monitor Attorney General Model Rules of Procedure for public contracting
• Exemptions from competitive bidding

Chair Larry Wells appointed work group topic leaders and asked the leaders to select work group members from interested stakeholders. Work groups will report the results of their findings and any recommendations to the subcommittee. The subcommittee will present their final report and recommendations to the House Agency Performance and Operations Committee at its September 19 meeting.

February 10, 2000

John McCulley, Oregon Fairs Association, provided recent statistics on county and state fair activity including attendance, numbers of exhibitors and vendors, youth and volunteer participation, and funding sources. He highlighted a ten-percent increase in youth participation from 1996 to 1999. Denny Holmes, Clatsop County Fair and President of the Fairs Association, emphasized the importance of the State Fair to county fairs. He also indicated that county fairs have achieved increases in receipts with new facilities.

Mike Ryan, Marion County Commissioner, spoke of the effects of the State Fair on the area economy and provided the county’s perspective as a lessee of the state fairgrounds. He discussed the Marion County Fair Board’s renewed commitment to increasing participation through marketing and community involvement. He indicated the county’s readiness to partner with the state and their commitment to the current planning process.

Bill Dorney, Salem Convention and Visitors Association, spoke of the direct and indirect benefit of the State Fair to the local economy. He discussed the loss of event business because of the condition of some of the fairgrounds facilities and the armory. He also spoke to the potential for additional sports and event(s) programming at the fairgrounds and indicated support for a downtown conference center.

Bill Healy and Dick Hayden, City of Salem, reviewed the situation caused by the city’s dependence on property taxes, since 41 percent of land area in the city is non-taxable. They also discussed costs of services related to events at the fairgrounds. They reviewed plans for improvements to Broadway Street, Portland Road, and the north Salem industrial area that should have a positive effect on traffic approaches to the fairgrounds. They also emphasized the value to Salem of additional youth recreation facilities citing the Marion Square skate park as an example. The task force discussed considerations related to conference centers, convention centers, and hotel locations.

Mike McLaran, Salem Chamber of Commerce, suggested the task force and the feasibility study consultants continue to explore other Salem location options that, with a brand-new facility, could attract more visitors and event business and as a result open the fairgrounds property to desirable mixes of development and public space. He noted the benefits of developing the best new facilities, in the current or another location, instead of just maintaining or making periodic upgrades to existing facilities.

Charles Johnson, C.H. Johnson Consultants, presented the draft Feasibility Study Report and reviewed the concurrent steps in the process, which involve a separate consulting firm developing the Master Plan. He expressed optimism that the State Fair can enhance its social and agricultural value and improve attendance and revenues through facility and program improvements. His analysis shows that the state and county fair system are effective, that the State Fair and Exposition Center is operationally well managed, but that facility deterioration is costing the fair due to loss of business. He reviewed his recommendations related to essential improvements, growth initiatives, and new initiatives at the fairgrounds. The task force discussed options related to exposition facilities, RV parking, horseracing, sports facilities, and the proposed Agricultural Trade Center. They also discussed neighborhood concerns and the potential for further outsourcing and asked for additional documentation related to several of the recommendations.