HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-01-07 Work Session MinutesDeschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 -Fax (541) 385-3202 -www.deschutes.org
MINUTES OF WORK SESSION
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
MONDAY, JANUARY 7, 2013
Present were Commissioners Alan Unger, Tammy Baney and Anthony DeBone.
Also present were Tom Anderson, Interim County Administrator, Erik Kropp,
Deputy County Administrator; and, for a portion ofthe meeting, Judith Ure and
David Inbody, Administration; Scott Johnson, Health Services; Chris Doty,
Road Department; Nick Lelack, Community Development, County Clerk Nancy
Blankenship; Hillary Saraceno, Children & Families' Commission; Ken Hales,
Community Justice; and Public Affairs Counsel representatives Mark Nelson
and Justen Rainey.
Chair Unger opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m.
I. Kick-off Meeting (Conference Call) to Plan and Strategize the County's
2013 State Legislative Priorities.
Mark Nelson gave an overview of the makeup of the legislature. Most
Republicans kept their seats but the Democrats have a majority in each house.
He explained who is on which committees. There was not a lot of change in the
Senate. There are additional committees in the House.
Chair Unger said he is hearing that the legislators plan to work together better
this session than previously. Mr. Nelson noted that it might be a challenge
nevertheless. There are still issues where the legislators are deeply divided,
which will take a lot of work to resolve through compromise.
Chair Unger said that PAC is more conservative than some groups, and asked if
this is going to be an issue. Mr. Nelson stated that they are part of the Oregon
Committee, which supports business. It is not just Republican in nature. He
said he has done a lot of work for both sides of the aisle. Chair Unger stated
that he wants to make sure they are on the same page or whether there are
potential conflicts.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, January 7,2013
Page 1 of7
Mr. Nelson said the HeadStart was an issue last year, along with a proposed
beer tax. The same problem might arise regarding tobacco. He has clients that
represent those industries. He stated that if there is legislation that appears to be
a conflict with what the County wants to support or oppose, it needs to be clear
to all.
Justen Rainey worked for Congressman Walden as a field representative, then
in Washington DC. He worked with Senator Ferrioli and others after that. He
has handled the referral process throughout that time, working with committee
chairs.
Mr. Nelson stated that Dave Reinhard is a former Oregonian columnist who has
been with PAC for about four years, and is very knowledgeable, working with
the media in particular.
1 Mr. Nelson said that legislative representatives will be communicating by
) conference call whenever possible.
The group referred to the Governor's Balanced Budget regarding the Oregon
Education Investment Board. The Governor is pushing hard for early learning,
but it is unknown if there will be an appropriation for early childhood
education. The fear is it will all go to the hubs and not necessarily to HeadStart.
About 60% of the HeadStart families are at or below the poverty level.
Commissioner Baney said they need is to get to as many families as possible. It
becomes very political when there are other providers available. Hillary
Saraceno said that they don't have early HeadStart in this area. Commissioner
Baney feels that HeadStart is important, but flexibility is also important so they
can enhance the system here, which might be different from that in other places.
Mr. Nelson added that special education is a program that also should be
protected.
In regard to addictions and mental health, Mr. Rainey said the budget discusses
the different levels of care and need. When talking about cCO's, a hope is to
integrate mental health. Commissioner Baney said that the talk was about
savings through the County Mental Health Department. This is not being seen.
The Governor feels there will be a big savings in this particular field. Mr.
I
Nelson stated he does not know where these savings would come from. Mr.
Rainey said that no one knows if this process is going to work. Mr. Nelson
noted that they have been working on a hospital tax for years I
t
!
I Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, January 7,2013
I Page 2 of7
1,
Ken Hales says they do a time study every five years. This year funds were
added for Community Corrections.
Regarding court fees, a lot more damage might happen to the Justice Courts
than has previously. Legislators were asked to look at the structure of the
Courts, and about $3.8 million in cuts would impact the Counties. Some feel it
will be much higher. The assembly is supposed to monitor how this is playing
out. The counties are the losers in this scenario. He feels that Chief Justice
Muniz seems to want to get rid of the Justice Courts for some reason.
Mr. Anderson said that some counties earmark this money for high profile
activities.
In regard to land use, Mr. Lelack said that the biggest issue is the UGB
proposals. There might be a series of bills separating residential from industrial
and others. The idea is to streamline the UGB process. There is also a
population forecast coming up. The counties are responsible for creating a
twenty-year forecast. If this goes to the State, it will not be appealable.
Commissioner Baney said some counties are not supportive. Mr. Lelack hopes
that whatever bill comes out, that it will continue to honor those who already
have a forecast in place. 1,000 Friends is part of the work group. Per Richard
Whitman of the State, this is a number one priority.
Mr. Rainey said the pilot programs with some counties never happened. What
was negotiated was an executive order that put some of these things in place.
Commissioner Baney said that the County wants to be kept involved in this
process.
In regard to CCO's and health care transformation, Commissioner Baney said
that they have not had conversations about payments and funding. Her next
meeting is Thursday and is supposed to put everything into play per the budget.
The dental piece is huge but some providers are not happy with the payouts.
Scott Johnson added that in the eyes of the State, they think this County is part
of the counties in the Gorge. Regarding pharmaceuticals, it is unknown if there
will be a big push at this time. Commissioner Baney thought that because they
were on the table, they are waiting for the final work. There may be some
savings, but probably not as much as was anticipated. Some counties did not
feel that they wanted anything to do with it. It matters and change is important,
and that means being at the table to speak up.
Minutes of Board ofCornmissioners' Work Session MondaY,January 7,2013
Page 3 of7
Chris Doty said he is mostly concerned about payments to the Road fund.
There may be a proposal of vehicles getting more than 50 MPH being taxed to
make up for lost gas tax revenue. Commissioner Baney stated that it should not
be applied the same across the State; that rural Oregon is different.
Mr. Anderson said that departments gave input on what they feel is important
(copy attached). Commissioner Baney stated that there was a lot of discussion
regarding gang-related prevention. She does not want to see these dollars
restricted too much as it is different in different places.
The vaccination of hospital workers seems to be an issue now.
Nancy Blankenship said there was talk about veterans' housing issues, through
the Housing Authority. The biggest problem is increased fees due to recordings
Priority 1 means the Board wants the PAC to use all resources at their disposal.
Priority 2 is important, but someone else is taking the lead.
This work is driven more by priorities than anything else.
Chair Unger stated the County has some partners they can work with, and he
hopes to approach issues as a team or as a larger group whenever possible.
Discussion occurred regarding when to have the conference calls. The group
decided that 7:30 a.m. on Thursdays would work best, every other week for
now, and since Bills will be printed about January 14, they could begin to meet
on January 24.
Commissioner Baney said they would like to have some clarity when dealing
with the District Attorney, Deputy District Attorneys, and their salaries and
staff. It would be good to know who covers what and who has a say.
Commissioner Unger added that the Attorney General's Office is not open to
conversation on this issue. Commissioner Baney noted that this is a State
function, but the County is involved for personnel reasons. It should be one or
the other. It is very labor intensive when it comes to employee relations and
other issues.
Mr. Hales stated that this is a unique situation when compared to others. Some
agencies provide facilities but not employees. He has seen nothing like the
District Attorney situation here, with County oversight of employees but not
over the District Attorney.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, January 7,2013
Page4of7
2. Other Items.
The Board had a discussion of lottery funds. Mr. Anderson stated that he, Dave
Inbody and Judith Ure discussed alternatives. However, this is more than a
thirty-minute discussion. It will be addressed in full at the January 23 work
session.
The concept is to analyze this once a year to identify priorities, peel off some
givens, and identify special economic development related priorities each year.
Reallocating at this time means a lot to community grant recipients. That is the
area where the Board would have to say no, after saying yes for many years.
Mr. Anderson gave a brief summary of the history of these allocations:
community grants, service partners and discretionary. They will provide an
outline of the allocation process.
Commissioner Baney asked if this big push is because La Pine wants money.
Commissioner DeBone replied that he wants to see this money go into
economic development rather than emergency food, shelter and other services.
The earlier this can happen, the better it is for him.
Commissioner Baney said that if they do things differently and allocate to
cities, it has to be equitable and they need to match it. Video lottery funds came
specifically to the counties from the State. The cities have their own way of
generating funds and doing things.
Commissioner DeB one indicated that La Pine wants $20,000. No one should
not have to assume it will be equitable. This city is in a different position.
Chair Unger noted that other cities may be able to find a match more easily.
However, this sends a message.
Commissioner Baney said she is sensitive to the needs of La Pine, but they
can't just give funds to just one city if they decide cities should get them.
Mr. Inbody stated that he asks the Boards for priorities. In the past they have
used past history. Some can come off the top and a formula used for the
balance.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, January 7,2013
Page 5 of7
Mr. Anderson said that there is a business loan program, targeting purely
economic development, so perhaps some can be allocated from that. Cities
could be listed as apriority. The ongoing amount allocated to EDCO can be a
priority. They have historically balanced this in community grants, but they
could maybe bring United Way in as a partner to identify the needs of the
community.
Chair Unger said they need to think this through well and make sure this will
help the agencies that have historically been helped by the County.
Commissioner DeB one stated that La Pine Park and Recreation District asked
for funds before when he was on their Board. Groups can't be on the verge of
falling apart without these funds. Maybe they should just let them go ahead and
fail.
Commissioner Unger noted that there is a lot of value to what many of them do,
and they can do it a lot better with a little help from the County.
The group then discussed a date for the Board retreat.
In regard to changes within the makeup of the Public Safety Coordinating
Council, the Board took action.
BANEY: Move appointment of Michael Sullivan to the third citizen member
position.
DEBONE: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
DEBONE: Yes.
UNGER: Chair votes yes.
Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 3:20 p.m.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session ~onday,January 7,2013
Page 6 of7
DATED this Z3!3. Dayof ~ 2013 for the
Deschutes County Board of Commissio ~
~u.~
Alan Unger, Chair
T~
ATTEST:
Anthony DeBone, Commissioner ~~
Recording Secretary
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, January 7,2013
Page 7 of7
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 -Fax (541) 385-3202 -www.deschutes.org
WORK SESSION AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
1:30 P.M., MONDAY, JANUARY 7, 2013
I. Kick-offMeeting (Conference Call) to Plan and Strategize the County's 2013
State Legislative Priorities -Public Affairs Counsel,' Legislators
2. Other Items
PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e). real
property negotiations; ORS 192 .660(2) (h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)( d), labor negotiations; or ORS 192.660(2)(b). personnel issues.
Meeting dates. times and discussion items an! subject to chonge. All meetings are conducted in the Board ofCommissioners' meeting rooms at
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. 1/you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.
Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible.
Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.
For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TIY.
Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for filrtber information.
Please rerum to Bonnie Baker
Work Session
___-'-(P._1e_Q_se Print)
Name
-
Agency/Organization
~~l-±ttt:-f ~~.%~ -----]'UMI!~~lli I
_.J!::.L-AfU(-SMI1t&rJO l)es~~G.-
~tIfJ1tI6/MltiJ6k,lJ ~td tfbfo
_.Jv.5IS:V\ ~~ ~. \J\o~L JlrFrfn'("3. ~~
~Ie /Vt::/~-oN f ..A~ h c. 1fI-~e's l4~~
~'l"'\l, '\.&,\\ .\X~~ ~ I
~ Cl,i1 M~L ~ _I~~~~:L
-~ lAN... L c 11~
__ Dt'f' C \r-J ~~ 0'f DC
-l'erw\_ihJef~ _ bC
1---
Pa2:e # of Pa2:es
January 7. 2013
Contact
Phone # e-mail address
Deschutes County Agenda
Monday, January 7, 2013
1:30pm
Deschutes County Courthouse
I
I. INTRODUCTIONS
II. 2013 SESSION OVERVIEW
a. Political Landscape
I. House
1. 34 Democmts
2. 26 Republicans
II. Senate
1. 16 Democmts
2. 14 Republicans
b. Revenue Picture
III. DELEGATION MEMBER BILL DISCUSSION
a. Members Outline Priority Bills
IV. COUNTY PRIORITY AREAS
a. 2013 Governor's Budget
I. Education
1. Early Learning Council
2. Youth Development Council
ii. Healthy People
1. Addictions and Mental Health
2. Aging and People with Disabilities
3. Public Health Programs
iii. Safety Outcome Areas
1. Community Corrections
PO BOX 12945, SALEM, OR 97309 ' --------------------' PH 503.363.7084 ' FAX 503.371.2471
867 UBERTY STREET NE
E~WL: pacounsel@aol.com
2. Joint Interim Committee on State Courts Revenue Structure 2013
Report
a. Court Fee Distributions (HB 2710/2712 in 2011)
b. HB 4025 (2012) Failed
iv. County Payments Roads Fund
v. Other Budget PrioritiesiConcerns
b. Policy
i. Land Use Issues
1. HB 4095 in 2011
2. EO 12-07
11. CCOsiHealth Care Transformation
iii. Other Priorities
c. Bill Review Process
v. DATES OF INTEREST
d. 2013 Legislative Session
i. January 14-16: Organizational Days
11. January 17-31: Legislature is NOT in Session
iii. January 18: Deadline to Request Measure from Legislative Counsel
iv. February 4: Legislative Session Convenes
v. February 18: Legislative Counsel Returns Measures
vi. February 21: Deadline to File Bills
vii. April 8: Deadline for Chairs to Schedule First Chamber Work Sessions
viii. April 18: Deadline for Committees to Hold Work Sessions For First Chamber
Bills (Exemptions: Ways and Means, Revenue and Rules)
IX. May 20: Deadline for Chairs to Schedule First Chamber Work Sessions
x. May 31: Deadline for Chairs to Hold Work Sessions on Second Chamber
Measures
xi. June 28: Target Sine Die
xii. July 13: Constitutional Sine Die
e. 2013 Committee Schedules
V. NEXT MEETING
a. TBD -Select Regular Meeting Day
~-----------------PO BOX 12945, SALEM, OR 97309· 867 LIBERTY STREET NE . PH 503.363.7084 . PAX 503.371.2471
EMAIL: pacounsel@aol.com
.-1'''' •
2013 Legislative Session
Preliminary Issues
Department
~~~~~-~~
Children &
Families
.
Subject Reference Description Source
,
Funding
------
Ensure there is no gap in locally funded services for children,
youth, and families currently paid for with legislatively-
appropriated funding through local Commissions on Children
and Families during the period of June 30, 2013 through January
1,2014.
Coalition of County Commissions
Children &
Families
Local Commissions Clarify the responsibilities of counties during the period of June
30, 2013 through January 1, 2014, prior to the abolition of
statutory requirements for counties to appoint local
Commissions on Children and Families.
Coalition of County Commissions
Children &
Families
r-----~
Early learning System
~-~
Ensure an appropriate role for counties in the development,
selection and implementation of local hubs for early learning
system and ensure that selection process follows all laws and
rules for contracting public funds.
Coalition of County Commissions
Children &
Families
I--~~---~
Youth Development
Council
-~~-~
Create an appropriate role for counties in the work of the Youth
Development Council (YDq as well as in the development of a
local service delivery system under the YDC.
Coalition of County Commissions
Health Services Immunization
Education
LC982 Promotes informed decision-making among parents regarding
vaccines.
Oregon Pediatric Society
-~~ ~~-~
Justice Court
----
Funding Reduces State1s portion of revenue from violation/criminal fines
from $60 to $45.
Association of Counties
-~
911
!-~
~-~
Technology
~-~
LC 1632 Implement technology for public and private entities to provide
more accurate location information from facilities with multi
line phone systems, such as hospitals, hotels, schools, and
government buildings.
~~
. Senator Alan Olsen
'----~ ~~
911 Consolidation
~~-
Strategies for consolidating Public Safety Answering Points
(PSAPs) as described in Kimball reported dated February 2012.
~~-~~-.~-'--
1/7/2013
10f2
AiHJ:J!tIM'tIW$\Ut; t!(~&4i&1,d, 6,)4 ,I; "i¢!;¥H~~, ,iRk IIl'V.:;;q:;1i r:s ¥",",••!bIll;JtIli!.p:4i4JU;3!F!.~I!JI!!lIII'!I;I1!'I'~\IlI".': AN ~I Q'fJNj(H,.lilUil(IIW,tI""lMi.q;XiMDlfli"'$.;c.vtQ ,alfli\¥4lS Rt1" II .,m'''','IIU'lllf~ill.
------------
------------
----------
----------
<\..,.".. •
2013 legislative Session
Preliminary Issues
Funding911
Funding911
ElectionsCounty Clerk
Marriage licenses County Clerk
Forestry Forest Collaboratives
Forestry Wildfire Protection
LC 1716
LC249
Proposed
Budget
lC 575
Dedicate emergency communications tax funds to the 911
system.
Extend emergency communications tax at the $.75 per month
level as currently assessed and clarify the inclusion of pre-paid
cellular devices under the statute.
---------
Modifies the manner in which precinct committee persons are
elected at primary elections to include only contest races.
---------
Offers options in the creation of a surname when applying for a
marriage license to accommodate members of ethnic groups or
other parties who do not use generally-accepted naming
conventions at time of marriage.
---------
Oregon Association of County Clerks
Provides $4.5 million of lottery-backed bond proceeds to fund
implementation of forest collaborative projects to increase
timber supply to mills in central and eastern Oregon.
------------
Control and equitably distribute costs in Oregon's wildfire
protection system which combines state and landowner
resources to protect forests and communities.
Oregon Department of Forestry
I
1/7/2013
2of2
I
!
I
\
76th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY -ZOU Regular Scssioa MEASURE: DB 40lSA
STAFF MEASURE SUMMARY CARRJER:
I Bouse Committee on Judiciary
REVEN11E: Revmae statem_ issued
II'ISCAL: F'isc:aI statemeut issued
I
AdioD: Do Pass ~Amended, Be Printed Engrossed, and Be Referred to the Committee on Ways and
Means by Prior Reference
Vote: to-O-o
Yeas: Ganett. Hicks, Nolao, Olson. Schautler, Tomei, Wand, Whisnant, Barker, Krieger
Nays: o
Exc.: o
PrepandBy: Bill Taylor, Counsel
M~Dates: 2!l, 216, 218
WHAT 1'BE MEASURE DOES: Lowers from $60 to $45 the state ofOregon's share ofthe fine amounts from a
traffic fine. Clarifies uthe fine amount is less than $45, tbe state:receives the fine amomlt. Clarifies that the state of
Oregon does not receive any moneys from Snow Part parking or helmet law violatiom. Places a county's or city's
portion ofa fine imposed in a justice ofthe peace court or a mUDicipai aut on the same level as the state's portion.
AUows a violations bureau to accept a plea ofno contest. Stipulates bow fiDes are imposed upon. a persou for violating a
OWlS transit on:tinaDce after collections are deposited to both the state Criminal Fine Account and the mass transit
district. Clarifies that the division of fines collected for violation ofa mass transit district ordinance applies to circuit
courts.
ISSUI'.S DISCUSSED:
• Impact ofHouse Bill 2712 on municipal aod county courts
• House Bill 2712 was intended to bereva.we neutral as it rdates to the revenue going to state and local
govemmart
• Difficulty in detmmining ifthe revenue going to state <md local government is approximately the same now as it
was prior to House Bill 2712
EFFJ:CI' OF COMMI'ITEE AMENDMENT: Clarifies that the unitary assessment applies to offenses committed
prior to January I, 2012. Stipulates how fines are imposed upon a person for violating a OWlS transit ordinance after
collections are deposited to both the state Qimioa1 F'lIlI! A.cc<lunt and the mass transit distti.ct. Clai:fies that the division
of fines collected for violation ofamass transit district on:tinance applies to cin:uit courts.
BACKGROUND: The 2011 Legislative Assembly enacted. House Bill 2712 that did, among other ~set forth new
limits on the maximum and minimmn fines associated with the diffenmt categories ofviolatioos, and how the proceeds
from the fines are to be allocated among and between the state general fund and local government. It also eliminated the
state and county assessments that were added on to the base fine. These additional amounts often caused confusion with
tbepublic.
The allocation ofrevenues generated by the prosecution ofviolations between the state general fimd and the local
government entities is dependent upon many tiIctors including tbe court where the matter is prosecuted and the law
enforcement agency prosecuting the matter. One ofthe tmderlying premises ofthe bill was to, as much as possible,
keep the alIocaiion offimds between the state general :fund and local government the same as it was prior to House Bill
2712. This reportedly was not easy to do with the vagueness associated with prior law and the different interpretations
different government entities applied in canying out its provisiom.
House Bill 2712 repealed or amended over one-hundred statutes in its 1hree-hundred and thirty·three sections and one
hundred seventeen pages. One provision stated t.bat in any criminal action in which a fine is imposed, the state genera]
211012012 12:42:00 PM
This SIlIIIIntI1'.Y luis "otlJeelJ atIopted (}1' ojftcillll:y elUlorsed by actio" ofthe committee..
c..--~JI_-21n .......SoMioII
HB 4025 STAFF MEASURE SUMMARY Page 2 of2
fund receives the first $60 or the amount ofthe fine ifthe amount collected is less than $60. Several local courts have
contended that this provision reduces the revenue they received compared to what they received prior to the bills
enactment Also, they contend that the language ofthe bill extended to parking tickets issued in winter recreational
parking areas, fines for bicycle operators, scooter operations. skateboarders or inline skaters not wearing helmet this
provision requiring the state to receive payment first.
211012012 12:42:00 PM
This summary luis not been adopted or officially endorsed by action ofthe committee.
,
J
I ~
f
f
76th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY-2012 Regular Session ~
!, A-Engrossed
I
I
j
~ House Bill 4025
Ordered by tlut HIlUM February 10
Including HOWIB Amendm..". dated Febrwuy 10
In~aud printed purswmt to House Rule 12.00. Premsion IDed (at the request of House Interim Committee
on Judiciary)
I SUMMARY
j
'1 The mIlC111riDc 8IIIIIIDIIl"Y is Dot prepazed by the 8JIOII8OI'8 of the meuura and is DOt • part of the body tbereo£ subject1 to COII8ideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor's briar statemem of the _tiaI feaCmeII of the
III8IIIRD'8.
Reduces /UIHIWlt payable by municipal or justice COIII't for deposit in Criminal Fine Account from
$60 to $45. Exempts certain offenses from required payment.j Modifies priority of distribution Cor partial payments of fines. Provides that amounts owing to
1
city or county have same priority as amounts owing to state.
Makes other chalIges to laws governing offenses.
Stipulates distribation of IUIIOaDU CoDected _CIer judlP"ent of cmnieticm for violation
of Trl-Ifet ordinaDces.
Declares emergency, effective on passage. ~ 1
j 1 A BILL FOB AN ACfl 2 Relating to offenses; creating DeW provisions; amending DRS 137.017, 137.289, 137.292, 137.296, ~ I 3 137.297, 153.030, 153.633 and 153.800; repealiDg DRS 137.294; an~ declaring an emergmy:y.1: Be It R.II"vd by the People of the State of Oregon:•
I)1 ~ 6 AMOUNT PAYABLE BY lIIUNICIPAL OR JUSTICE COURT
! 7 FOR DEPOSIT IN CRIMINAL FINB ACCOUNT l• 8•,, 9 SECTION L DRS 153.633 is amended to read: l ~ 10 153.633. (1) In any crimina1 action in which a fine is imposed, the lesser of the following amounts~
# 11 is payable to the state before any other distribution of the fiDe is made:i
1l 12 (a) [$6l1] $45; or
$
~
13 (b) The amount of the fiDe if the fine is less than [$6l1] ...~
I
14 (2) A justice or municipal court shall forward the amount prescribed under subsection (1) of this ~ 15 section to the Department of Revenue for deposit in the Criminal Fine Account.
i
~
16 (3) The prorisioDs of this section do DOt apply to fiDes imposed UDder ORS 811.580,
17 814.485, 814.488, 814JSM, 814JS36, 814.800 or 830.990 (1).
i 18 SECTION 2. (1) ODS 153.683 applies only to omm-that are commiUed on or after ~ 19 Jan1lB17 I, 2011
i :.l (2) The repeal of OBS 13'7.290 by section 118, chapter 597, Oreaon Laws JOll, applies only ~ 21 to olf_ commiUed on or after JIID1I8I'J' I, 2012. Arq offenlIe committed before January
I
i!
22 1, JOl2, shaI1 continue to be govenHIcl by ORB 137.190 .. in etreet bnmediately before J8D1J8l"Y
J Z't 1, , 2Ol2, and all amounts collected .. a unitary __ent for otre_ committed before
:u January I, 20l2, shaI1 be deposited in the CrimiDal FiDe Account." "•:!
},
I t NOTB: Matter in ~t;ype in an ....ended oectiaD. wnaw; malter [jtQ/ie lINi b~ia uiatiDg law to be omitted.
~! New ~...... in ~type.
'i I LC 101 1 I,
,!
!
!,
I
]
A-Eng.. lIB 4025
(8) The amendmenta to OBS 133.633 by sec:tion 1 of this 2012 Act apply only to offenses
2 committed on or after the effective date of this 2012 Act.
3 SECTION 3. ORB 187.017 is amended to read:
4 137.017. Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, all fines. costs, security deposits and
/) other amounts ordered or required to be paid in criminal actions in circuit cou:riIJ are monetaxy
6 obligations payable to the state and shall be deposited in the Criminal Fine Account.
7 SECTION 4. ORB 158.030 is amended to read:
8 158.080. (1) The procedures provided for in this chapter apply to violations described in ORB
9 153.008. Except as specifically provided in this chapter, the criminal. procedure laws of this state
10 applicable to crimes also apply to violations.
11 (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, [the] ORB 163.833 B.Dd an other provisions
12 of this chapter and of the criminal procedure laws of this state do not apply to violations that gov
13 em the parking of vehicles and that are created by ordinance or by agency rule.
14 (3) The statute of limitations for proeeedings under this chapter is as provided in ORS 131.125.
15 (4) This chapter doee not affect the ability of a city described in ORB 8.l36 (1) to engage in the
16 activities described in ORS 3.136 (3). Nothing in this chapter a:fI'eets the ability of any other political
17 subdivision of this state to provide for the administrative enforcement of the charter, ordinances,
18 rules and regulations of the political subdivision, including enforcement through imposition of mon
19 etary penalties. Euept for ordinances governing the parking of vehicles, administrative enforcement
~ as described in this subsection may not be used for any prohibition designated as an offense.
21 (5) Nothing in this chapter affects the ability of any political subdivision of this state to estab
22 lish rules relating to administrative en.1'orllemant as described in subseetion (4) of this section, in
23 eluding roles providing for the use of citations or other procedures for initiat.ing administrative
~ enforcement proceedings.
25 (6) Nothing in this chapter affects the ability of any politieal subdivision of this state to conduct
26 hearings for administrative enforcement as described in subsection (4) of this section, either before
27 a hearing officer or before the governing body of the political subdivisiOll.
28 (7) Nothing in this chapter affects the ability of any political subdivision to bring a civil action
29 to enforce the charter, ordinances, rules and regulations of the politieal subdivision, or to bring a
30 civil action to enforce any order for administrative enforcement as described in subsection (4) of this
31 section.
3\! (8) Nothing in ORB 153.042 affects the authority of any political subdivision. of this state to
88 provide .for issuance of citations for violation of offenses created by ordinance on the. same basis as
34 the political subdivision could under the law in effect immediately before January 1, 2000.
35
38 PRIORITY OF DISTRIBUTION 01' PARTIAL PAYMENTS
:rr
38 SECTION 5. ORS 137.289 is amended to read:
39 137.289. (1) There are [five] loW!' levels of priority for application of payments on judgments of
40 conviction in criminal actions, with Level I obligations having the highest priority and Level [V]
41 IV having the lowest priority. All psyments on a judgment of conviction in a eriminal action ahall
42 be applied first against the unpaid obligations in the level with highest priority until those obli
43 gations have been paid in full, and shall then be applied against the obligations in the level with the
44 next highest level of priority. until all obligations under the judgment have been paid in full.
45 (2) Except as provided in ORB 137.292, if there is more than one person or public body to whom
[2]
I I
!
j
I
f
A-Eng. HB 4025
1 an obligation is payable under a level, the court shall divide each payment based on each person's
2 or public body's proportionate share of the total amount of obligations in that level.
II SECTION 6. ORS 137.292 is amended to read:
" 137.292. (1) There are two types of Level II obligations:
5 (a) Type 1 obligations inelude awards of restitution as defined in ORS 137.103, awards of
6 nMmtution under ORS419C.450 and monsyawuds:made under ORS 811.706.
7 (b) Type 2 obligations inelude all fines and other molletary obligations payabIe to the state ffor
8 whidr. the law doea not ezpre8sl, provide atMr disposition, including {i;nBS payable to the stote by
9 ,justi.cIJ and m.uAicipol courts under ORB 153.638, 153.645 and 163.660], a city or a county.
10 (2) If a judgment contains both types of Level II obligations, the court shall apply 50 pen:ent
U of amounts creditable to Level II obligations to Type 1 obligations and 50 percent of the amounts
12 to Type 2 obligations, wW1 all obligations in one of the two types have been paid in fWl All sub
18 sequent IIlI1OI1DtB creditable to Level II obligations shall be applied against the other type of obJi..
14 gations until those obligations have been paid in full.
:IS (3) If there ia more than one :person for whose benefit a Type 1 money award bas been made,
18 the clerk shall pay the moneys credited to Type 1 obligations :in the followiJlg order of priority:
17 (a) If the judgment contains a money award payabIe to the person or perIIOllI against whom. the
18 defendant committed the oft'euse, the clerk shall tint pay all mODe1ll credited to Type 1 obligatione
19 to those penIOnB, and shall continue to do eo 1lD.ti1 all those oliliptiOD8 are paid in full. If there is
20 more than one penon to whom an obligation is p818ble under this paragraph,. the court shall divide
21 each payment under this paragrapb based on each person's proportionate share of the total amount
22 of obligations 811bjeet to payment under this paragraph.
23 (b) If the judgment containl a Money award payable to the Criminal lnju.riea Compensation k
2t COllD.t, the clerk ab.all t.hereafter transfer lDOne1ll credited to Type 1 obligations to the ac:eonnt until
25 the award is paid in full.
26 (e) If the judgment contains a money award payable to any other vi.etim8, as defined in ORS
'rI 137.103, the clerk shall thereafter pay the moneys credited to Type 1 obligations to these viI:tims
28 1lD.ti1 those victims are paid in full
29 SBCTION 7. ORS l31.296 is ameaded to read:
80 137.296. Lem IJV) m obligations are amounts that the law es:pressJ.y d:ireets be paid to a spe-
Sl cifk IICIlO\lDt 01' public body as defined in ORB 174.109.
a2 SBC'l'ION 8. ORB 137!J.97 is amended to read:
S3 137.29'7. Level (V] IV obligations are amounts payable for reward reim.bursem.eIlt IlD.der ORS
84 131.897.
3fi SECTION 9. OBS 18'7.2IH is repealed.
36 SECTION 10. The amen~to OBS l8'7.289.137.211, l8'7.296 aad l8'7Jl8"l by sectioa8 15
In to 8 of tbD 1012 A4 and the repeel of OBS l8'7.294 by section 9 of this 2012 Aet apply to an
88 offenIIes eoamdtted on or after ilan1Jllr11. 1012.
39
40 VIOLATION BUREAUS
41
42 SECTION 11. ORS 153.800 is amended to read:
43 163.800. (1) Asly court of this state may etJtablish a VlOlatiODS Bureau and designate the clerk
44 or deputy clerk of the court or any other appropriate person to act as a violations clerk for the
45 Violations Bureau. The violations clerk s~ serve IlD.der the direction and control of the com
(3)
A-Eng. HB 4025
1 appointing the clerk.
2 (2) A violations clerk ~y exercise authority over any violation. A court establishing a Via
S lations Bureau shall by order specify the violations that are subject to the authority of the vio
" lations clerk.
5 (3) Except as provided in subsection (6) of this section, the violations clerk shall accept:
6 (a) Written appearance, waiver of trial, plea of (guilty) no coniest. and payment of fine, costs
1 and assessments for violations that are subject to the authority of the violation& clerk; or
8 (b) Payment of preiNmptive fine amounts for violations that are subject to the authority of the
9 . violations clerk.
10 (4}(a) Courts other than circuit courts shall establish schedules, within the limits prescribed by
11 law, of the amounts of penalties to be imposed for first, second and subsequent violations, desig
12 nating each violation specifically or by class. The order of the court establishing the schedules shall
13 be prominently posted in the place where penalties established under the schedule are paid.
14 (b) The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shaD establish a uniform fine schedule for violations
15 prosecuted in circuit courts.
16 (c) All amounts must be paid to, ~pted by and accounted for by the violatiODS clerk in the
17 same manner as other payments on money judgments are received by the court.
18 (5) Any person charged with a violation within the authority of the violations clerk may:
19 (a) Upon signing an appearance, plea of (guilty] no coniest. and waiver of trial, pay the clerk
3) the penalty established for the violation charged, including any coats and assessments antborized
21 by law.
22 (b) Pay the clerk the presumptive fine amount established for the violation. Payment of the
23 presumptive fine auiount under this paragraph constitutes consent to forfeiture of the presumptive
24 fine amount and disposition of the violation by the clerk as provided by the rules of the court.
25 Payment of presumptive fine amount under this paragraph is not consent to forfeiture of the
26 presumptive fine amount if the payment is accompanied by a plea of not guilty or a request for
27 hearing.
28 (6) A person who has been found guilty of., or who has signed a plea of no contest to, one or
29 more previous offenses in the preceding 12 IDDnths within the jurisdiction of the court [shall] IllaY
a> not [be perm.ittl!:d to] appear before the violations clerk unless the court, by general order applying
31 to certain specified offenses, permits such appearance.
32
33 VIOLATION OF TBl-MET ORDINANCES
M
36 SECTION l2. Section 1S of this 2012 Ad is added to ad made a pari of OBS chapter 153.
36 SECTION 18. U a court enters a judgment of couvietion for the violation of an ordinance
37 enacted by the diairiet board of a mass transit d.i.strici under OBS 26'1_1so. amounts collected
38 under the judgment are payable as follows:
39 (1) The amount prescribed by OBS 153.633 (1) is payable to the state IUld :must be for..
40 warded to the Department. of Revenue for deposit. in the CrimiDaI Fine Mcomd;
41 (2) An additional $45 is payable to the state and :must be forwarded by the court to the
42 Department of Revenue for deposit in the Criminal Pine Ac:ieowli; IUld
43 (3) 'lbe amount remaining after the payments required by SIlbsectiOllB (1) and (2) of this
44 section is payable to the mass transit d.i.strici thai eoacted the ordiDance.
45 SECTION 14. (1) Section 18 of this 2012 Act appliea to all violations of ordinances enacted
[4]
,
A-Eng. lIB 4025
1 by the d.istriet board. of a mass traDsit district that oec.Nr on or after January 1, 2012
2 (2) NotwUbstaJuI:iDg OBS 13'7.300, there is allocated $ to the Tri-CoUDty Metro
3 poJitan TraD.lportatlon District of (kegon, from. the Crimhaal Pine Aeeount. for the p~
4 of re.imba.rsID&' the dUltrict tor amounts that were collected in eircuit courts between Janu
S ar,y 1, 2012, aDd the eIlectiYe date of this J012 Act for violations of 0I'diDa.Dcea and that were
6 not distributed u provided under section 13 of this 2012 Act.
7
8 CAPl'IONS
\I
10 SECTION 15. The uni:t captiDDs used in this 20U Aet are provided oDly for the conven·
11 ieDee of the reader aDd do no'l: become part of the st:ata.tory Jaw of this state or UpnI8II any
12 legIlIIatIve blteat in the eaadment of W. SOU Act..
13
14 EMERGENCY CLAUSE
16.
16 SBCDON 18. 'l1da SOU Ad being nee lIery tor the bmaediate ~ati_01. the public
17 peace. health and safety, an emergency it declared. to eDst., and this SOU Act 1:aba effect
18 on its pa8II8I8.
19
[5]
i
I
I
2013 flousa ...
.M!mdft YuIIdu...................... 8:OOAM
10:00 AM
HRD........... 8:OOAM
10:00 AM
HRE
ean.un...........I.~ 1:00 PM-
EIIiIiInIJ 2:45PM
HRD
E.-... 1:00 PM
2:45PM
HRD
EMIIJ. EI......... 3:00 PM
4:45PM
HRD
......c.. 1:00 PM
2:45PM
HRE
.......EdlI.llion. WorIIfOi .. 8:OOAM
.,...1111 1_ 10:00 AM
HRD
"'-s.m..·1touIIiat 3:00 PM
4:45PM
HRD......., 1:00 PM1:00 PM
2:45PM 2:45PM
HR343 HR343 .....3:00 PM
4:45PM
HRE ....... 8:00AM· 8:OOAM
10:00 AM 10:00 AM
HRA HRA
Rules 3:00PM·
4:45PM
HRSO
......,.anatIOi. EIIIIIOiIIIII 3:00 PM
"'111..
4:45PM
HRE
V-.s.m........., 1:00 PM
2:45PM............... HRE
Task Force on O&C CounIIes T8A T8A
2013 ~-
Bullness " Transportation 3:00 PM3:00 PM
4:45PM 4:45PM
HRB HRB
0.....GcwirnIl1ll1l. ConIIImw"
Small ......PtotectiCll'l
Rural Communities " EconomIc 3:00PM·
Dwelopnwnt 4:45PM
HRC
Education " WorId'on::e Dtwlopment 1:00PM·
2:45PM
HRC
EnvircHIIIIInt " NaIund Re!Ioun:es 3:00 PM
4:46PM
HRC
Finance" Rewnue 1:00 PM
2:45PM
HRA
Health Carl " Human ServIces 3:00 PM3:00PM·
4:45PM 4:45PM
HRA HRA
Judiciary 8:00AM· 8:00AM·
10:00 AM 10:00 AM
HR343 HR343
Rules
Veterans " Emergency Preparedness
8:OOAM
10:00 AM
HRE
1:00 PM
2:45PM
HRD
1:OOPM
2:45PM
HRE
8:OOAM
10:00 AM
HRO
3:00 PM
4:45PM
HRD
1:00PM
2:45PM
HR343
8:00AM·
10:00 AM
HRA
3:OOPM
4:45PM
HRSO
3:00PM·
4:45PM
HRE
T8A
3:OOPM
4:45PM
HRB
3:00 PM
4:45PM
HRC
1:00 PM
2:45PM
HRA
8:00AM·
10:00 AM
HR343
8:OOAM
10:00 AM
HRB
8:OOAM
10:00 AM
HRD
1:OOPM
2:45PM
HRD
3:00 PM
4:45PM
HRD
1:00PM·
2:45PM
HR343
3:OOPM
4:46PM
HRE
8:OOAM
10:00 AM
HRA
1:00 PM
2:46PM
HRE
T8A
3:00PM·
4:45 PM
HRB
3:OOPM
4:45PM
HRC
1:00 PM
2:45PM
HRC
3:00PM·
4:45PM
HRA
8:00AM·
10:00 AM
HR343
1:00 PM
2:45PM
HRB
fmID
8:OOAM
10:00 AM
HRE
1:OOPM
2:45PM
HRO
1:00 PM
2:45PM
HRE
8:OOAM
1 0:00 AM
HRD
3:00 PM
4:45PM
HRO
1:00PM
2:45PM
HR343
8:00AM.
1 0:00 AM
HRA
3:00PM·
4:46PM
HRSO
3:00PM·
4:45PM
HRE
T8A
8:OOAM
10:00 AM
HRB
1:OOPM
2:45PM
HRA
2013 Joint Committee Schlldu"
.MmIdft lI.!t.Ifar fI:IstIlt
8:30AM·
10:30 AM
Ways & Means HRF
8:30AM· 8:30AM· 8:30AM· 8:30AM·
10:00 AM 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 10:00 AM
W&MS~onE~n HRF HRF HRF HRF
8:30AM· 8:30AM· 8:30AM· 8:30AM·
10:00 AM 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 10:00 AM
W&MS~on General Gov1 H·174 H-174 H-174 H-174
1:00PM· 1:00PM • 1:00PM· 1:00PM·
W&M Subcommittee on Human 2:30PM 2:30PM 2:30PM 2:30PM
Servk:ea HRF HRF HRF HRF
1:00PM· 1:00PM· 1:00PM· 1:00PM •
W&M~on Natural 2:30PM 2:30PM 2:30PM 2:30PM
Resources H-170 H-170 H·170 H·170
3:00PM· 3:00PM· 3:00 PM3:00PM·
4:30PM 4:30PM 4:30PM 4:30PM
W&M Subcomlllittee on PublIc Safety H-170 H-170 H·170 H-170
1:00PM· 1:00PM· 1:00PM· 1:00PM· W&MS~on Transp&Ec:o 2:30PM 2:30PM 2:30PM 2:30PM
Dev H-174 H-174 H-174 H-174
IW6M~UDon~
(Meets at the Call of the Co-ChaIra)
on lax vnMIIPI ,_at
the call of the C!H:halra)
on t'U1II1C ~, .._III
the Can of the C!H:halra
December Revenue Forecast
RE: December Revenue Forecast
Today, the Oregon Department of Administrative Services (DAS) released the December Revenue
Forecast. It shows that Oregon's economy is growing, but at a very slow rate. State revenue remains
stable compared to prior estimates.
GFRevenue
The forecast for 2011-13 General Fund revenue is estimated to be $13,944 million. This is an increase of
$30 million from the September 2012 Revenue Forecast. The forecast is $64.2 million below the 2011
Close of Session Forecast used by legislators to set the 2011-13 budget.
Lotterv Funds
Lottery earnings are estimated to total $1,076 million which is up $100 million from the September
forecast, but down $52.3 million from 2011 Close of Session estimates.
Reserve Funds
At the end of the 2011-13 biennium, the State of Oregon is projecting an ending balance of $61.8 million
in the Rainy Day Fund and $6.9 million in the Education Stability Fund. The total reserves available are
estimated to be $68.7 million.
Additional Information
Attached is a summary of the December 2012 Revenue Forecast. For additional information please visit
http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/OENpages/economic.aspx#most recent forecast.
If you have any questions, please let us know.
PAC
I
i
Oregon Economic and t
Revenue Forecast I ISUMMARY I
December 2012
Volume XXXII, No.4
Release Date: November 20,2012
I
State of Oregon
Department of Administrative Services
Office of Economic AnalysiS i
I I
I
I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
December 2012
Oregon Economic Forecast
Current Conditions
As 2012 winds down, Oregon's economic expansion persists, but remains stuck in a low gear.
Growth continues to come in fits and starts a strong quarter or two followed by a weak quarter or
two -with the underlying trend remaining slow and steady. Real GDP has averaged just over 2
percent growth since the expansion started, with the nation adding approximately 150,000 jobs per
month so far in 2012. The slowdown seen in recent months can largely be attributed to the global
manufacturing cycle beginning to wane. Future orders and current shipments have softened across a
wide range of Oregon's products.
The good news is that the housing recovery is here to help drive economic growth. Even so,
housing-related production is just now beginning to improve from its recessionary lows, and has a
long way to go before the level of production approaches anything considered a normal year for
housing.
Although sales growth has slowed, profitability remains near record highs for many businesses. For
households, signs are both encouraging and worrisome. Job growth has been weak, with the
unemployment rate coming down very slowly. Wage growth has been even softer from a historical
perspective. Average wages are growing at a 1.5 percent rate among production and non
supervisory employees and just under 2.0 percent for all employees overall. In good years, like the
late 1990s or even mid-2000s, wage growth reached 4 percent per year.
Given such weak growth, consumers -like the economy as a whole -remain vulnerable to shocks.
Encouragingly, inflation remains in check for now, and households are becoming more confident
about their future prospects. Consumer sentiment recently hit levels not seen since before the Great
Recession suggesting that recent gains in spending may be sustainable going forward.
Outlook
Expectations call for growth in the coming few months to look like the growth we have been
experiencing: slow. Although the fundamentals underlying economic growth remain strong,
uncertainty continues to weigh on both businesses and households. Given weakness among our
leading trading partners, and an uncertain federal policy environment, many firms are reluctant to
take the risk of expanding their operations despite ample resources and profits. Similarly,
households remain reluctant to make large purchases until their future job prospects become more
certain.
The international slowdown is a drag on the U.S. economy. Historically, however, the U.S. has not
fallen into recession due to global weakness alone. Of course, with increased globalization among
U.S. businesses, ties to growth in Europe and Asia are now stronger than ever before.
- 1
The uncertainty of federal policy is weighing on both business and consmner decisions, delaying
their investments and therefore slowing growth. The so-called fiscal cliff has the potential to derail
the expansion and send the economy back into recession. The combination of planned spending cuts
and allowing tax rates to rise amounts to between 3 and 4 percent of GDP according to most
estimates. While these impacts are unlikely to hit simultaneously and in full force precisely on
January 1st, 2013, their impact will be significant for an economy growing at just a 2 percent rate.
Although the recent national elections did little to change the composition of federal policymakers,
there is a renewed sense of optimism that a budget deficit deal can be reached in the coming
months. Should a deal in fact be reached by the middle of next year, the underlying economic
conditions are primed for some acceleration in growth.
As one example, emergency unemployment insurance benefits are scheduled to expire January 1st,
and will impact consmner spending. In Oregon, the average unemployment check for individuals on
the extension programs is currently about $300 per week. Should these benefits expire, estimates
are that 26,000 Oregonians will lose these payments at the end ofthe year. This amounts to a loss of
over $30 million in January alone. While the best way forward would certainly be to increase the
nmnber ofjobs, a short tenn loss ofthis magnitude would be a step backward.
Beyond these near-tenn issues, the stage is set for stronger growth should the economy manage to
successfully navigate the next few months. The primary reason for optimism is the strength of
balance sheets for businesses and consmners alike. With financing costs low and corporate profits
high, a great deal of spending and investment stands to be unleashed as soon as some of the
uncertainty that is obscuring the near-tenn outlook is cleared away. Although household net worth
is not back to pre-recession levels, it has been increasing strongly. Home prices are again rising, and
stock markets have regained much of their recessionary losses. Delinquencies on consmner debt are
down across the board (auto loans, student loans, credit cards, etc.). Even rates of mortgages I or 2
payments behind have fallen to historically low levels. Only payments for mortgages 90+ days past
due remain stubbornly high. All told, many businesses and consumers now have the resources with
which to drive growth, and are lacking only the courage to do so.
The baseline (most likely) employment forecast remains essentially unchanged. Slow growth will
continue to be the norm. Oregon is not expected to recover all of the jobs it has lost until the end of
2014-seven years after the recession began.
Summary of Reeent Trends
Getting a handle on the health of Oregon's labor marlcet is being somewhat complicated by
technical issues within the underlying payroll jobs data. Technical issues aside, employment in
Oregon continues to increase at a slow, subdued pace so far in 2012, approximately in line with the
gains seen at the U.S. level. After a strong start to the year, with employment increasing nearly 3
percent on an annual basis in the frrst quarter, employment gains have slowed the past two quarters
in Oregon.
The employment data discussed in this report is adjusted for two important technical purposes:
seasonality and the upcoming benchmark revisions 1• Given the relative strength of employment as
I Each year the Oregon Employment Department and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics revise the employment data
a process known as benchmarking. The current establishment survey (CES), also known as the monthly payroll survey,
-2
measured by data collected through the unemployment insurance program, it is clear that
preliminary payroll job counts will be revised upward significantly when benchmark adjustments
are made next year. Such preliminary revisions to the payroll survey data are regularly published in
some states, and are currently a topic ofdiscussion at the Oregon Employment Department.
After adjustments, the data reveals a state that continues to expand slowly, adding approximately
25,000 jobs in the past year (1.5% through 2012q3). Unadjusted data suggest Oregon has been
closer to stagnating, adding only 17,800 jobs in the past year (1.1 %).
Over the past year, job growth has been widespread across industries, with only information and
financial service firms seeing small declines in the private sector. Public sector employment has
continued to fall. However, the losses are lessening in recent months. The largest gains have been in
professional and business services, leisure and hospitality, and retail trade which increased by
approximately 7,800, 3,200, and 3,600 jobs respectively, from 2011q3 to 2012q3. Health services
and construction each added between 2,000 and 3,000 jobs over the past year. These five main
industry groups account for approximately 60 percent of all private sector gains, with
manufacturing accounting for another 16 percent, or 4,400 jobs. Within manufacturing, gains were
led by durable goods, particularly metals and machinery.
Demographic Forecast
Oregon's population count on April 1, 2010 was 3,831,074. Oregon gained 409,550 persons
between the years 2000 and 2010. The population growth during the decade of2000 to 2010 was
12.0 percent, down from 20.4 percent growth from the previous decade. Oregon's rankings in terms
of decennial growth rate dropped from 11th between 1990-2000 to 18 th between 2000 and 2010.
Slow population growth during the most recent decade due to double recessions probably cost
Oregon one additional seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. Actually, Oregon's decennial
population growth rate during the most recent decade was the second lowest since 1900. The
slowest, actually negative, was during the 1980s when Oregon was hit hard by another recession.
As a result of recent economic downturn and sluggish recovery, Oregon's population is expected to
continue a slow pace of growth in the near future. Based on the current forecast, Oregon's
population will reach 4.25 million in the year 2020 with an annual rate of growth of 1.03 percent
between 2010 and 2020.
Oregon's economic condition heavily influences the state's population growth. Its economy
determines the ability to retain local work force as well as attract job seekers from national and
international labor market. As Oregon's total fertility rate remains below the replacement level and
deaths continue to rise due to ageing population, long-term growth comes mainly from net in
migration. Working-age adults come to Oregon as long as we have favorable economic and
is benchmarked against the quarterly census of employment and wages (QCEW), a series that contains all employees
covered by unemployment insurance. The monthly CES is based on a sample of firms, whereas the QCEW contains
approximately 96 percent of all employees, or nearly a complete count of employment in Oregon. The greatest benefit
of the CES is the timeliness -monthly employment estimates are available with only a one month lag -and these
estimates are reasonably accurate. However the further removed from the latest benchmark, the larger the errors. The
QCEW is less timely as the data is released publically approximately 34 months following the end of the quarter. The
greatest benefit of the QCEW is that is a near 100 percent count of statewide employment For these reasons, the CES is
usually used to discuss recent monthly employment trends, however once a year the data is revised to match the
historical QCEW employment trends. The last month of official benchmark data is June 20 II. The QCEW is currently
available through June 2012, thus the preliminary benchmark used here covers the July 2011 June 2012 period.
-3
I
employment environments. During the 1980s, which included a major recession and a net loss of
population, net migration contributed to 22 percent of the population change. On the other extreme, I
net migration accounted for 73 percent of the population change during the booming economy of
I 99Os. This share of migration to population change declined to 56 percent in 2002 and it was
further down to 32 percent in 2010. As a sign of slow to modest economic gain, the ratio of net I
migration-to-population change will increase gradually and will reach 72 percent by the end of the
forecast horizon. Although economy and employment situation in Oregon look stagnant at this time,
migration situation is not expected to replicate the early 1980s pattern of negative net migration. I
Potential Oregon out-migrants have no better place to go since other states are also in the same boat
in terms of economy and employment. I
Age structure and its change affect employment, state revenue, and expenditure. Demographics are
the major budget drivers, which are modified by policy choices on service coverage and delivery. I
Growth in many age groups will show the effects of the baby-boom and their echo generations I
during the period of 2010-2020. It will also reflect demographics impacted by the depression era Ibirth cohort combined with diminished migration of the working age population and elderly
retirees. After a period of slow growth during the 1990s and early 2000s, the elderly population
(65+) has picked up a faster pace of growth and will surge as the baby-boom generation continue to
enter this age group. The average annual growth of the elderly population will be 3.9 percent during
the forecast period as the boomers continue to enter retirement age. However, the youngest elderly
(aged 65-74) will grow at an extremely fast pace during the forecast period, averaging 4.9 percent
annual rate of growth due to the direct impact of the baby-boom generation entering the retirement
age. Reversing several years of shrinking population, the elderly aged 75-84 will start a positive
growth as the effect of depression era birth-cohort will dissipate. A faster pace of growth of
population in this age group will begin once the baby-boom generation starts to mature. The oldest I
elderly (aged 85+) will continue to grow at a moderately but steady rate due to the combination of
cohort change, continued positive net migration, and improving longevity. The average annual rate Iofgrowth for this oldest elderly over the forecast horizon will be 1.4 percent.
As the baby-boom generation matures out of oldest working-age cohort combined with slowing net
migration, the once fast-paced growth of population aged 45-64 will gradually taper off to below I
zero percent rate of growth by 2012 and will remain at slow or below zero growth phase for several
years. The size of this older working-age population will remain virtually unchanged at the
beginning to the end of the decade. The 25-44 age group population is recovering from several
years of declining and slow growing trend. The decline was mainly due to the exiting baby-boom
cohort. This age group has seen positive growth starting in the year 2004 and will increase by 1.2
percent annual average rate during the forecast horizon. The young adult population (aged 18-24)
will change only a little over the forecast period and remain virtually unchanged for most of the
years into the future. Although the slow or stagnant growth of college-age population (age 18-24),
in general, tend to ease the pressure on public spending on higher education, college enrollment
typically goes up during the time ofhigh unemployment and scarcity of well-paying jobs when even
the older people flock back to college to better position themselves in a tough job market The
growth in K-12 population (aged 5-17) will remain low which will translate into slow growth in
school enrollments. This school-age population has actually declined in size in recent years and
will grow in the future at well below the state average. The growth rate for children under the age of
five will remain below zero percent in the near future and will see positive growth only after 2013.
Although the number of children under the age of five will decline slightly in the near future, the
demand for child care services and pre-Kindergarten program will be additionally determined by the
labor force participation and poverty rates of the parents. Overall, elderly population over age 65
-4
will increase rapidly whereas population groups under age 65 will experience slow growth in the
coming decade. Hence, based solely on demographics of Oregon, demand for public services geared
towards children and young adults will likely to increase at a slower pace, whereas demand for
elderly care and services will increase rapidly.
Revenue Forecast
The filing season for personal income taxpayers who requested extensions came and went this year
without any major revenue surprises on either the upside or downside. With most tax returns now
having been received, the slow-growth year that was expected has largely come to pass.
Although growth in taxes collected out of wages and salaries will likely remain slow for several
months, taxes on investment income are expected to post healthy gains in the near term. Should
stock prices and other investments be able to hold their value through the end of December, Oregon
can expect to see significant growth in tax payments when 2012 returns are filed in April. Not only
have many investments been profitable this year, but many investors are being advised to cash in
their gains for tax purposes before the end of the year in anticipation of possible tax increases at the
federal level in 2013.
The outlook for the 2013-15 biennium calls for some modest improvement in revenue growth.
However, state revenue collections will still likely fail to keep pace with the growing cost of
providing public services. Along with underlying economic conditions, tax revenue growth in
Oregon is expected to fall in between what we have become accustomed to during past periods of
economic expansion, and the slow gains we have seen in recent years.
The primary risk facing the near-term revenue forecast is the uncertain future of the nationwide
economic expansion. Should federal government austerity or the slowdown in Europe and Asia
derail the U.S. economy, Oregon tax collections will come in far below the forecast.
Revenue growth in Oregon and other states will face considerable downward pressure over the 10
year extended forecast horizon. As the baby boom population cohort works less and spends less,
traditional state tax instruments such as personal income taxes and general sales taxes will become
less effective, and revenue growth will fail to match the pace seen in the past.
2011-13 General Fund Revenue
Growth in general fund revenues has been slow in recent months. Personal income taxes are
growing due to a mix of both labor and investment income. However, gains from labor income
slowed in the fall as the job market cooled off. Corporate excise taxes remain stable after dropping
sharply early in the biennium.
-5
I
f
TableRl ,
2011·13 General Fund Forecast Summary
2011 cos September 2012 Decermer 2012 Change from Change from
(MiflOns) Forecast Forecast Forecast Prior Forecast COS Forecast f
Structural Revenues I
Personallnoome Tax $12,193.6 $11,956.6 $11,974.8 $18.2 -$218.7 ICorporae Income Tax $894.2 $842.6 $855.9 $13.3 ·$38.4
All Oher Revenues $944.2 $1,121.8 $1,130.4 $8.6 $186.2
Gross GF Revenues $14,032.0 $13,921.0 $13,961.1 $40.1 ·$70.9 I
0I!e1s and Transilrs $0.0 -$2.3 -$12.0 -$9.7 -$12.0 I
Adninisraive AdDns 1 -$23.1 -$4.4 -$4.4 $0.0 $18.7
Legislaive Actons $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Net Available Resources $14,008.9 $13,914.3 $13,944.7 $30.4 -$64.2
Confidence Intervals
67% Confidence +/·3.3% S455.1 S13.518 toS14.428
95% Confidence +/·6.5% S910.3 S13.058 to S14.878
1 Relecls cost of cashllow mlnlg8lllentaclons, exckJsiveofinlamal borrowing.
Collections of most major revenue types have closely matched expectations in recent months. With
the economic forecast tracking closely as well, the revenue outlook for the 2011-13 biennium
remains largely unchanged from the September 2012 forecast. The forecast for General Fund
revenues for 2011-13 is now $13,961 million. This represents an increase of $40 million (0.3%)
from the September 2012 forecast. I
I
!The forecast for the 2011-13 biennium is now $71 million below the Close of Session forecast. ~
Given the strong employment gains seen in early 20 II, the Close of Session forecast is more
optimistic than other versions produced before or since. Nevertheless, a strong April 2013 of tax
collections would put us back on track with the Close of Session's relatively optimistic outlook. In i,
the unlikely event we see a revenue surge similar to what occurred at the peak of the technology and
housing booms, the personal income tax kicker may yet come into play.
Personal Income Tax
Personal income tax collections were $1,488 million for the frrst quarter of fiscal year 2013, $7.5
million (-0.5%) below the latest forecast. Compared to the year-ago level, total personal income tax
collections grew by 2.5% relative to a forecast that called for 3.1 % growth. More recently, personal
income tax collections have come in higher than forecast during the current quarter, bringing them
back in line with the September outlook.
Personal income tax collections are expected to remain weak until the April 2013 filing season
when the gains seen in stock markets this year are realized for tax pwposes. Further taxable capital
gains realizations will be generated by taxpayers attempting to move their assets ahead of potential
federal tax increases in 2013. t
I
t
-6
I,
I
Corporate Excise Tax
COIporate excise tax collections equaled $113.5 million for the fIrst quarter of fIscal year 2013,
$13.2 million above the September forecast. Compared to one year ago, net corporate receipts were
up 8.2% with the forecast calling for an 4.4% decline.
Corporate tax collections are expected to continue to decline throughout fIscal year 2013, as they
remain very large from an historical perspective. Very strong growth is expected during the 2013-15
biennium, since corporate tax collections are prone to boom-bust cycles. However, growth rates,
while large, will remain less than half of what has been seen during recent profIt booms.
Other Sources ofRevenue
All other General Fund revenues are expected to total $1,130.4 million for the 2011-13 biennium,
an increase of $8.6 million (0.8%) relative to the September forecast. Most revenue sources are
tracking ahead of the previous forecast, including large contributions from estate taxes, judicial
related revenues and liquor apportionment. Tobacco taxes have been lowered slightly to match
recent collections.
Extended General Fund Revenue Outlook
Table R.2 exhibits the long-run forecast for General Fund revenues through the 2019-21 biennium.
Users should note that the potential for error in the forecast increases substantially the further ahead
we look.
Table R.2
General FuodRe~Due ForecastS1lII'III'W)'(Mlllons orDolI..." CurRot Law)
Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast
2009-11 % 2011-13 % 2013-15 % 2015-17 % 2017-19 % 2019-21 0/.
Revenue Source Biennium CbS Biennium CbS Biennium CbS Biennium CbS Biennium CbS Biennium CbS
Personal Income TaJ!I:s 10,467.2 3.7% 11,974.8 14.4% 13,506.8 12.8'Y. 15,134.8 12.1% 16,642.5 10.0% 18,406.9 10.6%
Corpomte Income TaJ!I:s 827.6 20.9"A. 855.9 3.4"A. 1,052.9 23.0% 1,071.1 1.7% 1,036.0 -3.3% 1,050.3 1.4%
"All Others 1,226.6 29.8'Y. 1,130.4 ·7.8% 957.4 -15.3% 1,015.7 6.1% 1,083.2 6.6% 1,167.4 7.8%
Goss General Fund 12,521.4 6.8% 13,961.1 11.5% 15,517.1 11.1% 17,221.6 11.0% 18,761.6 8.9% 20,624.6 9.9%
OfI;ets and Transfers (12.0) (l05.0) (120.9) (128.8) (136.9)
Net Revenue 12,521.4 .2.2% 13,949.1 11.4% 15,412.0 10.5% 17,100.6 II.O'Yo 18,632.8 9.0% 20,487.7 10.0%
O!herlllles include General Fund porIionsoftle Eas1l!lm Oregon SevelllllCe Tax, Wes1l!lm Oregon Sev-.:e Tax II/1dhnusementDavice Tax.
Commen:ial Fish licenses & Fees and Parknutual ReceipIs am included In Oller Revenues
General Fund revenues will total $15,517 million in 2013-15, an increase of 11.1 % percent from the
prior period, and $62 million (0.4%) above the September forecast. In 2015-17, revenue growth is
expected to remain stable at 11.0010, followed by slower rates of 9% to 10% in subsequent biennia.
The slowdown in long-run revenue growth is largely due to the impact of demographic changes.
-7
2011-13 General Fund Forecast Summary
(MIons}
2011 COS
Forecast
Septesmer 2012
Forecast
DecenDer2012
Forecast
Change from
Prior Forecast
Change from
COS Forecast
Structural Revenues
Personallncone Tax $12 1193.6 $11 1956.6 $11 1974.8 $18.2 -$218.7
Corporae InCOlTB Tax $894.2 $842.6 $855.9 $13.3 -$38.4
AU Oller Revenues $9442 $1 1121.8 $1.130.4 $8.6 $186.2
Gross GF Revenues $14.032.0 113,921.0 $13,961.1 $40.1 -$70.9
0IIeIs and Transks $0.0 -$2.3 -$12.0 -$9.7 -$12.0
Adrrinistalve AriIJns1 -$23.1 -$4.4 -$4.4 $0.0 $18.7
Legislalve Acb1s SO.O $0.0 12.0 $0.0 $0.0
Net Available Resources $14,008.9 $13,914.3 $13,944.7 $30.4 .$64.2
Confidence Intervals
67% Confidence +1-3.3% 5455.1 513.51810514.428
U Conrldence +1-6.5% 5910.3 513.05810514.878
1 Relecls costofcasbtow managementaclons. exclusiveofinlanal bonowing.
Comparison of General Fund Resource Forecasts
($Billions)
$20
$19
$18
$17
$16
$15
$14
$13
$12
$11
$10
13.92
t-I"===
2011-13 2013·15 2015-17 2017·19
-8
I
I
I
f
I
I
c
Combined General Fund and Lottery Fund Revenues (2011-13 IN)
.. $15.3
.Close cI Session and Feb 2012 Rebalarx:e _ Faecast
1$15.2
,g
$15.1
$15.0
$14.9
$14.8
$14.7
$14.6
$14.5
Dec 2010 Mar 2011 May 2011 Sept 2011 Dec 2011 Mar 2012 Jun 2012 Sept 2012 Dec 2012
Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Faecast Faecast
Private Employment Growth in Expansion
80s Expansion 90s Expansion 00s Expansions To Dale 113-15
-9
.Total
• Best 2 Years
Oregon Employment Share of U.S. Manufacturing
1.6%
1.5%
1.4%
1.3%
1.2%
1.1%
1.0%
0.9%
0.8%
~
Jan-47 Jan-55 Jan-63 Jan-71 Jan-79 Jan-87 Jan·95 Jan-03 Jan-11
Oragon Economic Indexes (Jan 2005 =100)
'_Rae_Ion
-SIC
-NAICS
1~ r.-......·.-..·--,--·.........-.·-T.-------.~·-....
115 I---........ -........, ... -....-..... -....+...-..-.-..--.~-
110 1--·_·_,·-4-·_-zF<!:_+--_.._·---·-4--.;
•:I
11 ~100 ~~r-w.~-f-~="·"-,,~,,,,···-·-,,,-·,,~~j
95
~ I--·-··-·..-.. ···-i-·-·-..--·-~..-··-·-,-..·~-
_Recession Probabiity (RIght)
85 --COIncident Index (Philadelphia Fed)
-Total Nonfann Employment
-00 Imex of Economic Indicators
-Oregon Index of Indicators
Jan-OS Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08
---..-·T-..-----·..-..r-·-..···....·--,C·-..·..··..·-··..T100%
90%+ ... --.-............ ,
70%
.....-.~,-........-.......-.+..-..-....-..--~~.~-..-...~ ~
30%
10%
L-~------~------~------~O%
Jan-Q9 Jan-10 Jan-11 Jan-12
-10
f
80
I
Alternative Scenarios December 2012
Total Nonfarm Employment 2011 2012 2013 2014
~Recession
1,900,000
--Optimistic _Pessimistic _Baseline Employment
1,850,000 Baseline
Pessirnis~
1.13%
1.13%
1.32%
1.25%
1.56%
-1.17%
2.50010
0.90%
1,800,000 Optimis~ 1.13% 1.46% 3.36% 3.89%
1,750,000
Personallm:ome
1.700.000 Baseline 5.43% 3.87% 3.47% 5.15%
1,650.000 Pess~ 5.43% 3.61% 0.24% 4.31%
1,600,000 Optimist£ 5.43% 4.49% 6.75% 6.56%
1,550,000
1,500,000
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2C 1 ~ Qj 0
a. -1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
4
3
2
1
0 .,
c: ..~ -2
If -3
-4
-5
-6
-7
Comparison of Last Three Forecasts
DJun 2012 .Sap 2012 .Dec 2012
Personal Income Growth
,..,0 ... ..... M ..0 ,.., co en 0 .... ..... M on ..0"'" on "'" 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 ... ... ... ... .... ... .... ...
0 8 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..... ~ ::a..... '" ..... '" ..... '" ..... '" '"
Employment Growth
,.., ,..,0 ... ..... M on ..0 co en 0 ... M on <D
0 0 0 0 0 ... ... ...'" ... ... ... ... ... "'" "'" 8 8 8 8 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... ::a ::a N'" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '"
co en 0 .... ...
0 '" ::a 0
'" '"
00 cn 0... ... N
0 0 0 N '" '"
-11
Oregon Exports (year-over-Year Change)
___________ ~_______ !'?E!~~p.~~___:::::.!~~!_'::~~~~?~~R~~~~~E_~!!~__~!!:~!!"~!!~~_~E~~~_~____________.50%
40% -------------------------------------.--.-.--------.-----.-.-.. -.. --.-.------------------------.---------------.-.--.---
30%
20%
10%
0%
-10%
-20% -----.-----.-----.----.-.----------.-.------.-.-----.-.-..... --.-.--------.--.-.--..
-30% -...-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
-40% -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
-50% -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
011998 012000 012002 012004 012006 012008 012010 012012
Oregon Export Growth r
.2010 .2011 .2012Y1D
50%
40% t--..··............·..·........
30% t..........·......·..........·....·
20% I· ................·........·....·.. ·..
10%
0%
-10% I·.. ··........·....................·........
-20%
-30% I. ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
f
l
(
Total Exports China &. Japan &. S. North America Other Asia Eurozone Other Europe All Other
Malaysia Korea
I
f
-12-I
t I
Oregon's Budgetary Reserves
2009·11 2011·13 2013·15
(Milions) Biennium Biennium Biennium
Rainy Day Fund
Begimilg Balance $112.5 $10.4 $61.8
Net Deposits 3 ·$103.4 $50.8 $186.1
Ini!rest $1.3 $0.6 $2.2
Ending Balance1 $10.4 $61.8 $250.1
Education Stability Fund
Begilnilg Balance $0.0 $5.1 $6.9
Net Deposits $101.4 $184.1 $179.3
Ineresr $1.0 $0.6 $1.3
Wilhdrawals -$97.4 -$182.9 -$1.3
Endins Balance $5.1 $6.9 $186.2
Total Reserves $15.5 $68.7 $436.3
Focmotes:
1. Under ctnenllaw , only :U3rds of !he begiming balance is av aiable br wihlraw aI. WIldraW aI subject tI economk:
and lnanciallrlggtn.
2. Educalon SlabiI~ FlJId inU'es1 is distributed i) !he Oregon EWcaIon FlJId (75%) and !he Slim SctIatnhip
Commission (25%).
3. hckJdes lranstlr of ending General Fund balances, tp i) 1% of budgeild appropriaIons, as well as lJivail dooalons.
Lottery Resources and Distributions ($ millions)
$1.600
$1,400
$1,200
$1,000
~
$600
~
$200
$0
.Other Dedicalla'ls
.Parf(s(15%)
.Educallon(15-18%)
.Debt Se!vic9
.Discretbnary Appropriations ____________
f-------------------
f---------------------------
f---------
f-------------
8531 81-89 89-91 91-93 93-95 95-91 91-99 1J9.01 01-03 03-05 05-01 01-09 09-11 1M3 13-15 15-11 11·19 19-21
Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj.
-13
Executive Summary
In 2011, the 76 1h Legislative Assembly enacted House Bill 2710. The measure established a ten
member Joint Interim Committee on State Courts Revenue Structure (the Committee) to review allI state court fees and fines; monitor all legislation passed by the Seventy-sixth Legislative Assembly
I
relating to court fees and fines, and evaluate the effect of the exercise ofjudicial discretion on
revenues generated by fmes.
The principles that the Committees must consider in its review and evaluation are: I
j
I a) Fee and fme amounts should be transparent and easy to access and administer.
b) Fee and fine amounts should be equitable and fair.
e) The court fee structure should not adversely impact access to justice.
d) The court fee structure should not adversely affect judicial authority to waive or defer fees or
to establish a payment plan for litigants.
e) The statutory fee structure and fee amounts should be uniform across this state.
1 £) All state court revenue sources should be easily identifiable and reflected in statute.
g) The court fee structure should generate biennial revenue commensurate with the end-of
session revenue forecast
h) Fees and fines should be a ftxed dollar amount.
i) Surcharges and assessments should not be imposed on fees or fmes.
j) Fines for violations should be uniform in state courts, justice courts and municipal court.
k) Revenues from fees and fines should not be dedicated.
1) Give due consideration to the fairness of those fees and the fmancial burdens placed on the
parties who are ultimately responsible for the payment ofthe fees.
The Committee was required to issue a report, identifying statutes and court practices that do not
conform to identifted principles and recommend changes.
Findings Regarding elm Fee and Criminal Fine Structure
The current civil and criminal court revenue structures meet virtually all objectives set forth by the
Legislature. The structures have met the objectives by:
• Simplifying the statutory fee and ftne structure by reducing the number and types of fees and
ftnes;
• The statutory ftne structure and fee amounts are uniform across this state.
• Eliminating all "add-on" fees or assessments;
• Increasing the transparency of fees and fines by placing them in statute, with the exception of
a limited number offees and fme schedule established by Chief Justice Order;
• Reducing public and legal practitioners' transaction costs by making fees more predictable
and consistent;
• Accruing revenues to the General Fund, with the exception of the revenue dedicated to Legal
Aid Services;
• Distributing revenue through the budgetary process, with the exception of the statutory
distribution for Legal Aid Services;
• Creating structures that are compatible with the Oregon eCourt Program;
• The court fee structure has not adversely affected judicial authority to waive or defer fees or
to establish a payment plan for litigants; and
• The court fee structure should generate biennial revenue commensurate with the end-of
session revenue forecast.
2
-.
Recommendations: Civil FiUng Fee Structure
Monitor and review the following 7 civil filing fees during the 2013 Legislative Session:
I. Adoption, petition for first appearance;
2. Domestic Relations, motion after entry of dissolution, annulment, or separation judgment;
I
3. Domestic Relations, response to modification motion;
I
t4. Probate, filing annual or final accounting fee in probate or conservatorship proceedings;
5. Guardianship, initial filing;
6. Settlement Conference Party Fee, before a judge when proceeding in civil case; and
7. Foreign Judgment Fee.
Additionally, (a) the 2013 Legislative Assembly should monitor and review the identified civil
filing fees to determine the impact on the ability oflow and middle income people to access the
Courts; and (b) the Oregon Judicial Department should continue to provide periodic reports to the
Legislative Assembly during the 2013 Legislative Session and during the 2013 -15 biennium on
the utilization of fee waivers and deferrals
Recommendations: State Court Faclllties and Security & County Law Ubraries
I. Support for court facilities and security should continue as an allocation from the Criminal
Fine Account (CFA), and the priority payment on fine revenue to the CFA should be
continued to replace portions of the County Assessment that previously funded the programs;
2. The 2013 Legislative Assembly should review and consider proposals from the Chief Justice
for the use ofmonies in the State Court Facilities and Security Account;
3. The 2013 Legislative Assembly should develop options for strategic funding partnerships
with county governments to address urgent capital improvement needs of court facilities;
4. Support for county law libraries and county law library services should continue through an
appropriation from the General Fund; and
5. The 2013 Legislative Assembly should review a proposal developed by the Oregon Library
Association for the establishment ofa statewide law library service program to expand and
ensure online access to legal resources for pro se litigants.
Recommendations; Criminal Fine Structure
1. The levels of the CFA allocations in House Bill 2712 do not replace all of the jail assessment
revenues previously provided to local courts. As a result, the dedicated funding to counties
for jail operations in the current biennium is estimated to be $3.8 million less than what
counties would have received under the old county jail assessment. To correct this, the
Committee recommends that the 2011-13 biennium CFA allocation to counties be increased
by $3.8 million, to correct this funding shortfall before the end ofthe current fISCal year.
2. The 2013 Legislative Assembly should review and consider a different division between the
state and local governments regarding the increase in priority payment and any changes be
applied to the 2011-13 biennium. The impact ofthe priority status on the required $60
payment to the state from fine collections should be further reviewed to quantify its
consequences to local government and the state.
3. The allocation to the Law Enforcement Medical Liability Fund was also set at a level that did
not replace what the Fund had been receiving fromjustice and municipal courts. The amount
of this shortfall is approximately $600,000. The Committee does not recommend an
allocation adjustment for the current biennium, however, the allocation for the 2013-15
biennium should be increased to provide support to the Fund at historic levels.
3
I
1
.' . .
.. -. .
mtttmbODDmw~t~ ...
~{jiTWD·· ..
~.tp.tou,Jtt:J$r••J1>~AMI,ORDERBI1t .
t.
/
I
~ORDER"N().lUlV'
PABB01lflt
/ I
January 1,2013
Joint Interim Committee on
State Courts Revenue Structure
Membership:
Sen. Floyd Prozanski, Co-Chair
Rep. Phil Barnhart, Co-Chair
Sen. Chip Shields
Sen. Doug Whitsett
Rep. Wayne Krieger
Rep. Andy Olson
Douglas Bray
Commissioner Deborah Kafoury
Christopher Kent
Randall Tosh
Staff:
Steve Bender
JolmBorden
Erin Seiler
Joint Interim Committee on
State Courts Revenue Structure
Report to 2013 Legislature
1
Executive Summary
In 2011, the 761JJ. Legislative Assembly enacted House Bill 2710. The measure established a ten
member Joint Interim Committee on State Courts Revenue Structure (the Committee) to review all
state court fees and fines; monitor aU legislation passed by the Seventy-sixth Legislative Assembly
relating to court fees and fines, and evaluate the effect of the exercise ofjudicial discretion on
revenues generated by fmes.
The principles that the Committees must consider in its review and evaluation are:
a) Fee and fme amounts should be transparent and easy to access and administer.
b) Fee and fme amounts should be equitable and fair.
c) The court fee structure should not adversely impact access to justice.
d) The court fee structure should not adversely affect judicial authority to waive or defer fees or
to establish a payment plan for litigants.
e) The statutory fee structure and fee amounts should be uniform across this state.
t) AU state court revenue sources should be easily identifiable and reflected in statute.
g) The court fee structure should generate biennial revenue commensurate with the end-of
session revenue forecast.
h) Fees and fines should be a fixed dollar amount.
i) Surcharges and assessments should not be imposed on fees or fmes.
j) Fines for violations should be uniform in state courts, justice courts and municipal court.
k) Revenues from fees and fines should not be dedicated
1) Give due consideration to the fairness ofthose fees and the financial burdens placed on the
parties who are ultimately responsible for the payment of the fees.
The Committee was required to issue a report, identifying statutes and court practices that do not
conform to identified principles and recommend changes.
Findings Regarding Civil Fee and Criminal Fine Structure
The current civil and criminal court revenue structures meet virtually all objectives set forth by the
Legislature. The structures have met the objectives by:
• Simplifying the statutory fee and fine structure by reducing the number and types of fees and
fmes;
• The statutory fine structure and fee amounts are uniform across this state.
• Eliminating all "add-on" fees or assessments;
• Increasing the transparency of fees and fines by placing them in statute, with the exception of
a limited number of fees and fine schedule established by Chief Justice Order;
• Reducing public and legal practitioners' transaction costs by making fees more predictable
and consistent;
• Accruing revenues to the General Fund, with the exception of the revenue dedicated to Legal
Aid Services;
• Distributing revenue through the budgetary process, with the exception of the statutory
distribution for Legal Aid Services;
• Creating structures that are compatible with the Oregon eCourt Program;
• The court fee structure has not adversely affected judicial authority to waive or defer fees or
to establish a payment plan for litigants; and
• The court fee structure should generate biennial revenue commensurate with the end-of
session revenue forecast.
2
Recommendations: Civil Filing Fee Structure
Monitor and review the following 7 civil filing fees during the 2013 Legislative Session:
I. Adoption, petition for first appearance;
2. Domestic Relations, motion after entry ofdissolution, annulment, or separation judgment;
3. Domestic Relations, response to modification motion;
4. Probate, filing annual or final accounting fee in probate or conservatorship proceedings;
5. Guardianship, initial filing;
6. Settlement Conference Party Fee, before a judge when proceeding in civil case; and
7. Foreign Judgment Fee.
Additionally, (a) the 2013 Legislative Assembly should monitor and review the identified civil
filing fees to determine the impact on the ability oflow and middle income people to access the
Courts; and (b) the Oregon Judicial Department should continue to provide periodic reports to the
Legislative Assembly during the 2013 Legislative Session and during the 2013-15 biennium on
the utilization of fee waivers and deferrals
Recommendations: State Court Facilities and Security & County Law Libraries
I. Support for court facilities and security should continue as an allocation from the Criminal
Fine Account (CFA), and the priority payment on fine revenue to the CFA should be
continued to replace portions ofthe County Assessment that previously funded the programs;
2. The 2013 Legislative Assembly should review and consider proposals from the Chief Justice
for the use of monies in the State Court Facilities and Security Account;
3. The 2013 Legislative Assembly should develop options for strategic funding partnerships
with county governments to address urgent capital improvement needs of court facilities;
4. Support for county law libraries and county law library services should continue through an
appropriation from the General Fund; and
5. The 2013 Legislative Assembly should review a proposal developed by the Oregon Library
Association for the establishment ofa statewide law library service program to expand and
ensure online access to legal resources for pro se litigants.
Recommepdationsj Criminal Fine Structure
I. The levels ofthe CFA allocations in House Bill 2712 do not replace all of the jail assessment
revenues previously provided to local courts. As a result, the dedicated funding to counties
for jail operations in the current biennium is estimated to be $3.8 million less than what
counties would have received under the old county jail assessment. To correct this, the
Committee recommends that the 2011-13 biennium CFA allocation to counties be increased
by $3.8 million, to correct this funding shortfall before the end ofthe current fIscal year.
2. The 2013 Legislative Assembly should review and consider a different division between the
state and local governments regarding the increase in priority payment and any changes be
applied to the 2011-13 biennium. The impact ofthe priority status on the required $60
payment to the state from fine collections should be further reviewed to quantify its
consequences to local government and the state.
3. The allocation to the Law Enforcement Medical Liability FUnd was also set at a level that did
not replace what the Fund had been receiving from justice and municipal courts. The amount
of this shortfall is approximately $600,000. The Committee does not recommend an
allocation adjustment for the current biennium, however, the allocation for the 2013-15
biennium should be increased to provide support to the Fund at historic levels.
3
,
I
In 2011, the 76 th Legislative Assembly enacted House Bill 2710. The measure updated and
simplified the statutory revenue and distribution structure for civil fIling fees and assessments.
The measure eliminated all "add-on" fees or assessments and distributed revenue through the
budgetary process to those entities previously funded by dedicated filing fees with the exception
ofLegal Aid Services. It established a direct $11.9 million distribution to Legal Aid Services
from a General Fund account through the Oregon Judicial Department. In addition, House Bill
2710 established the Joint Interim Committee on State Courts Revenue Structure.
In 2011, the 76 tb Legislative Assembly enacted House Bill 2712. The measure updated and
simplified the statutory revenue and distribution structure related to criminal fines, assessments,
and other financial penalties imposed upon conviction for felonies, misdemeanors, and violations
other than parking infractions. All presumptive fine amounts (Class A Violation -Class D
Violations) were put into statute, and judicial discretion was increased regarding the fmal fine
amount that can be imposed, allowing up to 50 percent reduction below statutory fine amount.
The measure required local justice, county, and municipal courts to remit $60 to the state
Criminal Fine Account, in lieu of the Unitary Assessment and the County Assessment that were
both eliminated. In addition, the bill established Criminal Fine Account allocations to fund
programs previously supported from assessment revenues, including from the local court security
and the State Court Facilities Security Account components ofthe former County Assessment.
Joint Interim Committee on State Courts Revenue Structure.. House Bm 2710 (201l)
The Committee consisted of three members of the Senate (Sen. Floyd Prozanski, Co-Chair, Sen.
Chip Shields, and Sen. Doug Whitsett) appointed by the President of the Senate and three
members ofthe House of Representatives (Rep. Phil Barnhart, Co-Chair, Rep. Wayne Krieger,
and Rep. Andy Olson) appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. There were
four non-voting liaisons appointed to the Committee. The members were: Douglas Bray,
Multnomah County Trial Court Administrator, appointed by the Chief Justice ofthe Supreme
Court; Commissioner Deborah Kafoury, appointed by the Association of Oregon Counties;
Attorney Christopher Kent, appointed by the Oregon State Bar; and Randall Tosh, Attorney for
the City of Salem, appointed by League of Oregon Cities.
House Bill 271 0 specified the interim committee objectives as follows:
The interim committee shall conduct a review of all state court fees and fines. In
conducting this review, the committee shall consider the following principles:
(a) Fee and fme amounts should be transparent and easy to access and administer.
(b) Fee and fme amounts should be equitable and fair.
(c) The court fee structure should not adversely impact access to justice.
(d) The court fee structure should not adversely affect judicial authority to waive
or defer fees or to establish a payment plan for litigants.
(e) The statutory fee structure and fee amounts should be uniform across this
state.
(f) All state court revenue sources should be easily identifiable and reflected in
statute.
(g) The court fee structure should generate biennial revenue commensurate with
the end-of-session revenue forecast.
(h) Fees and fmes should be a fixed dollar amount.
4
I
(i) Surcharges and assessments should not be imposed on fees or fmes.
(j) Fines for violations should be uniform in state courts, justice courts and I
municipal court.
(k) Revenues from fees and fines should not be dedicated. !
In conducting the review and making recommendations relating to the court fee structure, the
committee shall give due consideration to the fairness ofthose fees and the financial burdens
placed on the parties who are ultimately responsible for the payment ofthe fees.
Upon completion of the review, the Committee was required to identity statutes and court
practices that were not in conformity with the principles and issue a report not later than January
1, 2013. The report described statutes and court practices that did not conform to the principles
and recommended changes. A copy ofthe report was delivered to the House Committee on
Judiciary, the Senate Committee on Judiciary and the Joint Committee on Ways and Means.
The Committee adopted the Joint Interim Committee on State Courts Revenue Structure work
plan and work plan tracker. The Joint Interim Committee on State Courts Revenue Structure
work plan tracker outlined the overarching policy objective, key policy questions, and decision
making parameters upon which the Committee based their final recommendations
The overarching policy objective was:
• Oregon should have a Judicial Branch revenue and fee structure that is equitable,
understandable, and transparent and stable, to ensure access to justice and to ensure that
the cost using the state courts is appropriate to the benefits received.
The review process involved the Committee holding public hearings to receive testimony from
members oflaw enforcement community, the Oregon Judicial Department (OID), local
governments and local courts, legal practitioners, and users ofthe judicial system. The
Committee sought input from constituencies and stakeholders of the civil and criminal judicial
systems in order to answer key policy questions regarding the implementation and impact ofthe
current civil filing fee and criminal fine structure. The questions stemmed from four areas related
to the implementation:
• What has been the impact on the revenue structure?
o Has General Fund support ofthe Judicial Branch increased?
o Has revenue generated since implementation of2011 legislation been
commensurate with revenue forecasts?
o Does all revenue accrue to distinct General Fund accounts?
• What has been the impact on the statutory revenue structure?
o Are all state court revenue sources easily identifiable in statute?
o Are all fees fixed dollar amounts?
o Are there any fee "add-ons" or surcharges?
• What are the sources of revenue?
o How do the types and levels of fees and fines impact access to justice and equity?
o What is the impact of increased judicial discretion?
o Does the fee structure adversely affect judicial authority to waive or defer fees?
• How is revenue utilized?
5
o Is any of the revenue dedicated?
o Are revenue distributions easy to identify and administer?
o Is revenue distributed through the legislative budget process?
o What is the level of funding provided to entities funded by judicial revenue?
• How are the civil and criminal structures administered?
o Are fee and fme structures uniform throughout the state?
o Are fee and fme amounts transparent and easy to administer?
o How have new civil and criminal structures impacted state and local courts?
6
Statutory Review
7
Civil Revenue Structure Review
The Joint Interim Committee on State Courts Revenue Structure held its first meeting of the
2011-2012 Interim on Monday. May 21 st from 11:00 AM - 1:00 PM at the Oregon State Capitol
in Salem. Since this was the Committee's first meeting. the first tasks were the adoption of
committee rules and work plan and the introduction of the members.
John Borden, Legislative Fiscal Office, summarized, the work plan, the work plan tracker;
identified the charge of the Committee; key policy questions; and evaluation methodology.
The work plans were adopted by the Committee.
In addition, Mr. Borden addressed a key policy review question, "Is the Judicial Branch
primarily supported by the General Fund?" (Exhibit). He explained that 95.8o/00fthe Judicial
Branch funding comes from the General Fund, which is, roughly, 4.2% of the General Fund. Of
the General Fund monies allocated to the Judicial Branch, roughly two-thirds or between $225
250 million are monies generated by civil and criminal fees/fines and the remainder is "raw"
General Fund money.
Civil Filing Fee Implementation
Review 2012 Legislative Session Cbanges
Marisa James, Office of Legislative Counsel, provided the Committee a memorandum
summarizing the changes to the civil filing fee structure made during the 2011 and 2012
Legislative Sessions (Exhibit).
Civil Filing Fee Revenue Forecast
Josh Lehner, Office of Economic Analysis, provided a memo_that gave an overview of the
General Fund Court Revenue forecast lExhibit). The revenue forecast was provided with the
caveat that at that time, revenue collection data was available through March 2012 and the
reforms have effectively been in place for either 3 or 6 months and thus the full revenue impact
remains unknown. The State Court Fee revenue is the sum of civil filing fees (68% of the
projected total revenue) and fees assessed on offense cases and the state's share of parking fines
(32%). Using the latest revenue forecast, June 2012, State Court Fee Revenues were projected to
total $128.0 million for 2011-13.
The structural revenue reforms implemented by House Bill 2710 (2011) have led to revenues
being in a transitory state, as the system adjusts to the changes. Specifically how much revenues
will change and in which categories the changes occur, is still somewhat of an open ended
question as not enough time has passed from implementation to conduct a full assessment.
Recent revenue collections for State Court Fees have significantly outpaced both the underlying
revenue forecast and the House Bill 2710 impact statement estimates.
David Moon, Oregon Judicial Department, provided the Committee a memo explaining how
changes in revenue distribution and flow of state court fees into the General Fund account for the
increase in State Court Fee Revenue projections (Exhibit). In the General Fund State Court Fee
revenue forecast, revenue generated from civil filing fees is expected to be approximately $87.03
million, which is $2.03 million above the original revenue target of $85 million. Overall, om
8
l
I
1
identified that CiIcuit Court case filing are declining in civil case types and violation, which
could reduce revenue collected during the 2011-2013 biennium.
Civil Flling Fee Implementation
Doug Bray, Multnomah Circuit Court Administrator, testified that, as a trial court administrator
having to implement House Bill 2110, the bill was "very successful." He stated that the new civil
fee structure is predictable, fixed, and in statute and simplifies the distribution process by
eliminating add on fees. Mr. Bray stated that equity and amount offees remains at the forefront
ofconcern within the Judicial Branch in order to ensure citizens have access to justice. The
Judicial Branch, led by the Chief Justice, established a task force to look at fee waivers and
deferrals in order to ensure people are able to access both options (Exhibit). Mr. Bray concluded
that that the new system is simple, the distributions are simple, and the system mechanics are
simple and will make it easy to roll forward with the implementation of eCourt.
Gerry Gaydos, Oregon State Bar, testified that the civil filing fee schedule adopted in House Bill
2710 has implemented a filing structure that is more predictable and uniform (Exhibit). He stated
that the fee schedule improves transparency and predictability and is preferable to members of
the Oregon State Bar (OSB). Mr. Gaydos did identify several specific fees that should be
monitored and could be adjusted: fees for adoptions, requests for notice in guardianships,
accountings in probate cases, settlement conferences and supplemental judgment fees.
Russ Lipetzky, Family Law Attorney, testified that feedback from members of the Family Law
Section ofOSB about the new filing fee structure has been positive. He stated that according to
his colleagues the structure is more transparent, predictable, and consistent. He did suggest that
the increase in adoption filing fees could be reduced and stipulated supplemental judgment fee
could be reduced.
Paul Snider, Association ofOregon Counties, testified about the impact of House Bill 2712
(2011) on revenue of local governments and municipal and justice courts. He addressed the
possible factors impacting the level of criminal fines revenues and ways to try to account for
these factors in order to understand the impact ofthe new fines.
9
State Court Facilities and Security & County Law Libraries Review
The Joint Interim Committee on State Courts Revenue Structure held its second meeting of the
2011-2012 Interim on Wednesday, September 12th from 11 :00 AM -12:30 PM at the Oregon
State Capitol in Salem
Overview on funding status of State Court Facilities & Court Security
Dave Heynderickx, Office of Legislative Counsel, reviewed the legislative history of the
relationship between state and local courts. He explained that in 1983 the state took over
responsibility for the operation of county courts and county was responsible for providing court
security and suitable and sufficient court facilities. He explained that many of county court
facilities are in "very bad shape" and in need of structural improvements or even replacement,
but counties and the state lack the financial resources to address the current needs. Mr.
Heynderickx explained that in 2008 the state conducted a comprehensive assessment of all
county court facilities and determined that it would have cost approximately $850 million (in
2008 dollars) to address all the needs of county court facilities.
Mr. Heynderickx explained that there have not been funds generated from the state to assist in
the improvement ofcounty court facilities. He also noted that in 2011, money from the County
Assessment was redirected into an account for funding court security at the Oregon Supreme
Court and State Court Administrator's office and to pass through to individual counties for
purpose of providing security in county court house. In addition, he referenced House Bill 2712
(20 II), which included a $3 add-on to criminal fines to support all court facilities and which
expanded the purposes of the State Court Facilities Security Account to include support for
county courthouse security and for capital improvements to courthouses and state court facilities.
Currently, it is the responsibility of the Chief Justice ofthe Supreme Court to develop a plan for
court facility improvements.
Phil Lemman, Oregon Judicial Department, provided the Committee a high level overview of
how court facility account money has been used by: the Oregon Supreme Court and State Court
Administrator's office; distributed to counties; and what OID intends to request in its 2013-15
budget package. He explained that OJD allocated money from the CF A in three ways:
• First, to counties for court house security, how that money was spent was determined by
the county officials without OID oversight;
• Second, for State Court Security -OID has established statewide minimum standards for
courthouse security, which led to physical improves in some courts. He noted that money
in the account had been swept in the 2012 budget rebalance and it limited ability of OID
to implement improvements. To date, OID had addressed court security issues in Eastern
Oregon; and
• Third, for capital improvements, which would enable counties to strategically leverage
other monies to get over the hump in providing facilities and remodeling facilities?
Examples cited included Multnomah County Courthouse, and the Union County and
Curry County Courthouses, which need replacement of facilities.
The Committee asked questions regarding how much money was available to each county in
during the 2011-12 biennium for court security and facilities and whether OID had other
10
resources to send to counties to address the court needs; what the reasons were for shifting court
administration costs to the state in 1983; and who was responsible for security in courts.
Overview on funding status of County Law Libraries
Steve Bender, Legislative Fiscal Office, summarized a memorandum that explains the current
county library funding structure (Exhibit). Mr. Bender explained that prior to the passage of
House Bill 2710 (20 II), county law libraries were supported by filing fee revenues. Courts were
authorized to establish a law library fee not greater than 28 percent of the civil filing fee.
Following the passage of House Bill 2710, which eliminated the law library fee, counties now
receive a General Fund appropriation each biennium for the operation of law libraries. He stated
that the General Fund appropriation in 2011-13 of $7.4 million was based on the average
biennial amount generated from the law library fee during the 2005-07 and 2007-09 biennia.
PubUc testimony on funding of State Court Facilities & Court Security and County Law
Libraries
Representative Wally Hicks, House District 3, provided testimony on the negative impact that
lack of financial resources has had on public safety, court security, and law enforcement
resources in Josephine County (Exhibit). He described the efforts made by the Josephine County
Sheriff and Oregon State Troopers to ensure law enforcement is to citizens and available to
provide judicial staff and patrons security while in court.
Janet Webster, member, Oregon Library Association (OLA), described the need for the state to
adopt a new approach to how counties provide legal resources throughout the state. She reported
to the Committee that an OLA work group has produced a report that suggests that the state
develop a virtual and 24 hour statewide law library program that will satisfy the statutory
requires, provides legal resources and be cost effective.
Diana Hadley, Librarian, Douglas County Law, described the importance oflaw libraries to
litigants who do not have access to legal aid or attorney services. She explained that it is
necessary to have a library location as a resource because, in rural parts of the state, there are
people who do not have access to Internet services. She explained how she provides materials for
the library and the impact of budget cuts.
Jacque Jurkins, Librarian, Multnomah County Law, addressed the importance of maintaining the
one-on-one service that is offered by public law library and it should be lost as we become a
more virtual society.
Review of Civil FUing Fee Recommendations
Steve Bender, Legislative Fiscal Office, summarized the memorandum related to the civil filing
fee recommendations based on testimony received at the May 21,2012 meeting (Exhibit). The
fmdings of the Committee related to the current civil court revenue structure were:
• It meets national best practices and objectives set forth by the Legislature;
• Preliminary revenue forecast tracks with the state's civil filing fee close-of-session
forecast, and forecasted collection rates remain unchanged from previous biennia; and
• There has been an increase in fee deferral rates with a corresponding decrease in fee
waiver rates (fee and waiver statutes have remained unchanged since before the 2011
11
legislative session). The Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court had convened a
workgroup to study waiver and deferral rates and adopted a new Chief Justice Order on
deferral and waiver fees (Exhibit).
The Committee did not adopt the recommendations in the memorandum during the meeting;
instead, it requested follow-up information on two issues:
• How much General Fund support was provided to the Judicial Branch in the 2011 -2012
budget; and
• Specific information on the amount of administrative savings that OJD has experienced
as a result of the new structure.
12
Criminal Revenue Structure Review
The Joint Interim Committee on State Courts Revenue Structure held its third meeting ofthe
2011-2012 Interim on Thursday, October 18 1
\ 2012 from 8:30 AM -12:30 PM at the Oregon
State Capitol in Salem.
Review and Approval of ClvU Flliog Fee Recommendations
Steve Bender, Legislative Fiscal Office, summarized the revised memorandum relating to the
civil filing fee recommendations based on testimony received at the May 21,2012 meeting
(Exhibit). The fmdings ofthe Committee relating to the cwrent civil court revenue structure are:
• It meets national best practices and objectives set forth by the Legislature;
• Preliminary revenue forecast tracks with the state's civil filing fee close-of-session
forecast, and forecasted collection rates remain unchanged from previous biennia; and
• There has been an increase in fee deferral rates with a corresponding decrease in fee
waiver rates. In 2010, the Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court convened a work:
group regarding deferral and fee waiver rates, resulting in Chief Justice Order No. 10
045, allowing the court to grant a temporary deferral of filing fees and court costs on an
individual fee basis until the conclusion of the case.
The Committee did not adopt the recommendations in the memorandum during the meeting.
Review and Approval of State Court FacUlties and Security and Law IJbrary Funding
Recommendations
Steve Bender, Legislative Fiscal Office, reviewed the memorandum relating to state court
facilities and security and law library funding recommendations based on testimony received at
the September 12,2012 committee meeting (Exhibit). He reviewed information provided by
Legislative Counsel and the Oregon Judicial Department with regards to how state court facility
and facility security needs are financed. Counties are required, by law, to provide suitable and
sufficient facilities for the circuit courts. He briefly summarized the 2008 analysis conducted by
the Interim Committee on Court Facilities and that the analysis concluded that the total cost to
mitigate deficiencies in all county court facilities would be approximately $843 million.
Mr. Bender noted that available state funding to address State Court Facilities issues has been
limited. Prior to 20 II session, a continuing funding source had been a portion of the County
Assessment that was added to offense fines and the amount added varied based on the fine
issued. He noted that Class B violations were the most common category ofviolations
considered by the courts, $7.20 would typically be added for the county's court facilities security
account, and $5 would be added for the State Court Facilities Security Account.
In 2011, House Bill 2712 eliminated the County Assessment, including the components that
funded the county court facilities security accounts and the State Court Facilities Security
Account. The bill replaced the County Assessment (and the Unitary Assessment) with the
requirement that the fIrSt $60 collected on offense fmes be allocated to the state Criminal Fine
Account, before any of the remaining fine collections were transferred to, or retained by,
counties or municipalities. A total of$9,843,214 was allocated from the Criminal Fine Account
to the State Court Facilities and Security Account and the county court facilities security
accounts. The allowable uses ofthe state account were expanded to include: transferring money
13
to the county court facilities security accounts and funding capital improvements (not strictly
security-related) for courthouses and state court facilities.
In addition, Mr. Bender reviewed the testimony provided regarding the funding status of county
law library services including recommendations from the Oregon Library Association regarding
a new system for funding the law libraries by establishing a statewide law library service
program to provide expanded access to legal resources online. He noted that prior to 2011
session, county law libraries were directly supported from an assessment added to civil filing
fees and courts were authorized to establish a law library fee not greater than 28 percent of the
civil filing fee. In 2011, House Bill 2710 established a legislative intent that counties receive a
(General Fund) appropriation each biennium for the pwposes ofoperating law libraries or
providing law library services and $7.1 million was appropriated from the General Fund to the
Judicial Department, for distributions to the counties for law libraries and law library services
during the 2011-13 biennium.
Finally, Mr. Bender reviewed the recommendations to the Committee relating to court facility
and facility security funding and to county law library services funding which included:
• Recommending that support for court facilities and facility security continue through the
mechanism in which support is allocated from the Criminal Fine Account (CF A), and the
priority payment on fme revenue to the CFA is continued to replace the portions of the
County Assessment that had previously funded these programs;
• Recommending that the Legislative Assembly review and consider proposals from the
Chief Justice for the use ofmonies in the State Court Facilities and Security Account;
• Recommending that support for county law libraries and county law library services
continue through an appropriation from the General Fund; and
• Recommending that the Legislative Assembly review a proposal developed by the
Oregon Library Association to establish a statewide law library service program to
provide expanded access to legal resources online.
The Committee did not adopt the recommendations in the memorandum during the meeting.
Report on administrative savings in Oregon Judicial Department related to
implementation of House Bill 2710 (2011) and House Bill 2712 (2011)
Phil Lemman, Oregon Judicial Department, presented the report on administrative savings
relating to the implementation ofthe structural changes relating to the civil filing fee and
criminal fines systems, requested by the Committee (Exhibit). Mr. Lemman explained the
changes to the civil filing fee structure as a result of House Bill 2710 and how the civil filing
process has been simplified and standardized across all counties.
He explained that prior to the implementation ofHouse Bill 2710; the civil fee schedule had
become increasingly complex and required more staff time to receipt civil cases. During this
time, there was no additional circuit court staff to do the additional work. and it was coupled
with significant staff reduction. The implementation of House Bill 271 0 reduced administrative
staff time spent receipting civil cases by a projected 116,480 hours during the 2011-13 biennium
compared to 2009·11. This represents a cost avoidance of $1,620,948, compared to the 2007-09
14
bienmwn of $607,855 in cost avoidance. In addition, he addressed savings to Central OJD staff;
how the structure facilitates the statewide implementation ofeCourt; and savings to litigants.
Criminal Fines Overview
Review 2012 Statutory Changes
Doug Bray, Multnomah County Court Administrator, addressed the revisions made in 2011
Session to both the structure for the distribution of revenue collected from financial obligations
imposed in criminal actions and in the amount of the financial obligations. He stated that the
changes to the composition of financial obligations were greatly simplified because prior to
2011,40 pages of tables and calculations were necessary to provide the true amount of the
financial obligation to be written on a citation (Exhibit). The current "Schedule of Fines for
Violations" is four pages in length and two of those pages are the cover sheet and a narrative
explanation. The third and fourth pages are all one needs today to determine the financial
obligation to be imposed on conviction based on the classification of the violation offense.
In addition, he explained that the statutory changes led to the "Chief Justice Order Establishing
New Uniform Fine Schedule for Violations Filed in Circuit Courts". This docwnent provides a
uniform schedule for violation bureau financial sanctions across all 36 circuit courts. Therefore,
the new fine structure coupled with the Uniform Fine Schedule is equitable and consistent across
all circuit courts; it is easier to administrator compared to the former Base Fine Schedule, and it
is possible for anyone to see the statue and consult the tables and understand the source of the
sanction and the amount.
Dave Heynderickx, Special Counsel to the lA:gislative Counsel, outlined the statutory changes
with the criminal fines structure encompassed in House Bil12712 (2011) and House Bil14167
(2012) <Exhibit). Mr. Heynderickx reviewed the guiding principles and goals established in
2009-2010 by the Joint Interim Committee on State Justice System Revenues with regards to
criminal fine structure and identified what had and had not been accomplished in House Bill
2712 and House Bil14167 (Exhibit).
Steve Bender, Legislative Fiscal Office, explained the impacts of the changes to criminal fines
structure on circuit and local court revenues, of the priority payment on the revenue distribution,
and of the status of the $60 payment (Exhibit>. Mr. Bender explained how local court revenues
have been affected by the reductions in fine amounts and the reduction in the nwnber of violation
convictions. In addition he identified that the impact that the priority status on the $60 payment
has on local court revenues is uncertain, however the replacement ofthe fonner Unitary and
County Assessments with a $60 required payment should, in and of itself, have no negative
impact to counties or municipalities. Even though total funding was not affected by this change,
counties are receiving more oftheir funding from the state, and less from their justice courts,
than had previously been the case.
The Committee questioned how House Bill 2712 changed the nature of the revenue stream
between local and state government and whether there is an auditing system in place to ensure a
county is expending jail operation and drug and alcohol program moneys as required.
IS
Criminal Fines Account Revenue Forecast
Josh Lehner, Office of Economic Analysis, Department of Administrative Services, provided an
overview of the General Fund Court Revenue forecast related to the State Court Fees and the
Criminal Fine Account (CF A) (Exhibit). He explained that the total CFA resources, as of
September 2012, are projected to total $126.8 million for 2011-13, with dedicated distributions
and allocations of$58.1 million, leaving the General Fund portion at $68.7 million. Mr. Lehner
stated that since the close of the 2011 session, the CF A General Fund forecast has declined $11.9
million and the changes can broadly be divided into two components:
• Changes House Bill 2712 made to the dedicated distributions and allocations, which
when fully incorporated into the forecast resulted in a lowering ofthe General Fund
portion by $9.3 million.
• Underlying forecast changes more generally, which have lowered the General Fund
portion by $2.6 million. Actual revenue collections in recent quarters have matched
forecast, however the growth rates moving fOlWard have been lowered over the past
year, resulting in the forecast reductions.
Mr. Lehner reminded the Committee that the full impact that House Bill 2712 has on Criminal
Fine Account revenues remains unknown as the new system has been in place for less than a
year.
David Moon, Director, Business & Fiscal Services Division, Oregon Judicial Department,
explained the collection and distribution amounts for the revenue generated by circuit court
offense case types for the CF A (Exhibit>. He explained that the OID Criminal Fine Account
revenue through August 2012 is $60,086,954 and other fme revenue collected in the amount of
$10,362,342 was distributed directly to cities and counties. Mr. Moon explained that the impact
of House Bill 2712 law changes has not been a predominant factor in revenue generation this
biennium but the impact will become greater as more violations are cited under the new law. In
addition, he identified that circuit court case fIlings are declining in violations and
misdemeanors. The net effect of the decline in violations cited into circuit court, coupled with
lower fine amounts implemented as a result of House Bill 2712, will reduce revenue collected.
He explained that the lowering of the fine amounts, coupled with the increase in judicial
discretion to reduce fines from 25 percent to 50 percent ofthe presumptive fme amount will
result in less revenue collected in circuit courts. However, the violations cited into justice and
municipal courts may offset some of that revenue loss from the cireuit courts.
The Committee questioned if fines and convictions are both going down; whether the downward
trajectory of violations is exclusive to circuit fIlings or municipal and justice courts are
experiencing a similar trend and when will enough time have passed to establish validity in the
forecast projections regarding CFA revenue and caseloads.
Testimony on Criminal Fines Implementation
Circuit Courts
Doug Bray, Multnomah Cireuit Court Administrator, addressed revenue savings within the
circuit court system following the implementation of House Bill 2712. He explained that the
measure resulted in significant changes in fiscal policy and distribution of funds within the
16
f
II
i
i
.
judicial funding system, but the work being by done the officer, court staff, andjudges was not
significantly changed. The structural change implemented by House Bill 2712 resulted in theI simplitying of the fme structure, from ticket issuance and determination ofpresumptive fine to
the process for the final adjudication of the fine to be paid. Mr. Bray pointed out that there was
not a significant cost savings in the simplification, but the new schedule eliminated the! complexity and allowed for the clear source ofauthority. In addition, the Chief Justice developed
a unifonn fme schedule to address the lack of consistency within violation bureaus process for I reducing fines. The Chief Justice Order was implemented uniformly across all circuit courts and I established consistency in the discretion to reduce fmes based on driving record.
j Finally, Mr. Bray identified how the changes improved access to justice by allowing moreI discretion to judicial officers around fines. He noted that it may have the revenue impact with the
increase in discretion, but that is yet to be known because default judgments continue to be the! primary resolution in violation cases.
I Municipal Courts
Scott Winkels, Lobbyist, League ofOregon Cities, addressed the impact of the implementation
of House Bill 2712 on local government and the relationship between the decrease in court fme
revenue and decrease of officers on the street in local jurisdiction (Exhibit). He cited the impact
of the changes in the fines and revenue distribution on the fmancial stability on Beaverton
Municipal Courts. Mr. Winkels clarified that municipal courts do not receive any monies from
theCFA.
In addition, Mr. Winkels shared possible statutory changes to address the revenue concerns in
municipal court systems: The recommendation include:
I
I • Establishing an equal priority payment to local governments or shared priority to
compensate for poor collection rates ofthe $60 assessment;
• Sliding scale on the $60 assessment to eliminate the financial disincentive to provide full
leniency on lower level fines; and
• Divorce local ordinance violations from the $60 assessments Le. vagrancy, dog
ordinances.
The Committee asked if a sliding scale for fmes was not already addressed through the court I
minimum and maximum fee schedule and ifthe increase in discretion is good or bad for the
public.
Justice Courts
Jad Lemhouse, Justice of the Peace, Linn County, summarized recent Linn County Justice Court
funding and compared revenue distribution after the implementation 2009 surcharge and after the
implementation of20ll changes (Exhibit), He explained the immediate impacts ofthe loss of
revenue since the implementation ofHouse Bill 2712,
The Committee questioned the relationship between the downturn in the filing forecast and
availability of officers to cite traffic violations,
17
Danny Jordan. Administrator, Jackson County, addressed the funding relationship between
Jackson County Justice Court and the County's traffic team. He explained revenue in Jackson
County has and will continue to trend downward as a result of the implementation ofthe changes
in House Bill 2712 (Exhibit). Mr. Jordan stated the reduction in revenue could result in the
closure the Jackson County Justice Court and disbanding of the traffic team because the fine
reductions means that the county is collecting less revenue from less fmes amount (Exhibit).
The Committee asked if Jackson County was receiving the amount ofmoney from the CFA that
the state was supposed to return; how does Jackson County allocate traffic team expenses; and
about the relationship between the operating costs ofjustice courts and traffic team.
Oregon State Sberiffs' Association
Undersheriff Troy Clausen, Marion County Sheriff's Office, stated concern about the remittance
of the jail assessment monies to counties from the CF A. He was concerned that the projected
amount of CFA revenue for counties was lower than it should be based on historic funding
levels. He asked that the amount be reviewed with detail information about how the amount was
determined.
Public Testimony
Alex Cuyler, Intergovernmental Relations Manager, Lane County, addressed the analytics
around County Assessment and suggested language to account for historical revenue for jail
assessment (Exhibit) and concern about the accounting of CF A revenue being sent back to local
courts for court security funding. He expressed concern about the ability ofjustice courts to
address collection issues and how decreases in collection of revenue and citations has resulted in
the closure of three of four justice court and traffic team in Lane County.
18
Findings and Recommendations
19
The Joint Interim Committee on State Courts Revenue Structure held its fmal meeting of the
2011-2012 Interim on Monday, December 10th, 2012 from 11:0 AM -12:30 PM at the Oregon State
Capitol in Salem. At the meeting, the Committee approved a series of general fmdings and three
sets of recommendation related to the: Civil Fee Structure; State Court Facilities and Security
and State Law Libraries; and Criminal Fee Structure. The Committee voted unanimously (4 - 0
2 (Excused: Sen. Shields and Rep. Olson» to approve each offollowing sets of
recommendations for considemtion by the 2013 Legislative Assembly.
General Findings Regarding Civil Fee and Criminal Fine Structure
The Committee made the following general fmdings regarding the current civil and criminal
court revenue structures. The Committee found that the current civil and criminal court revenue
structures meet virtually all objectives set forth by the Legislature. The structures have met the
objectives by:
• Simplifying the statutory fee and tine structure by reducing the number and types offees and
fines;
• The statutory tine structure and fee amounts are uniform across this state.
• Eliminating all "add-on" fees or assessments;
• Increasing the transparency of fees and fines by placing them in statute, with the exception of
a limited number offees and tine schedule established by Chief Justice Order;
• Reducing public and legal practitioners' transaction costs by making fees more predictable
and consistent;
• Accruing revenues to the General Fund, with the exception of the revenue dedicated to Legal
Aid Services;
• Distributing revenue through the budgetary process, with the exception ofthe statutory
distribution for Legal Aid Services;
• Creating structures that are compatible with the Oregon eCourt Progmm;
• The court fee structure has not adversely affected judicial authority to waive or defer fees or
to establish a payment plan for litigants; and
• The court fee structure should genemte biennial revenue commensurate with the end-of
session revenue forecasl
Civil Revenue Structure Recommendations
The Committee received testimony from Oregon Judicial Department, members of the Oregon
State Bar, and Oregon Office of Economic Analysis. The Committee did not identify the need
for any substantive law changes.
The Committee received a report the Oregon Judicial Department (Exhibit) and the Oregon
Office ofEconomic Analysis (Exhibit) that the preliminary revenue forecast tmcks with the
state's civil filing fee close-of-session forecast, and that forecasted collection mtes remain
unchanged from previous biennia. However, there has been an increase in fee deferral mtes with
a corresponding decrease in fee waiver mtes (fee and waiver statutes have remained unchanged
since before the 2011 legislative session). In 2010, the Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme
Court convened a work group regarding deferml and fee waiver rates, resulting in Chief Justice
Order No. L0-045, allowing the court to grant a tempomry deferml of filing fees and court costs
on an individual fee basis until the conclusion of the case.
20
The Committee received testimony that certain fee amounts merit review. These specific fees
are:
• Adoption, petition for first appearance ($240);
• Domestic Relations, motion after entry of dissolution, annulment, or separation judgment
($150);
• Domestic Relations, response to modification motion (SI50);
• Probate, filing annual or final accounting fee in probate or conservatorship proceedings
(varies from S30 to SI,005 depending upon value of filing);
• Guardianship, initial filing (SI 05);
• Settlement Conference Party Fee, before a judge when proceeding in civil case (S200);
and
• Foreign Judgment Fee ($240).
The Committee made the following recommendations related to the civil fee structure:
Monitor and review the following 7 civil filing fees during the 2013 Legislative
1. Adoption, petition for first appearance ($240);
2. Domestic Relations, motion after entry of dissolution, annulment, or separation
judgment ($150);
3. Domestic Relations, response to modification motion (SI50);
4. Probate, filing annual or fmal accounting fee in probate or conservatorship
proceedings (varies from S30 to $1,005 depending upon value of filing);
5. Guardianship, initial filing ($105);
6. Settlement Conference Party Fee, before a judge when proceeding in civil case
(S200); and
7. Foreign Judgment Fee.
Additionally, (a) the 2013 Legislative Assembly should monitor and review the identified
civil filing fees to determine the impact on the ability of low and middle income people to
access the Courts; and (b) the Oregon Judicial Department should continue to provide
periodic reports to the Legislative Assembly during the 2013 Legislative Session and during
the 2013-15 biennium on the utilization offee waivers and deferrals.
21
State Court Facilities and Security & County Law Libraries Recommendations
The Committee made the following general findings related to State Court Facilities & Court
Security and County Law Libraries:
• The funding available from the state specifically to address State Court Facilities issues
has been limited.
1. Prior to passage of House Bill 2712 (2011), a continuing funding source had been
a portion of the County Assessment that was added to offense fines. The County
Assessment included funding for both county court facilities security accounts
and for the State Court Facilities Security Account.
2. Money in the county court facilities security accounts is limited to providing
security at buildings that contain circuit court or justice court facilities. Money in
the State Court Facilities Security Account was limited to addressing security
issues in the buildings utilized by the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Oregon
Tax Court, or the offices of the State Court Administrator.
• In 2011, House Bill 2712 eliminated the County Assessment, including the components
that funded the county court facilities security accounts and the State Court Facilities
Security Account. The County Assessment was replaced with the requirement that the
first $60 collected on offense fmes be allocated to the state CF A. Subsequently, the
$9,843,214 was allocated from the CFA to the State Court Facilities and Security
Account and the county court facilities security accounts.
• The allowable uses ofthe State Court Facilities and Security Account were expanded to
include:
1. Transferring money to the county court facilities security accounts (i.e., support
for the county accounts is now distributed from the state to counties through the
State Court Facilities and Security Account); and
2. Funding capital improvements (not strictly security-related) for courthouses and
state court facilities.
The Committee finds that during the current biennium, with regards to State Court Facilities &
Court Security, the Legislative Assembly:
I. Transferred funding for county court facility security accounts and the State Court
Facilities Account from offense fine assessments (portions ofthe County Assessment) to
theCFA;
o Transferred $6.5 million from the State Court Facilities and Security Account to
the Geneml Fund to help address other budget needs of the Oregon Judicial
Department; and
o Authorized the Chief Justice to adopt a state court security plan.
2. Expanded allowable uses of the State Court Facilities and Security Account to include
capital improvements for courthouses and other state court facilities;
3. Established a priority payment to the Criminal Fine Account on offense fine revenue to
provide funding for court facility and security costs for both county courthouses and state
court facilities at ongoing levels;
4. Allocated funds from the CF A provide funding for the state and county accounts at the
prior biennium level; and
22
5. Adjusted fme amounts upward by $3 specifically to support expanded court facilities and
security expenditures above the prior biennium level, and allocated an additional
$2,278,919 from the Criminal Fine Account for this purpose.
The Committee finds with regards to County Law Libraries:
I. Funding for county law library and law library services was transferred from an
assessment added to civil filing fees to a General Fund appropriation.
2. The Legislature approved a $7.4 million General Fund appropriation for county law
library and law library services to continue funding at the average level provided over
the 2005-07 to 2007-09 biennium period, and later reduced support by 3.5% in 2012.
The Committee made the following recommendations related to the State Court Facilities &
Court Security and County Law Libraries:
• Support for court facilities and facility security should continue as an allocation from the
CFA, and the priority payment on fine revenue to the CFA should be continued to replace
the portions of the County Assessment that bad previously funded these programs;
• The 2013 Legislative Assembly should review and consider proposals from the Chief
Justice for the use of monies in the State Court Facilities and Security Account, including
any proposals that utilize the expanded purposes of the Account;
• The 2013 Legislative Assembly should develop options for strategic funding partnerships
with county governments to address urgent capital improvement needs of court facilities;
• Support for county law libraries and county law library services should continue through
an appropriation from the General Fund; and
• The 2013 Legislative Assembly should review a proposal developed by the Oregon
Library Association for the establishment ofa statewide law library service program to
expand and ensure online access to legal resources for pro se litigants.
23
,riminal Revenue Structure Recommendations
The Committee received testimony from Dave Heynderickx, Office of Legislative Counsel. Mr.
Heynderickx outlined the statutory changes with the criminal fines structure encompassed in
House Bill 2712 and House Bill 4167, 2012. He reviewed the guiding principles and goals
established in 2009-20 I 0 by the Joint Interim Committee on State Justice System Revenues with
regards to criminal fine structure and identified what bad and bad not been accomplished in
House Bill 2712 and House Bill 4167 .
Steve Bender, Legislative Fiscal Office, discussed the impacts of House Bill 2712 on state
budget and on the distribution offunds for county services. Prior to the 20 II session, the Interim
Committee on State Justice System Revenues approved outcome goals for criminal fme reform
that served as the basis for developing House Bill 2712. These included that the fine structure
should be as simple as possible, that the fme structure should be set forth in statute to ensure
transparency, that the new fine structure should not affect total revenues from fmes for
violations, and that the structure should not include fines or assessments that are dedicated to
specific purposes.
To acbieve these outcomes, the bill eliminated assessments that bad been added to violation
fmes, revised fine amounts to incorporate the repealed assessments, directed most fine revenue
received by state into the Criminal Fine Account, and allocated funds from the Criminal Fine
revenues that the bill eliminated. Subsequent adjustments generally reduced violation fines from
the levels previously in place (from the combination ofthe old fine and assessments amounts),
and extended the range ofjudicial discretion in setting the fme amounts actually imposed. The
former Interim Committee bad received testimony that the revenue loss from reducing fme
amounts might be partially offset by an increase in citations and by an increase in the proportion
offines that were fully paid. The funding support levels allocated from the Criminal Fine
Account were designed to provide revenue for the funded programs at the prior biennium level.
Before passage of the bill, however, fine amounts were increased by $3 to expand funding for the
State Court Facilities and Security Account.
Prior to House Bill 2712, both circuit courts and local courts were responsible for transferring
both fine and assessment revenue to the appropriate recipients. The distribution of fine revenues
depended on the law enforcement officer who cited the violation into court. The court would
transfer one-half of the fme to its associated government body (i.e., circuit courts transferred
one-half of the fine to the state's Criminal Fine and Assessment Account, justice courts to their
county's general fund, and municipal courts to their city's general fund). The other half was
transferred to the citing officer's government body (to the Criminal Fine and Assessment
Account when cited by a state officer, to the county general fund when cited by a county officer,
or to the city general fund when cited by a local officer).
The two principal assessments that were added to violations fmes were the Unitary Assessment
and the County Assessment. Both circuit courts and local courts transferred Unitary Assessment
collections to the state Criminal Fine and Assessment Account. The courts divided the County
Assessment collections four ways: into two state accounts, the county's general fund, and the
county's court facilities security account.
24
House Bill 2712 repealed the Unitary Assessment and the County Assessment, established single
presumptive fmes for violations, and replaced the two former assessments with a single $60
priority payment to the state Criminal Fine Account. Both circuit and local courts now deposit
the first $60 offine collections into the Criminal Fine Account The remainder of any fine
collection is then distributed as was the fine portion prior to House Bill 2712, where one-half is
distributed to the court's associated government body and one-half is distributed to the citing
officer's governing body.
The priority payment amount was set at $60 to maintain existing levels of support for programs
that had been funded through the Unitary and County Assessments. Both assessment levels
varied with either the offense type or the fine amount. In order to simplifY the fine structure, a
single priority payment amount was established. In some cases the two former assessment
amounts totaled more than $60, while in other cases the two former assessment amounts totaled
less than $60. The Oregon Judicial Department reviewed the collections of Unitary and County
Assessments for basic violations in circuit courts over the period from January I, 2008 through
June 30, 2010, and the average combined assessment amount over this period was $59.50.
This priority status nature ofthe payment has an impact only in cases when the fine is only
partially paid. Previously, a priority had applied to the Unitary Assessment, but the amount of
this priority affected just the first $37 ofcollections, instead ofthe first $60. Therefore, other
things being equal, counties and municipalities may receive up to $23 less than before from
partially-paid fmes, as a result of the priority status. The impact of this change may be having a
significant impact on county and municipal court revenues.
The Committee also received information that local court revenues are being affected by the
reductions in fine amounts. Local courts are probably also being affected by a reduction in the
number ofviolation convictions. We do not have data on the number of convictions in local
courts, but violation convictions in the circuit courts are down 28% from the prior year, and the
amount of fines imposed is down 39010. The impact that the priority status on the $60 payment
has on local court revenues is uncertain, however the replacement of the former Unitary and
County Assessments with a $60 required payment should, in and of itself, have no negative
impact to counties or municipalities. Even though total funding was not affected by this change,
counties are receiving more of their funding from the state, and less from their justice courts,
than had previously been the case.
The Committee finds that local governments and local courts are experiencing funding concerns,
some ofwhich are associated with the fine changes implemented in House Bill 2712 and some
which would likely be occurring even ifHouse Bill 2712 had not passed. The comprehensive
information on these impacts are not available. The Committee also does not have information
on how justice and municipal courts have exercised options available to them under House Bill
2712 to address fiscal issues. For example, House Bi1l27l2 grants local courts authority to levy
fme amounts over a broad range. Typically, the minimum fme is set to approximately 50010 of
the presumptive fine amount. Some justice and municipal courts may be levying fines that are
less than the presumptive fine amounts, and could increase their fme levels if warranted.
Additional information on the fine levels being imposed is needed is needed for the Legislature
to evaluate the impact of House Bill 2712 on local jurisdictions.
25
The Committee made the following recommendations related to the Criminal Fines Structure
• The allocation from the CFA established for the 2011-13 biennium in House Bill 2712
for the jail assessment does not meet the legislative intent to provide funding at the level
provided from jail assessments in the 2009-11 biennium. The uses of the funds provided
under this allocation are restricted to operating and maintaining county corrections
programs and facilities. The allocation amount in the bill only replaced funds the
counties had been receiving from jail assessments collected in circuit courts. Counties,
however, also received funds from jail assessments that were collected in justice and
municipal courts. The level of the CFA allocation in House Bill 2712 does not replace
these local court funds. As a result, the dedicated funding to counties for jail operations
is an estimated $3.8 million less than what counties would have received under the old
county jail assessment. To correct this, the Committee recommends that the 2011-13
biennium CF A allocation to counties be increased by $3.8 million, to correct this funding
shortfall before the end of the current fiscal year.
• The allocation to the Law Enforcement Medical Liability Fund was also set at a level that
did not replace what the Fund had been receiving fromjustice and municipal courts. The
amount of this shortfall is approximately $600,000. Given the status of there being
sufficient balance in the Fund at this time to support the program through the current
biennium, the Committee does not recommend a CF A allocation increase for the current
biennium. The Committee does recommend, however, that the allocation for the 2013-15
biennium be increased to provide support to the Fund at historic levels.
• The 2013 Legislative Assembly should review and consider a different division between
the state and local governments regarding the increase in priority payment and any
changes be applied to the 2011-13 biennium. The data available support the segregation
of$60 from the amount of the fine, to continue financial support at prior biennium levels
ofprograms that had previously been assessment funded. The impact of the priority
status on the required $60 payment to the state from frne collections. however. should be
further reviewed to quantitY its consequences to local governments and the state. Local
governments have requested that the priority status on the payment be dropped or
modified, and/or that the $60 amount itselfbe reduced. Because the new frnes have been
in place less than one year, and the data is too incomplete, it is too early to recommend
any modifications to the priority status of the $60 payment This question should be
reviewed further during the 2013 Legislative Session, however, when the fiscal impacts
ofany alternatives could be estimated. Potential modifications would include adjusting
the portion of the $60 payment subject to priority status based on the amount of fine
imposed, increasing the required priority payment to the Criminal Fine Account but
sharing some portion with the court's associated local government, and exempting fines
for local ordinance violations from the payment entirely.
26
A-Eng. HB 4095
1 (5) If the commi.8sion adopts rules establishing regional definitiona of "agricultural
2 land" and '"forestland" onder dais section. a county, all or a portion of which is in the des
3 ignated region, may elect to:
" (a) Review and amend Its comprehensive plan map designations and zoning map desiair
5 nations for land in the designated region that is planned for farm use, forest use or mixed
I) farm and forest use; and
7 (b) Redesipate as nonre.urce land the land that does not satial.'y the definition of "ag-
S riculturalland" or "forestland."
9 (6) A county that elects under subsection (5) of this section to review and amead its
10 comprehensive plan map deailnations and zoning map designations:
U (a) ~prepare the comprebensiw pIan map designatiOllll and zoning map designations
12 llIIina the proeed_ in OKS 215.788 (2).
13 (b) ShaD ~de an opportunity for review of all land within the portion of the reeion
14 sabjeet to the rule that 18 planned for farm use, forest use or mixed .farm and forest use.
15 (e) Sba1l plan and ZOIle land reviewed under tbis subsection:
16 W For farm use if the land meet. the rqionaldefinitioD of "agricultural land";
17 (8) For forest use if the land meets the rqional defln1tion of "forestland";
18 (C) For farm use, forest use or mixed farm and forest use if the land meeD both deft
19 Ditioaa; and
20 (D) For raral nonresource use if the land does not meet either definitiOD.
21 (d) May CODIIider the current land use pattern 011 nearby landa in determiDing whether
22 laad meets the de1lDition of "agricu1tnralland" or "forestland...
2S (e) SbaU plan and ZODe land for rural nonresource use in complianee with the require
24 menta of OKS 211.791 and adaibiltrative ru.Iea impleaumting OBS 211.'191.
25 (f) Shall submit the adopted comprehensive pIan map and zoaing map desipatiOllll to the
28 Departaumt of Land ConIJervation and Development under OBS 215.'1M.
'n SECTION 4. Not later than the date of the CODVeninl of the 2011 regular _ion of the
28 LetJialattve ANembly .. specified in OBS 171.010, the Department of Land Conaervat.ion and
29 DevelopDUlllt shall report to the LelJialaiive Assembly on the status and reeulta of aetiOll8
30 taken by the countiel! and the department under sections 2 and 3 of this 2012 .A.cL
31 SECTION 5. 'lhe Regional BeIouree Land Program. l'a.nd is el!tabII8bed in the State
83 TreasIIry separate and distiDct from the General Fund. 'lb. Becional R.ouree Land ProtIram
33 J!"uDd colUlilJt& of mOD.eyll appropriated for deposit into the land. Moneys in the fund are
34 continuouaiy appropriated to the Department of Land CODBerVation and Developmant to
35 car.ry out tlae pI'Ovisions of sections 2 to 4 of this 2012 .A.cL
36 SEC'l10N 8. (I) In addition to and not in lieu of any other appl'Opriatioa, then is appro
:rr priated to the DepariDlent of Land Conservation and Development, for the biennium begin
38 Ding July 1, 2011, oUt of the General Fund, the amount; of $lO0,O0O lor depodt in the Repmal
39 Reeounle Land Prop-am Fund estahIiahed in seetion I of this 2012 .A.cL
40 (2) On June SO, 2013, the State Treasurer shall deposit the appropriated moneys into the
41 lund. 'I1le appropriation is available continuowdy until expended as foUows:
42 (a) The department abaIl grant $810,000 to those of the countiel! that enter into an I43 interaovernmeDtal agreement under sectioa 1 of this 2012 Act and submit a petition to the
'" Land Conservation and Development Commisaion under seetion 2 of this 2012 Act, for the I
45 pu:rpoM of de~all or part of the coats to the counties to take action under aectiODB 2 IL3]
f·
1
1
j
r
i
,
A-Eng. HB 4095
1 and 3 of dais 2012 Act; and
2 (b) The Department of Land CODSel'Vanon and Developmeni may use up to $250,000 to
3 defray costs of the department, the Slate Department of Agriculture, the Slate Forelltry
4 Department and the Water Resources Department to carry out the requirements of seetions
/j 3 and 4 of this 2012 Act.
s SECTION 1. Notwithstanding any other law limiting ell."penditures, the amount of $1 ill
7 established for the biennium beginning July 1, 2011, as the ma:ldmum llmlt for payment of
6 expenses froJil fees, JIlODeys or other revenues, including Miscellaneous Receipts, but ell
9 eluding lottery funds and federal funds, deposited into the Regional Resource Land Program
10 Fund established in section I) of this 2011 Act.
11 SECTION §. Section 3 of this 2012 Act becoJIles operative on July 1, 2013.
12
[4]
76th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY-2012 Resular Session
A-Engrossed
House Bill 4095
OrderQd by the HOWIe February 10
Including House Amendm.n1.8 dated February 10
I
Sponsured by Representatives GARRARD. ESQUIVEL; Representatives CAMERON. HANNA. HlCKS, KRIEGER,
LINDSAY, PARRISH. SCHAUFLER, SHEEHAN. G SMITH. SPRENGER, THATCHER, WAND. WHISNANT,
WlNGARD,;Senators ATKINSON, JOHNSON. WHlTSE'l'T (Preeesaion rued.)
SUMMARY
The rollowjlli' summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the meuure and is not a part of the body t.bereof subject
to consideration by the Legi.alat.tve Assembly. It is an edilor'l brier statement of the _tial features or the
rneIllII.mI.
Allows Jackson, Josephine and Douglas Counties to enter into iotergovernmental agreement.
Allows counties that are parties to agreement to petition Land Conservation and Development
Commission to establish [regiMal ckfin,itWns for -agricWtll1'lll land-del=l1tland." or both, for pur·
IX* of regiol'l4l planning uiu:ler statewide land uaI! PltJJUl.ing system) 'tiOD8 of terms "agriCul
tara1 IaDd" and "tonstlaDd" tor purposes of IaDd 1UI8 plaDDing 1D thoIIe counties. JIequites
COIIIIIli8IIion to 00__ specified Iacton in adopl:iaa and appJ.YiDg clefiDWons. Beqalre8 De
partment of Land CouaerYatioD and Development to report to I..egisIative ~_ later
than date of convening of 2015 replar seuIoa on aodcms taken b, oountiell and
deplll'tmmlt.
LAppropriates money. to Department of Land CQlUllllJ'Vation. and Deoelopment ro ~g1TJ1lts to
counties that agree to petition. commission for N!giol'l4l definitions.)
LAppropriatu moneys to Department of Ltuid CoIfMrvalion alld DelJelODment to meet costa of de·
partment, State ~nt of Agriculture. State Forestry Departmetal and WlJter &sourou Depart·
ment 10 nwier» petition and eitaOli.sh regWI'I4l de(uailioM.]
[Declares emergency, e/flretiue on pa8Sage.) .
EstabIiI!lhea JlegiGaal Resource Land Prop:am Fuud. and continuously appropriates 1IlOIl
eyII in fund to department to clIl'I'Y out provWcms of Act.
Appropriat-. tor biemaium beginning JuJ7 I, 2011, aaoneys to department for deposit in
fund.
Limits biennial upenditures from fees. DlOIle)'8 or other revenues. including .u-na·
n-.a Reeeipts, but esOludiDg lottery fund8 and federal fuDds, deposited in IwuL
1 A BILL POB AN ACT
2 Relating to regionalized land UBe planning; appropriating money; and limiting expenditures.
3 . Be It Enaet:ed by the People of the State of Oregon: //1\
" SECTION 1. Sectiona :I and 3 of this 2012 Act are added to and made a pari of 0B8
5 chapter 195
6 SECTION 2. (1) Jackson. Josephine or Doqlas County may enter into an intergovem
7 mental agreement under ORS 190.030 to 190.130. At leut two of the counties Must be parties
I
8 to the intergovernmental agreement. '!be parties to the intergovernmental agreement jointly
9 may:
10 (a) Petition the Land Conservation and Development Commiasion to establisb, b, rule, \
11 deftnitiou of the terms "agricultural1and" and "'rorestland" tor purposes of land use pIaD
12 nina' in the coaaties; and
13 (b) Apply to the Department of Land Conservation and Development tor arant fund8
14 necessary to fund actions taken under _tion 3 of this 2011 Act.
15 (2) A petition filed with the ooIDDli.ssion pursuant to this section mus&:
16 (a) Provide information that allows the oollDlli8Sion to address the considerations in
NOTB: Matter in boldfaced type in an amended section i. new; matter [italic and ~ia elCiatlnlllaw to be omitted.
New se<:tiono ""' in ~type.
1£41
t
I
I
A-Eng. lIB 4095
section 3 of thia 2012 Act and other information the petitioners deem necessary for the
2
1
commission to consider; and
3 (b) Meet, or incorporate an attached petition that meets, the requirements of OKS
4. 183.390 for requesting promulgation, amendment or repeal of a rule.
5 (3) Upon receipt of an application for grant funds under this section, the department may
6 grant up to $350,000 to the counties that are parties to the intergovernmental agreement.
7 (4) The act of entering into an intergovernmental agreement pursuant to subsection (1)
8 of this section and actions taken by the counties to submit the petition described in this
9 section are not land use decisions.
10 SECTION 3. (I) If the Land ConservatioD and Development Commission finds that the
11 petition submitted under section 2 of this 2012 Act is sufficient to initiate rulemaking pro
12 ceedings in accordance with OKS 183.335:
13 (a) The commission shall accept the petition and initiate rulemakjng proceedlngs to
14 consider adoption of a regional definition of "agricultural land" and "forestland". and
15 (b) The Department of Land Conservation and Development, after coordinating with the
16 State Depal'tment of Agriculture, the State Forestry Department, the Water Resources De
17 partment, the State Department of Flsh and Wildliteo the Department of Transportation and
18 the cities and counties in the proposed region, shall evaluate the petition pursuant to this
19 section.
~ (2) The commission shall base its decision on the propoaed regional definitions on:
21 (a) The characteristics of the land in the proposed region;
22 (b) Commercial farming' and forllSt practices in the proposed region;
23 (c) The legislative policies described in ORB 215.243. 215.700 and 527.630; and
~ (d) Consideration of:
25 (A) The capability and suitability of the soils in the proposed region for farming or
26 forestry;
'l:'l (B) The long-term viability of farm and forest operations in the region;
26 (C) The availability of water to 9Ulitain current and anticipated land uses in the proposed
29 repon;
"-,., 30 (0) The land use patterns of commercial farming and forestry in the p~region aod
, \ ......
31 in nearby J.ands, including the parcelization, tenure and ownership patterns of resou.rce land
32 and the location of resouree land in relation to land employed for nonfarm and nonforesi
33 uses; and
84 (E) The sufticiency aDd stability of the farm and forest infrastructure in the proposed
35 region.
36 (3) Tbe commission shall base its decision on the area to whicb the regional definitions
37 apply on:
38 (a) The need to address similar or related lands as one region; and
39 (b) The need to address similar or related farming practices and products or forest
40 practices and products in the region in a consistent manner.
41 (4) In preparing rules authorized by this section, the commUsion:
42 (a) Shall ~ld at least one public helll'iq in each county of which all or a portion would
43 be included in the designated region.
44 (b) Is not bound by ~e requirements of ORB 197.236 (l)(a), whieb apply to preparation
45 of goals and guidelines.
L2J
OFFICE OF THE SENATE PRESIDENT
900 Court St., N.E., Room 5-201
Salem OR 97301
www.1eg.state.or.us/senate/senpres
NEWS RELEASE
Contact: Robin Maxey December 21, 2012
(503) 986-1605
robin.maxey@state.or.us
COURTNEY ANNOUNCES 2013 SENATE COMMITTEES
(SALEM) Senate President Peter Courtney today announced Senate committee assignments for the 2013
Legislative session.
Lawmakers will convene January 14-16 for an organizational session, which will include the official election
of the presiding officers. The 2013 Session will officially begin February 4 with a target sine die adjournment
date of June 28.
Democrats will again hold a narrow 16-14 advantage in the Senate in 2013. While members of the majority
party will hold most of the Senate gavels, Courtney also appointed one Republican as chair of a policy
committee and two GOP members as Senate co-chairs of Joint Ways and Means sub-committees.
In addition, a Republican and a Democrat will share Senate leadership of the newly formed Joint Committee
on Public Safety. Two Senate policy committees will have equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans and
Republicans will hold a majority on one Ways and Means sub-committee.
A full list of assignments to Senate and Joint Committees is attached.
__,~~.. r.."","" ~ 1$,"'1,,"'\',,111l!~ *,,,*<,40¥i ¥R 4!4,q~!!,,"'M"1"@(JI!1!. ,¢:,,,~,,4Iii,,J"'14Q,, ~liiA\l;. ~,,!,m:q,jX"",\$ _iii;" ii4"l10,,,,,,,*<ii)l"ki";;"""""~~""'~""+,,,*,,,,I11""'''' #",~_"II!",4J
2013 SENATE COMMITTEES
Business and Tra!lSJ?Ortation
Sen. Lee Beyer, Chair
Sen. Bruce Starr, Vice Chair
Sen. Chris Edwards
Sen. Rod Monroe
Sen. Chuck Thomsen
Sen. Fred Girod
Education and Workforce Development
Sen. Mark Hass, Chair
Sen. Tim Knopp, Vice Chair
Sen. Lee Beyer
Sen. Arnie Roblan
Sen. Jeff Kruse
Environment and Natural Resources
Sen. Jackie Dingfelder, Chair
Sen. Alan Olsen, Vicc Chair
Sen. Mark Hass
Sen. Alan Bates
Sen. Bill Hansell
Finance and Revenue
Sen. Ginny Burdick, Chair
Sen. Larry George, Vice Chair
Sen. Mark Hass
Sen. Diane Rosenbaum
Sen. Brian Boquist
General Government. Consumer
And Small Business Protection
Sen. Chip Shields, Chair
Sen. Larry George, Vice Chair
Sen. Laurie Monnes Anderson
Sen. Floyd Prozanski
Sen. Herman Baertschiger
Health Care and Human Services
Sen. Laurie Monnes Anderson, Chair
Sen. Jeff Kruse, Vice Chair
Sen. Elizabeth Steiner Hayward
Sen. Chip Shields
Sen. Tim Knopp
Judiciary
Sen. Floyd Prozanski, Chair
Sen. Betsy Close, Vice Chair
Sen. Jackie Dingfelder
Sen. Arnie Roblan
Sen. Jeff Kruse
Sen. Diane Rosenbaum, Chair
Sen. Ted Ferrioli, Vice Chair
Sen. Ginny Burdick
Sen. Lee Beyer
Sen. Bruce Starr
Veterans and Emergency Pre.paredness
Sen. Brian Boquist, Chair
Sen. Laurie Monnes Anderson, Vice Chair
Sen. Peter Courtney
Sen. Alan Olsen
Rural Commnnities and Economic Development
Sen. Arnie Roblan, Chair
Sen. Herman Baertschiger, Vice Chair
Sen. Ginny Burdick
Sen. Floyd Prozanski
Sen. Betsy Close
Joint Ways & Means Committee (Senate membershitll
Sen. Richard Devlin, Co-Chair
Sen. Betsy Johnson, Co-Vice Chair
Sen. Alan Bates
Sen. Chris Edwards
Sen. Elizabeth Steiner Hayward
Sen. Rod Monroe
Sen. Jackie Winters
Sen. Fred Girod
Sen. Doug Whitsett
Sen. Chuck Thomsen
Sen. Bill Hansell
Capital Construction Sub-Connnittee
Sen. Fred Girod, Co-Chair
Sen. Richard Devlin
Sen. Peter Courtney
Education Sub-Committee
Sen. Rod Monroe, Co-Chair
Sen. Chris Edwards
Sen. Fred Girod
General Government Sub-Committee
Sen. Elizabeth Steiner Hayward, Co-Chair
Sen. Betsy Johnson
Sen. Doug Whitsett
Human Services SUb-Committee
Sen. Alan Bates, Co-Chair
Sen. Elizabeth Steiner Hayward
Sen. Jackie Winters
Natural Resources Sub-Committee
Sen. Chris Edwards. Co-Chair
Sen. Jackie Dingfelder
Sen. Chuck Thomsen
Public Safety Sub-Committee
Sen. Jackie Winters, Co-Chair
Sen. Richard Devlin
Sen. Doug Whitsett
Transportation and Economic
Development Sub-Committee
Sen. Betsy Johnson, Co-Chair
Sen. Chip Shields
Sen. Bill Hansell
Joint Committee on Tax Credits (Senate membership}
Sen. Ginny Burdick, Co-Chair
Sen. Larry George, Co-Vice Chair
Sen. Mark Hass
Sen. Diane Rosenbaum
Sen. Brian Boquist
Joint Committee on Public Safetv (Senate membership)
Sen. Jackie Winters, Co-Chair
Sen. Floyd Prozanski, Co-Chair
Sen. Arnie Roblan
Sen. Betsy Close
OREGON
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 21,2012
Jared Mason-Gere (503) 986-1204
Kotek announces 2013 House committee assignments
SALEM-House Speaker-nominee Tina Kotek (D-Portland) today announced House committee
assignments for the 2013 Legislative Session.
Kotek said the 2013 committees and committee assignments were designed to best focus on the
priorities of Oregonians, namely schools, job creation, and the most vital services Oregon
families count on.
I
t
"We're here to deliver on the issues that matter most to Oregonians across the state," said Kotek.
The 2013 appointments include a large number of Republicans assigned to chair, co-chair, and
vice-chair committees, a sign of a desire for ongoing bipartisan collaboration.
"There are thoughtful, well-respected legislators on both sides of the aisle who have important
ideas to offer. Committees are designed in a way that will allow us to best tackle the challenges
facing the state," Kotek said.
The House will convene January 14-16,2013 for an organizational session, which will include
the swearing in of all House members, the official election of the presiding officers and
introduction of bills. The 2013 Session will officially begin February 4.
A list of the House committees and House appointments to Legislative Joint Committees is
attached.
###
f
2013 House Committees
Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee
Brad Witt, Chair
Caddy McKeown, Vice Chair
Sal Esquivel, Vice Chair
Deborah Boone
Wayne Krieger
Jeff Reardon
Jim Thompson
Ben Unger
Gail Whitsett
Business and Labor Committee
Margaret Doherty, Chair
Brent Barton, Vice Chair
Bill Kennemer, Vice Chair
Shemia Fagan
Tim Freeman
Paul Holvey
Greg Matthews
Kim Thatcher
Jim Thompson
Brad Witt
Consumer Protection and Government Efficiency
Committee
Paul Holvey, Chair
John Lively, Vice Chair
Dennis Richardson, Vice Chair
Margaret Doherty
Vic Gilliam
Mark Johnson
Alissa Keny-Guyer
Greg Smith
Jessica Vega Pederson
Education Committee
Sara GeIser, Chair
Jeff Reardon, Vice Chair
Sherrie Sprenger, Vice Chair
Shemia Fagan
David Gomberg
Chris Gorsek
John Huffman
Julie Parrish
Gene Whisnant
Energy and Environment Committee
Jules Bailey, Chair
Deborah Boone, Vice Chair
Mark Johnson, Vice Chair
Cliff Bentz
Michael Dembrow
Jeff Reardon
Jim Weidner
i
Gail Whitsett
Jessica Vega Pederson
I
Healtb Care Committee
Mitch Greenlick, Chair
Alissa Keny-Guyer, Vice Chair
Jim Thompson, Vice Chair IBrian Clem
Jason Conger
Chris Harker
Bill Kennemer
John Lively
I IJim Weidner
Human Services and Housing Committee
Carolyn Tomei, Chair
David Gomberg, Vice Chair
Andy Olson, Vice Chair
Joe Gallegos
Sara Geiser
Alissa Keny-Guyer
Kim Thatcher
Gene Whisnant
Gail Whitsett
Higber Education and Workforce Development
Committee
Michael Dembrow, Chair
Chris Harker, Vice Chair IJohn Huffman, Vice Chair
Vic Gilliam
Joe Gallegos
IChris Gorsek
Mitch Greenlick
Mark Johnson
IGene Whisnant I
I
I
i
I
Judiciary Committee
Jeff Barker, Chair
Chris Garrett, Vice Chair
Wayne Krieger, Vice Chair
Brent Barton
Kevin Cameron
Wally Hicks
Andy Olson
Carolyn Tomei
Jennifer Williamson
Land Use Committee
Brian Clem, Chair
Lew Frederick, Vice Chair
Kevin Cameron, Vice Chair
John Davis
Paul Holvey
Kim Thatcher
Ben Unger
Revenue Committee
Phil Barnhart, Chair
Jules Bailey, Vice Chair
Vicki Berger, Vice Chair
Cliff Bentz
Jason Conger
John Davis
Sara Geiser
Tobias Read
Jessica Vega Pederson
Task Force on O&C Counties
Bruce Hanna, Co-Chair
Val Hoyle, Co-Chair
Caddy McKeown
Mike McLane
Rules Committee
Chris Garrett, Chair
Val Hoyle, Vice Chair
Wally Hicks, Vice Chair
Phil Barnhart
Vicki Berger
Michael Dembrow
Bob Jenson
Paul Holvey
Bill Kennemer
Transportation and Economic Development
Committee
Tobias Read, Chair
Chris Gorsek, Vice Chair
Cliff Bentz, Vice Chair
Kevin Cameron
John Davis
Margaret Doherty
John Lively ,
Caddy McKeown
Nancy Nathanson r
Julie Parrish
Veterans and Emergency Preparedness Committee
Greg Matthews, Chair I
Shemia Fagan, Vice Chair
julie Parrish, Vice Chair
Deborah Boone
Sal Esquivel
john Huffman
Brad Witt
l
I
I
I
!
f
I
2013 Joint Committees
Joint Ways & Means Committee
Peter Buckley, Co-Chair
Nancy Nathanson, Vice Chair
Dennis Richardson, Vice Chair
Jeff Barker
Lew Frederick
Tim Freeman
Bruce Hanna
John Huffman
Bob Jenson
Betty Komp
Mike McLane
Tobias Read
Greg Smith
Carolyn Tomei
Jennifer Williamson
Capital Construction Subcommittee
Tina Kotek, Co-Chair
Val Hoyle
John Huffman
Nancy Nathanson
Greg Smith
Education Subcommittee
Betty Komp, Co-Chair
Lew Frederick
Sherri Sprenger
General GGvernment Subcommittee
Greg Smith, Co-Chair
David Gomberg
Nancy Nathanson
Healtb Human Services Subcommittee
Nancy Nathanson, Co-Chair
Tim Freeman
Joe Gallegos
Natural Resources Subcommittee
Ben Unger, Co-Chair
Jules Bailey
Bruce Hanna
Public Safety Subcommittee
Jennifer Williamson, Co-Chair
Jeff Barker
Bruce Hanna
Transportation and Economic Development
Subcommittee
Bob Jenson, Co-Chair
Caddy McKeown
Tobias Read
Joint Committee on Public Safety
Chris Garrett, Co-Cbair
Andy Olson, Co-Cbair
Jeff Barker
Wally Hicks
Wayne Krieger
Greg Matthews
Joint Committee on Tax Credits
Phil Barnhart, Co-Chair
Jules Bailey, Co-Vice Chair
Vicki Berger, Co-Vice Chair
Cliff Bentz
Jason Conger
John Davis
Sara GeIser
Tobias Read
Jessica Vega Pederson
I
I
~.