Episode Transcript
[00:00:03] Speaker A: Hello Oregonians and welcome to Life and Legislation with Lucetta. If you've ever wanted to get to know your politicians personally or understand what it is they are actually doing, then you're in the right place. I'm your podcast host Jessica Campbell.
[00:00:17] Speaker B: I'm your State Representative for House District 24, Lucetta Elmer.
[00:00:21] Speaker A: This podcast is a place for you to get to know Representative Elmer both personally and professionally.
[00:00:27] Speaker B: We want Oregonians to feel connected with and educated politics. So we're so glad you've joined us on a fresh new podcast adventure as we cover all things about life and legislation.
[00:00:40] Speaker A: Hi Oregonians and welcome back to Life and Legislation with Lucetta. For this particular episode, we're going to be sharing a recording from a recent town hall that was on April 7th at Stillwater events hosted by the McMinnville Chamber of Commerce and the Chehalem Chamber of Commerce.
Representative Elmer, Representative Scharf and Senator Starr were all there to give a legislative forum and recap the recent short session and take some questions from the audience. We want to give a huge shout out and thank you to McMinnville Community Media for recording the entire event and sharing the footage for this particular episode.
[00:01:19] Speaker C: Thank you so much for being here this evening. We know that you have many other places you could be on a gorgeous evening like this, but we are so glad that you are taking the time to hear from your elected representatives about what they've done on your behalf and so thank you so much for being here tonight.
On behalf of the McMinnville Area Chamber of Commerce, I want to welcome you to tonight's Legislative Forum.
We're proud to co host this event in partnership with the Chehalem Valley Chamber of Commerce and I'd like to thank them for their collaboration and bringing important conversations to our community.
I also want to recognize and thank Oregon Mutual Insurance, our Government affairs sponsor. Their continued support makes it possible for us to convene conversations like this and keep our business community informed and engaged.
Our goal here tonight is pretty simple to create a space for thoughtful, constructive conversation between our community, our business community and our elected leaders who represent us in Salem.
We know that decisions made at the state level directly impact our ability to grow businesses, create jobs and build a strong, vibrant community right here in Yamhill County.
From housing and workforce to transportation, taxes and regulation, these issues matter to or they should matter to everyone in this room.
So tonight is about understanding what happened during the 2026 short session and what it means for our community and where we go from here. So I Am so thankful that we are joined tonight by Representative Lucenta Elmer, Representative Anna Scharf, and Senator Bruce Starr. Thank you so much for being here and for your service to our community.
So before we get to our conversation tonight, I was told that I have a special announcement that has to be made tonight. And so I want to welcome a true institution and leader of our community, Dave Hageaberg.
[00:03:31] Speaker D: Good evening. And so not often did I get a chance to have a conversation with a group like this about something that is critical not to Dave Hogenburg, but to all of us, and that's transportation. It's been a critical issue for this county. It's a critical issue for our jobs and our homes, our livelihoods and a lot of other things.
I chair the annual county Parkway Committee, and I have for more than four decades.
And what I wanted to talk to you about for just a moment is the incredible commitment of people that have made that move forward as it is today.
So this is my chance on behalf of the Parkway Committee to tell you. Hey.
About these incredible human beings that have served you on that highway project.
If you go back a few years when we were going to build phase one from around Dundee and half of Newburgh, Senator Starr was absolutely a key in the leadership that funded that project.
$192 million.
Since then, it's always, as you can tell, been a challenge to arrange the money.
But you now see the interchange being built at the other end of phase one.
And you can thank these three. And I would pay particular attention to our two legislators, Representative Elmer and Representative Scharf, and the work they've done to get that money to make that happen. And then to all of them for the money that is taken to design the section from 219 where the intersection is being built up around to Wrexhill again and to buy the right of way, it's now down to about the money for that. And then phase three is Dayton to Dundee.
What you really need to know is at every time and every opportunity we've had to try and get the money to do those two pieces, they have been there nights, days, I can't tell you, on a Sunday night whenever having a conversation with them about how we fund it.
So when you stop and you think about what are our legislators doing for us that highway, if there's not a Republican and a Democratic highway, it's the people's highway. It's your highway. And these three have made that a monumental commitment to do everything they can to get you that highway.
Obviously, we're in a tremendous competition with the metropolitan region. But I want you to know, on behalf of the Parkway Committee, we wouldn't be where we are in terms of moving it forward. And we won't be where we will be if it weren't for the three of them who have made it a monumental commitment not for themselves, but for all of you. And so, on behalf of the Parkway Committee and everybody that uses that highway, who's going to use it, we are in your debt. Thank you so much.
[00:06:25] Speaker C: Thanks, Dave. Well, that's all the time we have for tonight.
Thank you so much, Dave, for your leadership and care for our community for many, many decades. Thank you so much.
So tonight we're going to start with a series of questions and conversation. And then towards the end of our evening tonight, we're going to come to you and ask you to ask some questions, those you've elected to serve you in Salem. And so hopefully, if you wanted to ask a question, you grabbed a blue ticket. And if not, you can talk to Rhonda Pope there in the back. Raise your hand, Rhonda. She'd be happy to give you a ticket for your opportunity to ask a question tonight.
Well, let's get started.
So tonight I thought as we jumped into this conversation, it might be good to start with a little bit of context for those who do not follow the legislative process as closely as some of us here tonight.
What is the intended purpose of Oregon's short legislative session, and how should communities and businesses think about what should and should not be accomplished during the short session? What is that for and how should we think about it?
[00:07:33] Speaker E: So the short legislative session historically was supposed to be the session that we balanced the budget. So we're in session in a long session in the odd year, and then come back in the even year for the short session. The long session is when we pass the biennial budget. You go through that process and you come back in February of the even year for the short session, 35 days. Historically, the idea was, you know, you have to tweak the budget.
There might be minor, minor adjustments to bills that had been passed in the previous session. Really, it was kind of an opportunity to manage state government because historically we were biennial legislature where we would only meet every other year.
I happen to have been in the legislature when we made this change from biennial legislature to the annual sessions.
And let's just say that how it was originally envisioned maybe is not exactly how it's turned out.
And I'll pass them.
[00:08:39] Speaker B: Hello, Good evening. Yes. Ditto to What Senator Starr said, that was the, the reason for having that short session is just five weeks. I mean, we were there for, for such a short amount of time. And it was intended to just do some quick fixes if needed that were holdovers from the long session. What it's not intended for is big packet policy packages, controversial issues, things that are going to be challenged in court, things that are already laws, but they want to create another policy for political posturing. These are things that it wasn't intended for. And each bill costs quite a bit of money to put through, to go through the process, through the legislative process.
So I think that it's just important that we remember what the short session is intended for and try to get back to that.
[00:09:32] Speaker F: So, first of all, thank you so much for having us here tonight and thank you for everybody who showed up. This is an amazing crowd, so thank you for taking time out to be here tonight.
I don't think I can add much more to that. I think my favorite term, though, for short session is the lobbyist Olympics, because it definitely puts the folks that represent you in Salem, your special interest groups, the organizations that you belong to, it puts the lobbyists to work. I know there's at least one person in the room that's a lobbyist, and they do earn their money in those very short weeks that we are there.
The other thing that I would concur with everything that's been said, but I would say the other thing that it really unfortunately has turned into is it's turned into campaign talking points.
And it just gives folks a platform to, for better or for worse, be able to get sound bites and pass things or kill things for political gain. And I just don't think that, you know, back in 1970, when the voters passed it, the ballot measure that was passed unanimously, 85 plus percent that, that really wasn't the intention to go from biannual sessions to annual sessions.
The voters wanted us to get in there and do the work, address the emergency situations and balance the budget if necessary. So we, we've drifted from that and I, I, my hope is that we'll get back to the intent at some point.
[00:10:55] Speaker C: I appreciate that context because I do think that's going to frame a little bit of the conversation that we have tonight about what originally was supposed to be accomplished in these short sessions and then what it's become and what happened this year in the short session.
We've had a little bit of time to think about what transpired in the short session. I know that coming out of it for those of us who are in Salem, quite a bit.
You know, it is a mad dash and a little bit of a fog, but we've had some time to reflect.
And so looking back at the 2026 short session, what do you see as the most meaningful outcome for the communities you represent, particularly here in Yahoo County?
[00:11:33] Speaker B: I sat here not I didn't know I was going to be sitting here, but I love the way this is working out because I wanted to talk about this one first.
This is the fun one where we can talk about some take homes that we got to bring back to our community or at least that's how I'm taking the question. So for the city of McMinnville, we brought in $1.5 million for the Gateway District, Alpine District, and, and that's going to be able to help with some roads and infrastructure housing availability there.
So that's a huge win and I was so happy to see that McMinnville was awarded that. And also been working for a few years now for the city of Carleton on an infrastructure need. And so they had a take home of $1.8 million and that's going to really help with some fire flow protection for the school over there as well as housing and infrastructure needs.
So super pleased about that. And, and then I won't take them all, I promise. But I just am so excited about the county fair portion. We were able to lift that 1% cap not just for Yamhill County Fair, but for the whole state. And that was a collection of us up here working together.
Truly. I'm just going to say that because these three people up here out of the whole legislature worked very hard and diligently and to have that conversation, to stay on that conversation, to be uncomfortable in spaces with that conversation and to get that conversation across the finish line. So what that means is now all county fairs in Oregon, they have about $5 million every biennium. They can, they can think long term, they can think about projects that they want and plan for those and that's huge. So I'm really excited about all of that.
[00:13:21] Speaker F: So leader Elmer has better friends than I have.
That's why we make a really good pair. She's, she's the good one and I'm the bad cop because I didn't take anything home for this half of my district.
The other half of my district got what was left on the floor. So fortunately falsity did get a nice little take home. And so I'm grateful for them that they'll be able to finish a sewer project. My projects aren't very sexy. They're sewer lines and water lines and things like that. But I'm an infrastructure person, so. So it was good for them. I'm also very encouraged by the fair funding as well. I've worked on that since the day I got into office in 2021.
I am cautiously optimistic though, however, because the first payout will not happen until January of 28, which means that we have to hold our breath for the 2027 session.
I am a trust but verify person and I am cautiously optimistic that that will not be a bargaining chip during the 2027 session. But I also, I'm not a negative Nelly. So I am going to say that there was one major positive thing that did come through and it actually started in the Senate and I don't like to give the Senate credit, but I have to.
And it was Senate Bill 1585 and it was a bipartisan bill, though there were some, you know, House members on it. But it was a, it set a minimum or a maximum matching funds necessary for our small cities. When they're looking at state grants or state, state money, they have to a lot of times come up with the matching funds and small towns don't necessarily have those matching funds available. And so what it did is it took our smallest cities and it said, listen, if you're going to come up with those, you're only going to need 3% or a 5% depending on the money that you're looking for. And so for Yamhill county specifically, it took almost every single one of those small cities and gave them that opportunity. I am sorry, McMinnville and I am sorry, Newberg, you did not qualify in that group. You're too big.
But actually every single other small city did, including Sheridan, which is a larger population.
Theirs is just a little bit higher match. But when you get only a 3% required match, that is huge for these small c as they're looking at those water treatment plants and those sewer lines and things like that.
[00:15:38] Speaker E: So I just want to note that I am the luckiest senator in the building, most blessed Senator, because I get to work with these two state representatives who are really fantastic and outstanding.
And I also will note that we have staff in our offices that work extraordinarily well together.
And the work that happens, especially as around, it's around these investments in infrastructure in these local communities.
I know I couldn't do it in my office without my staff. And I just know our staffs work Very well together.
And just so you know, virtually every community in our district has put forward an ask for infrastructure.
Not sexy, but it's necessary. Water projects, sewer projects.
You know, maybe it's a small road improvement, something that's going to help benefit that local community. And one that hasn't gotten mentioned yet is for the city of Lafayette, where they receive $1.75 million for their water treatment pump station. So super important things like that don't just happen by accident, but it happens because we have staff that work really, really well together. And I will also note that Representative Elmer and I are the leaders, the House leader and the Senate leader.
And in that role, we do have the opportunity to negotiate with the majority party when the majority party needs whatever, needs something, needs help passing a bill.
And that's where there's a little tiny bit of leverage. We're in the minority, unfortunately, in the super minority at this moment in time, hopefully not next year.
But we do get to be in those rooms where we do have the opportunity to advocate for common sense, rational policy.
When we believe that the majority is moving. Crazy stuff, we can push back on the crazy and come back with some rational.
And having a partner like Representative Elmer in those conversations is extraordinary.
[00:17:59] Speaker C: Thank you for.
[00:18:00] Speaker B: I do want to. Sorry, just really quick. I also, there was a big. I think it's relevant here. We were able to get funding for the Japanese beetle and that was big for our nursery folks. A big win.
[00:18:12] Speaker E: Yeah.
[00:18:12] Speaker C: Nursery stock is our number one agricultural product and being able to take those to market is hugely important. So thank you for your work in making sure that that funding was. Was passed. I know so much more about the Japanese beetle now than before the short session started. So thank you for your work in that. I really appreciate you highlighting the wins and the accomplishments and what you were bringing back to the communities and the impact those will have.
You're right. Infrastructure is not the most dazzling thing, but. But one that we will all feel for years to come. So thank you.
In the lead up to the session, there was a lot of conversation about a potential budget shortfall and the state's overall fiscal outlook. Can you help us understand, did the legislature ultimately balance the budget?
Did the state budget grow, shrink, stay relatively flat as a result of the decisions made this session?
[00:19:11] Speaker F: I love how I get to start with this one. Oh boy.
[00:19:14] Speaker C: There's no rules.
[00:19:15] Speaker F: Negative Nelly. Start with this one. So if you read the papers before we started, the sky was falling. The sky was falling. The sky was falling.
And the emails that we were Actually getting. The sky was falling. And in fact, they were cutting the projects that I did get for Yamhill County.
My projects were being cut in the budgets. I had a $1.2 million project in Dayton that they needed. It was for additional water resources so that they could build more houses and have water security.
And I was informed that they were going to lose $200,000 out of that because the Department of Water Resources needed to cut.
Well, I knew darn well that the governor had told them that the max they needed to cut out of the department budgets was 5%.
And I'm looking at that doing the math in my brain, and even I can do that kind of math, and math is not my strong point. And that was like a 17% cut. And I couldn't figure that one out. But the sky was falling. The sky was falling.
At the same time, I was getting emails that said, go ahead and submit capital requests. Tell us what new projects you'd like to find.
So I don't know about you, but when there's not money in the budget at home and I'm having to turn off the cable, I'm not going out to buy a new car.
And that's what it felt like. Going into the short session, nothing made sense to me. And this isn't negative. This is just me being very confused going into the short session.
But coming out, I would say that it appeared to me that we did no harm.
People weren't getting pink slips. People weren't losing their jobs. That wasn't the headline. There were unfilled positions that weren't filled. But some of those positions, at least in the subcommittee that I sit on, which has two of the largest agency budgets, some of those positions had been unfilled for six plus years.
So if they couldn't film for six years, did they really need that money?
And in addition to that, the critical programs that really did need the funding, the Japanese Beetle and some other things, were getting the money.
But my question was still, was the sky really falling?
And if it was really falling, then I also was watching millions and millions of dollars go out the door for critical projects and then some really not so critical.
So it was a very confusing short session. Is my takeaway from it
[00:21:50] Speaker E: set up.
[00:21:51] Speaker C: Rus, Anything you'd like to add?
[00:21:56] Speaker E: I'll hit the transportation. Maybe you can talk about the other issues. So obviously, coming out of the regular session last year, the majority tried to move a big transportation bill failed. The governor called a special session.
It was the strangest special session that I'D ever experienced and that it lasted for 30 days. The majority party moved a transportation funding bill on their own through the process that then got referred to the ballot. Right. So 250,000 Oregonians signed a referendum petition.
So the tax that the Democrats had passed was put on hold.
So that created a budget hole in the Department of transportation because the DOT's budget contemplated those new taxes being part of it. So going into the session, there was this issue of balancing ODOT's budget.
And I will tell you that the Republicans had always said that we didn't need to raise taxes in order to balance the Department of Transportation budget, that we needed to prioritize how they were expending existing money, and that would require some statutory changes in order to move money around. At the end of the day, that process worked in the building.
We did balance ODOT's budget by moving money from places that I would suggest are less important to things that are more important, like maintaining our roads.
And we did that without raising taxes. And to a large degree, that was a process where Republicans and Democrats worked together. There was compromise. Now, if I had done it on my own as a Republican, I would have done it significantly different. But I'll tell you that there were Republicans in the room when we negotiated how to rebalance that Department of Transportation budget.
So that process generally worked in a way that I think is thoughtful. Now, the other thing that the majority did is they moved the referendum election from November general election, which was on every initiative referendum petition. November 3rd is when that election was supposed to occur. But the majority moved that vote from the November general to the May primary election.
Quite obviously because of politics. The last thing they wanted was to be on the same ballot. Every Democrat that voted for that unpopular tax on the same ballot that that vote would be on. So they moved it to.
To November. We fought it kind of every step along the way, delayed it as long as we possibly could. Ultimately, on that issue, we did sue Secretary of state and the courts basically aligned with the Secretary of State and the Democrat majority, saying it's okay to have it on the May election. So vote no on measure 120 on the. On the May primary election ballot. And the transportation conversation is one that we will continue to have.
That conversation needs to be done in a way that has Republicans and Democrats working together.
And that's. Unfortunately, the exercise that we've gone through in the last 12 months has demonstrated that.
[00:25:08] Speaker B: So I'll just sum up in my words a little bit about the whole budget talk. We ended fourth quarter and our revenue forecast told us that we were down just under $70 million.
So things were bleak. Was the sky falling at the same time? We knew that the Federal Budget Bill, HR1 had passed and we were going to be seeing effects of that coming into 2026.
Some people in the building said it was an $888 million deficit to our state budget. Others said those tax dollars get to stay in the pockets of Oregonians and they can invest them back into the economy in a way in which they want.
Both are true.
We saw a new revenue forecast right after we came into session that put us up just under $200 million.
Now, I would say the effects of HR1 stimulated the economy and we had more money in our pockets to be able to do some things and put that back into our economy.
That put us into a very different space and, and situation as we were having those budget conversations.
There are also some monies left over from the previous budget and, and that money flows back into this year. So we were able to, to use some of that. But all of that played into how it shook down and at the end of those five weeks, we, we were able to have a positive budget.
[00:26:37] Speaker C: Thanks for that. I think sometimes we, we hear the rhetoric and we hear some of the sky is falling concepts that are coming out. And then we don't ever get to hear the other side of it, of how it actually landed and where we actually grew the budget instead of taking away from our budget. And so I think that's important for us to know.
This question is mine.
I get to lead a chamber of commerce. So I get. And I'm facilitating this. This is my question.
Full transparency.
Oregon has been having an ongoing conversation about competitiveness and job growth. And from your perspective, what actions this session helped improve the business climate and where do those gaps still exist?
[00:27:25] Speaker E: I wish there were a long list of things that we could say that the legislature passed to improve. Improve the business climate. I wish, I wish, I wish.
That list is relatively short. There, there are a couple of things, but I do want to highlight the one thing that the majority did pass that is extraordinarily damaging, I think, to Oregon's economy. And that's the passage of Senate Bill 1507, which is the disconnect bill that disconnected Oregon's tax code from the federal tax code. So the Federal Congress passed H.R. 1 had a significant number of tax reductions, tax cuts on all Americans.
Oregon has historically aligned connected with the federal code. Well, what that connection meant to the Oregon's budget is as Representative Elmer mentioned, a reduction in around $800 million. Well, the majority is like, oh, my gosh, we can't let Oregonians keep $800 million of their money. It's going to cost government a lot of money. So they didn't disconnect from the taxes on tips. They didn't disconnect from the no tax on overtime, but they did disconnect on some really important small business tax cuts that would help to spur our economy and spur growth and allow small businesses to invest.
And that's bonus depreciation and accelerated depreciation. It's about $300 million of taxes that small businesses in Oregon are going to continue to pay when if we had stayed connected, they would not have. That is extraordinarily, I think, damaging in the long run to Oregon business. And it's something. The governor still hasn't signed that bill.
She's waiting.
There is a threat that it could be referred, like the gas tax was, to the ballot. We'll see if that is ultimately comes to fruition or not.
But the governor's waiting. She can wait to sign that bill to make it more difficult, just like she did for the gas tax, for folks to actually gather the signature to put it in front of Oregon voters.
[00:29:40] Speaker B: You know, this, this is why I'm here. I feel like this, you know, this conversation starting out here in the as a serving on the local chamber board and in the Downtown association because my family has businesses here in McMinnville. And seeing the business culture continue to decline and hearing talk in my family about maybe uprooting and leaving the only state that I've lived in was hard for me. And so I didn't see myself getting into politics. But it happened and they took a big pay cut and I gave up a lot more of my time and I'm happy to do so. But I do wish that I could see more fruit come from the time that we put in.
You know, we did. Republicans did put forth several things that we wanted to see happen, and they didn't see the light of day to increase our business competitiveness.
But we have seen a loss of jobs. We've seen construction jobs in the last year decline to the tune of just under 3,000 jobs. Manufacturing jobs in the last year were down just under 6,000 jobs.
And, you know, tourism, utilities, the trades, all of that is in a negative decline for Oregon. And I continue to say this. We've been saying this and sounding the alarm for quite some time.
And, you know, we saw the governor put forth In December, her Prosperity Council for Economic Growth. And there was a moment of, okay, let's get excited about this. They used a lot of talking points that sounded very much like my talking points. And I was excited. And the governor, I've had conversation about, about her goals with this. And I'm super happy to work alongside any legislator that aligns with those goals. I don't care what their party is. But when we continue to pass policy that goes in the opposite direction of that obi Oregon business and industry, they came out and said the policy that Oregon is passing is completely contradicting economic growth and prosperity.
So my question is, when are we going to actually do more than just talk about it? When are we going to pass policy that gives us some relief and, and makes Oregon a place where businesses can thrive and we can feel comfortable to settle down and raise our families here?
[00:32:12] Speaker F: So I'm not going to disagree with anything that they said.
There were a lot of missed opportunities.
I had several amendments that we could have stopped a few bad things and turned them into good things. And sometimes that's really, really what it's about.
But I'm going to shock everybody and I'm going to end on a good bill.
There was a good bill and that actually passed that will help some of our manufacturers or attracting manufacturers, attracting folks that need to go through our DEQ permitting process.
DEQ seems to be one of those agencies that puts everybody's hair on the back of their neck to stand up because they can be super cumbersome when it comes to permitting because they want their agents and their folks to do all of the study work and all of the testing and all of the impacts analysis. In the bill that passed 4102, what it did is it allows the applicant to go out and use their own people.
It allows you to go out and hire private experts to do your impact analysis, to do your air quality analysis, to do some of those things that DEQ requires and have DEQ accept those rather than going through their cumbersome process? And so it actually will help, which was a shocker because usually DEQ doesn't accept anything. So I take, sometimes the small wins, and I, I think that will be a small win.
However, I'm, I'm holding back reservations because they still have to go through the rule writing process. Every time we pass a law, the agency gets to write rules and sometimes they can mess things up when they write the rules. So we'll see how it flushes out. But I'm, I am hopeful that that will be one positive thing. But like the senator said, 1507 could be very detrimental in attracting, retaining businesses. And the governor does have until Friday of this week, I believe, to put her little signature on that. So.
[00:34:04] Speaker C: And I appreciate the conversation about the disconnect from the federal tax code, particularly where it comes to. To bonus depreciation. I think some of the conversation that we were hearing out of Salem around that was like, well, this really just helps fig businesses, but really bonus appreciation helps a farmer invest in a new piece of machinery. It helps a bakery buy a new oven.
And so these are Main street aids that would have helped business. And so we were happy to be a voice in trying to help you all and the rest of the state make good decisions that would increase Oregon's competitiveness for business growth and investment.
You mentioned tourism.
Tourism was a big issue in this session, and a contentious one at that. Tourism continues to play an important role in the economic vitality of communities like McMinnville and across Yamhill County. This session included changes to the transient lodging tax policy, including an increase in the statewide lodging tax and a shift in how some of those revenues are allocated, particularly away from traditional tourism promotion that supports local economies.
So given the importance of tourism to our community and region, how do you evaluate these changes and do you believe they strengthen or weaken the ability of communities like ours to invest in destination development and the support of the small businesses that count on tourism?
[00:35:32] Speaker B: This was a tough one for me. I gave it everything I had to kill him. I hated them.
My colleagues might say something different, but I was very vocal about this, and I have a tourism background, so I'm sure that plays into it. But, you know, from a business lens, if you're doing well and you have developed a strategy and you've put money into marketing and advertising and built a business brand, you don't pull back when times are tough. Not in that category. I mean, that's business 101. You don't do that. And going into this year and knowing that we're down 30% in tourism, that was not the time for the legislature to do what it did. Now, I understand that this, this, you know, these talks, it started last year from a representative over on the coast, and I, I get that their tourism lens looks different. I understand that there's a lot of infrastructure issues that some of those coastal cities are having, and, and. And some of the, you know, from what we were told, some of those groups that were holding on to those tourism dollars, they weren't spending Them. And so they're looking at millions of dollars in a bank account and also seeing their roads falling into the ocean. So I, I understand where the motive was coming from.
It, it was just, it was a, it was a very tough conversation. I wish we could have had more sideboards. I wish that, you know, instead of going from a 70% amount of money that you get from the TLT tax, going to marketing and advertising, and originally they wanted to drop that to 30.
That's, that's, that's a lot. You know, we ended on a 50 50, but it wasn't a, it wasn't a fair 5050 because there's some business grants that you can apply for that will come out of the tourism side.
So I, I do wish there could have been more conversation around it. And then the other one was, you know, increasing the statewide transient lodging tax. And again, when, when we are struggling with our tourism industry and, and we just give people one more shot to say, oh, well, let's see, I can go to, to this region for this amount of money or I could go to this region for this amount of money. I just didn't want to give people another reason to not choose Oregon. We're already struggling,
[00:37:53] Speaker F: So I would concur. I actually missed the vote. For those of you that like to dive into Olis, I actually missed the vote on both of these.
I was out of the state at the time.
But these are prime examples of big bills in short session, big conversations in 35 days.
Not to say that they haven't been brought up before, but this was an opportunity to push something through because they could. And I say they, because if you go check the votes, at least one of them was a party line vote.
The increase, the one that was done with the 1.2, 1 point to 1.25% increase, I think is what it was. 1.5% increase.
It was a big increase. And the money does nothing to increase tourism or promote regional growth or anything like that. Won't fix potholes.
And frankly, a lot of the things that were in there were things that originally came through my Ag and Natural resources committee.
And it's stuff that we could have found money for. In fact, one of them, the wolf compensation, when a farmer, a rancher, loses their livestock to a wolf.
We found the money somewhere else before the bill passed, found actually more money. If I'm not mistaken, before the bill passed, the money was out there. They, they didn't need to pass this bill. And, and as Representative Elmer said, it's just Another reason for folks not to come here for conferences were to come here for conventions. And I think that that bill, had I been on the floor, I would have been an absolute no. And I'm pretty sure I was a no last time. Across the floor.
The other one, you know, I can see the point. I can see the folks on the coast point. I can see other communities, points of saying, hey, there's a lot of money sitting there. And we have people who come to our communities and they use our roads and they use our emergency services, and we would like to get a piece of that, because then they leave our community.
This is an example of why I hate peanut butter policy, that we have one policy that crosses the entire state because Yamhill county does not look like Washington county and Polk county doesn't look like Harney county and Lafayette doesn't look like Roseburg. But yet we have to pass policy that's good, that just covers everybody. And so I don't like it.
And in 35 days, you can't craft policy that's good for everybody.
So I probably would have just said no to this one, too.
Oh. But I want to end up on a happy note. Hang on one second.
The one that would have been great. See that? I am a happy person most of the time.
The one that did pass, that would have been great for everybody, has nothing that is good for everybody, had nothing to do with tlt. Recreational immunity.
That is huge. I mean, I know we don't have a ski lift in Yamhill county, but recreational immunity is huge in our Parks and Rec Department. I'm looking at my commissioner there shaking his head, happy up and down. It is big. And that was a huge bipartisan victory across the building.
[00:40:59] Speaker E: Yeah, I just note the we've got. The largest city in our state is in big trouble.
And, you know, obviously none of us represent parts of Portland, but I believe that in order for our state ultimately to thrive, we have to have a city that rebounds, that comes back. And I believe that passing this 1.5 new tax for TLT harms that opportunity for the largest city in our state to come back. And for that reason alone was reason enough to vote no on it.
And I agree with everything that my colleagues have said about there are dollars available to fund the things that were funded or going to be funded by this new tax.
It's just a matter of priorities. There is so much money in state government, in my opinion, that is wasted in things we shouldn't be spending on that we could have easily spent These dollars on those things. I do want to bring up one other bill that, that pass that, that has a tourism tinge to it because it relates to people coming out to rural parts of our state from more urban parts of our state. And it has to do with farm stands. And the farm stand bill passed and it clarified state laws as it relates to what's. What's allowed and not allowed between farm stores and farm stands.
I'm not going to get into the nuances there, but it was a big deal for some of our largest farm stores. And you can think agritainment where you have folks from urban areas coming out to the farms to pick pumpkins and they happen to maybe ride on a train or, you know, there's a whole host of things that the farmer is providing in order to make an experience for the folks that come from the city out to the farm. We did pass a bill that clarified that and really, I think secures, at least in the time being, the opportunity for those kinds of farms to continue to thrive.
Yeah.
[00:43:10] Speaker C: And we've heard from our members that, that diversification really is important for them to be able to continue to farm for four years to come. And with the conversation on tlt, it really has taken the conversation from a state level to the local level now. And we are really thankful that we have good local partners in our city government who care about tourism, who appreciate the work of our local DMO, Visa, McDonville and others in the county to continue to do this work, to continue to grow our tourism economy. We know it is essential for us, and so we're really thankful for those partners.
With the change of the funding at the state level.
We're going to go to the last question and then I want to hear a couple of questions from the audience and the time we have left. But I'd like to give you an opportunity just to reflect about what you saw as maybe your personal, most important takeaway from this session. And then it wasn't even a full week after the short session ended that the conversation was back to and what are we going to be asking for in the long session of 2027? We started prepping for the next session not even a week after the short session closed.
So what should we as a community be paying attention to as we look forward?
[00:44:32] Speaker F: Should we punt to Bruce to start?
Yeah, you're the only one not running for re election. You want to start?
[00:44:46] Speaker E: I mean, honestly, as we look, as we look to 27, there's a whole host of things that, that need to be fixed, continue to need to be fixed in our state. It's an election year and I continue to be an optimist and I continue to believe that Oregonians are going to look at the results of the governor governing class, those that are in the majority, those that are basically writing our laws, both in the legislature and the governor and going to say it's time for a change.
And there's a whole host of things that need to be addressed in our state. Land use system needs to be addressed.
And there were some attempts around the edges in this short session to do some of that and you know, it got thwarted. It wasn't able to move forward.
There were attempts to to address the opportunity for businesses to invest in their companies by some tax reform. That continues to need to be done.
There is, I believe that you look at Oregon business and industry as it's an business organization. They've come out with a whole list of things that they recommending in order to create an economy that works.
And we have so many things that we have that could be going well for our state that aren't.
And I mean, I could honestly go on and on and on about the things that aren't going well right now in our state that we need to improve. And those are things that Republican candidates are going to talk about. Majority is going to talk about what they're going to talk about. You're going to have a governor's race that are going to provide two very different visions of the future of the state of Oregon. And choose wisely. Oregonians choose wisely. We can turn our state around. We don't have to be at the very bottom in education.
We're at the very bottom in education.
Our third graders can't read. That's embarrassing.
As adults in the state of Oregon, we're failing our children.
Doesn't have to be that way. And it's not because of lack of money. We spend a boatload of money on education and it has to do with what we're doing in the classroom and making sure that dollars get into those classrooms. It's a whole host of other things.
But, you know, we can turn our state around with just a change in leadership. We don't have to be the state that continues to drive investment out of our state state. We can attract that investment with some minor changes to how we how we operate at the state and local level.
I mean, you got to talk about housing instead of taking money out of the pockets of Oregonians at the tens of millions, hundreds of millions of Dollars and funneling it through non, non government organizations, NGOs to, to build affordable housing. All we need to really do is relax the, the law to make it easier for developers and builders to build, maybe reduce the fees that they're paying, create more land available for that development to occur.
And the market will take care of that. And those dollars that we're spending, public dollars we're spending there, we can invest in infrastructure instead. I mean, there's just a host of things like that that we can do.
But we got to have a change in leadership. I encourage you to pay clients close, close attentions to these campaigns in this election year.
[00:48:18] Speaker B: You know, as I reflected back on this short session in my lens, I. I was elected leader for my caucus in the late fall of 25. So I had just a very short time to acclimate to that new role and then lead my caucus through this short session. We were in the super minority, brand new leader, super minority. And in the four years that I've been there, I was the fourth leader that that group had seen.
So my number one goal was to bring unity. We were hurting. We needed to come together and we needed to be able to trust each other. And that was the number one thing that I set out to do. And we did it. We held strong and we held together, and we all ended in that same fashion.
But I also saw that in the super minority, or in the minority in general, really, what your goal is or what your purpose is is to elevate the voice that isn't as loud. Right? You don't have the votes to pass things just on sheer numbers. So your job is to elevate that minority voice.
And as I set out to do that, what I was wanting to elevate was what I was hearing over and over from my constituents, which is affordability issues. We can't afford to live here. You know, I have kids in their 20s and barely 30. And how do they buy a house when houses start at like a half million dollars? How, how does this generation afford a house? How do they plan for a family? I mean, if both have to work, then they have to pay for daycare. That's really expensive. Expensive. You know, how can we actually buy our groceries, pay for our gas, buy a house? How can we live? And so, you know, thinking of just practical things that I brought into that building and finding that as a leader, you're sitting in that inner circle and you're having meetings with presiding officers and the governor and, and as I'm just sitting there quiet, Because I'm the newbie listening and looking around.
I was sad because so much of the time and energy and hot air was spent on political posturing that never made a difference at the end of the day, not on the issues that matter to everyday Oregonians that are flooding my inbox.
Sure, there's things that maybe, you know, one section of people are concerned about, and we can have those conversations. Everyone should be heard and we'll talk about it. But when you're talking about practical things and you set out to do it, and at the end you just are exactly exhausted, but you're exhausted because of what.
And so that, that was, that was hard for me. But.
But I learned a lot. And as we enter this interim time period and we're gearing up for elections and then coming back to the long session, I have a whole new appreciation for what it looks like. I don't plan to be in a super minority. Oregon doesn't need that. That doesn't serve any of us well. We need a more balanced legislature so that we can have those tough conversations and keep, and keep those conversations on practical matters that will benefit Oregon. But we're ready to do it and we're gearing up and we're continuing to talk with all of our colleagues. Party lines aside, we're having the conversations so that we can be ready in 27 to, to really, hopefully move the dial on things and make Oregon a better place.
[00:51:41] Speaker F: I'll make mine really fast. See, that's why I wanted them to go first. It's better to let leadership go first.
And, and actually, that's, I really did want to want them to go first because it is important that you hear from the minority leaders in both of the Houses because they do have a very tough job.
I think I can up one on Representative Elmer, though. I, I had five, I've had five leaders in five years and in office.
And I can't thank her enough for the leadership that you, that she did bring to our caucus. I can't speak for the Senate because I'm not there, but I did watch how we worked with the Senate this year as well, and it was a different pace. It was a different feeling.
It was a positive one. And so as I look back and I look forward, what I am seeing and what I'm hoping for is just better conversations and meaningful conversations about wants versus needs across the aisle. And if we just have conversations about wants versus needs, that's a major step in the right direction because I think for too long we've had a happy, a fat, happy spending checkbook. And we need to stop that mentality and just get back to basics about what is a need and what is a want.
And the way we get there is just through balance in Salem.
So I look forward to hopefully having Representative Elmer be my leader in 27.
Thanks.
[00:53:03] Speaker C: If, if I can put my plug in now. We would really like a robust transportation package and some economic development bills that help further Oregon's competitiveness. I'll just put that out there now. And Patty Herzog seconds those things.
Absolutely.
Yeah. We want to see some, some funding for our bypass.
So now's the opportunity for you to be able to ask some questions of your elected leaders. Rhonda, could I get the, the basket of tickets?
Thanks.
Rhonda Pope, everybody.
We can't do the work of the chamber without her.
All right, so the ticket number for our first question is 005152. And I will run a microphone to you.
Look at your ticket.
There's no raffle prize, but you do get to ask a question.
5152.
[00:54:04] Speaker D: Okay.
[00:54:04] Speaker C: They left already.
They missed out.
5149. 49.
This is going really well, guys.
Thank you so much.
I know.
[00:54:18] Speaker F: Oh, yeah.
[00:54:18] Speaker C: Are these your tickets, guys? All right.
5,000, 151.
What? 5,151.
Joe Sessions, we were waiting for you this whole time.
[00:54:33] Speaker E: Well, thank you very much for all you do. I just wanted to ask.
I'm very curious about the education notes that you made. And my kids been in various school systems around the area and reported to me that, yes, in some of our, in their public school experiences, there were kids who couldn't read aloud very well, and that was quite common. Just curious what. Just a little more detail on what you think is causing that and how to fix it.
Well, I'm informed by the fact that my father served in the legislature, and education was his, his key issue in his 14 years of legislative service. And one of the things that he iterated and reiterated over and over and over again is the need to use phonics to teach kids to read.
And unfortunately, you know, in his service, there was legislation that was passed, but over the years that has been diminished and reduced and not completely eliminated. But we're also not teaching our teachers in our universities where we're teaching teachers to teach. We're not teaching them how to teach phonics as it relates to teaching kids to read.
There's a whole system that they're using, and literally that one thing would Make a huge difference.
Awesome. Is there actually, sorry, ask a bonus question. But is there laws against teaching?
There are not, but we need to make sure that that's the system that we are using. I would also suggest that we need to continue to strengthen alternatives to public education so the parents have more choice.
I'm a huge component, I'm a huge component of allowed parents if they want to homeschool their kids to, to, to do that.
Create opportunities for more charter schools, you know, create opportunities for choice in, in education.
Thank you.
[00:56:42] Speaker C: Okay, let's go to the next one.
5147.
You guys are getting really, it's easy or, or scarier. I don't know which. 5153.
5153. Is that you, Amanda?
You were waiting all night for this.
[00:57:10] Speaker E: Here we go.
[00:57:12] Speaker G: I have a million things racing through my brain.
[00:57:16] Speaker B: Hi, Lucetta.
[00:57:17] Speaker G: She's my landlord.
She's great.
[00:57:22] Speaker F: Well, I have, I have a big
[00:57:23] Speaker G: like a giant question and I'm just going to put it out there because
[00:57:27] Speaker B: it's on my heart.
[00:57:29] Speaker G: And it's okay if you guys can't answer. I totally understand.
But Epstein files.
You guys represent me as a person.
You represent us.
When are they going to start making arrests? And is there literally anything you can do to put pressure on, on any of the people who are overseeing that mud show?
[00:58:03] Speaker B: That is an Andrea Salinas question. Unfortunately, she's not here tonight.
Amanda? No, not really.
I mean, thank you for the question.
But just like you, we have our, you know, our congress people and our US Senators that, that we would ask those questions to and have the same access that that you have as well.
[00:58:27] Speaker C: And we would encourage you to, to reach out to our federal delegation.
They would love to talk to you about it. And if any of you need their contact information, we'd love to put you in contact with them about, about those. They are in district right now and they, they're about.
Okay, Last one for tonight. 514 8.
Five one. Oh, sorry. Great. There we go. It's not my ticket. Oh, it's not your ticket, but you have a question.
We're gonna go with it because we need wrap up for tonight.
Fortune favors the bull. So what's your question?
So every time I go into the Les Schwab, I'm reminded that all four of my wheels are out around because I've hit so many potholes and I missed the first part of this. And so I apologize if I'm homing the same row. But if there's going to be a transportation funding measure. What does it look like that would be acceptable to you?
[00:59:32] Speaker E: That's an awesome question. Very good question.
What it needs to be be is it needs to be a bipartisan conversation where Republicans and Democrats are working together.
It has to recognize that we have to maximize the resources that the department is using today and have those dollars spent where they make the most good.
I would suggest that over the past decade or so that the, the role of the Department of Transportation has been, has been been broadened to the degree that it's not focused on roads and bridges. It's focused on a whole host of other things.
And for Republicans to go to our, to go to you as my constituent and say, hey, I want you to pay, you know, more gas tax or a higher registration fee, there has to be a rollback, in my opinion, of some of those, some of those extensions of ODOT's role that have gone beyond roads and bridges.
There has to be some accountability in how the agency has been, has functioned.
And part of that is in a bill that that did get passed that we didn't refer to the ballot has to do with some accountability measures that are, that are going to continue to roll forward, including a performance audit at the Department of Transportation. I think that's a good thing.
So, I mean, that's, that gives you a flavor of what it potentially looks like. But it's a negotiation and it's one where Republicans aren't shut out of the process like occurred in the fall.
[01:01:10] Speaker F: I'm just going to add on top of that because I had a really great conversation. We have a new legislation. So each one of the state agencies has a liaison that we use, that we reach out to instead of reaching directly to the department head, which actually I call some of them on Sunday morning and have conversations with them. So they're fortunate, especially if I have their cell phone.
Some of them have left the state agencies because I call them too often. But we have a new liaison at the Oregon Department of Transportation, and I had a very good conversation with her last week. And one of the things I told her that I really want the Department of Transportation working on in is what I call failure to launch.
And what I have seen in the short five years that I've been around is they will look at a project and they will get something done, meaning they draw it up, they look at it, they design it, they have community meetings, they take input. I'm talking specifically about a project in my district called 22 and 151, which has a Lot of deaths at it. But we don't rise clear to the top of the pile yet because not enough people have died. And I kid you not, that is how they measure what they're going to take care of.
And they'll design it and they'll have community meetings, and then they'll come back later and go, oh, well, wait, we're going to start all over again.
Well, why did you have all that work? Why did you put all the money into it? Why'd you design it? Why'd you have the community buy in? Why did you get so excited about it?
We need to stop that. We need to design it, we need to build it. We need to move forward with it. You certainly wouldn't do that if you did a house, right? You build your house and then five years later, you'd remodel it, like maybe or 10 years, whatever. So it's nice that we're starting to have those conversations. But that also goes back to that agency accountability piece that the senator was talking about.
[01:02:52] Speaker B: And, and I'll just. I'll just end it with, what would that, what would that funding package look like?
I can't help but look at it very differently than the governing party looks at it now.
I would look at it as a business. I would look at it as. I would take it higher and look at the whole entire state budget and not just look at odot because money isn't our issue.
Priorities are our issue in this state, but money is not our issue.
And so we have plenty of money to prioritize how to make sure that we have beautiful roads and no potholes. But we, we, the governing majority right now chooses to not prioritize that. When you have a governor who throws down an executive order on project labor agreements and says that only unionized shops can get the job, to go out and do something that raises.
An example would be our Dundee bypass to the tune. I think it was $40 million, the phase that we were looking at.
That's an issue. You know, we don't have to do things the most expensive way. We need to do things in a way that gets the results we need and prioritizes things to make sure that our roads are smooth and running efficiently.
[01:04:12] Speaker C: And as my friend Dave Hogeberg is fond of sharing with people, these roads out here aren't Republican or Democrat.
They are the people's roads. And so I think traditionally that has been a topic that we've been able to work on together as Oregonians. And I Hope that in 2027, we can return to that framework of working together.
I want to thank you. I want to thank you for being here. I want to thank you for being a part of the conversation, the ongoing dialogue.
Showing up to hear from your elected officials who represent you is really important. Being engaged, asking questions, they serve you. And so if you're not letting them know what's going on in your life, in your community, in your business, then that's a problem.
And so I would ask you, I would implore you to be involved in the process of letting your voice be heard so that they can adequately represent you in Salem. Because what happens in Salem absolutely matters to Yamho County.
I do want to remind you of another opportunity to hear from those who would like to represent you in elected office.
We have a candidate forum coming up on April 22nd at the Chehalem Cultural Center. We are also co hosting that with our friends at Chehalem Valley Chamber of Commerce. That's at 6 o' clock in the ballroom. If you'd like more information, mcminnville.org you can find information about that. We'll be having our candidates for county commissioner at that forum. And so we would love to see you there.
You know, as, as a chamber of commerce, we really see our role as a convener of bringing together business and government and community voices to focus on solutions that move us forward. And so we appreciate the partnership, we appreciate the dialogue and the shared commitment to a strong and thriving Yamhill County. So thank you so much for being here tonight.
Have a great evening. Thank you.
[01:06:12] Speaker A: Thank you so much for tuning in to this episode of Life and Legislation with Lucetta. We hope you got some new information, maybe some questions answered and that you come back and join us next time for our next episod.
