The following transcript was generated using automated transcription software for the accessibility and convenience of our audience. While we strive for accuracy, the automated process may introduce errors, omissions, or misinterpretations. This transcript is intended as a helpful companion to the original audio and should not be considered a verbatim record. For the most accurate representation, please refer to the audio recording.
MICHAEL DUNNE: I’m Michael Dunne. In Oregon, like in much of the US, if Democrats say or do one thing, Republicans are likely to say and do the exact opposite. Right now, in our state, Democrats are looking to add spending to our transportation systems, and Republicans are looking to cut. Today on the show, you'll hear from the House Republican leader about these cost cutting measures and what it might mean for taxpayers. They believe that there's a lot of waste in the current transportation budget, and want to make profound and deep cuts. Then in the second part of the show, we'll check in with an OPB reporter about a bill that would force utilities to stop passing on public relations and lobbying costs to ratepayers. House Republican leader Christine Drazan, thanks so much for coming on and talking with us.
CHRISTINE DRAZAN: Thanks for having me.
MICHAEL DUNNE: So, I saw that the Republican caucus recently announced a transportation proposal. Tell us about it.
CHRISTINE DRAZAN: Well, we have a transportation system that has experienced some cost overruns for a handful of years, and now it's time for them to come before the legislature, and they're asking for an awful lot of money. So, House Republicans have recommended a series of changes in their budget that includes some refocused spending, some cuts and also some innovative ways to use existing assets, like their main headquarters that is virtually empty to allow them to be a little bit more self-sufficient for funding, without having to go to Oregonians and ask for more money. My colleagues in Salem proposed $2 billion in new taxes on Oregonians and House Republicans, I believe that it is possible to stabilize transportation for the state of Oregon without going back to Oregonians and saying, Hey, listen, I know all these projects have had cost overruns, and our agency doesn't really fulfill its core mission - it's doing a bunch of other stuff - but if you could just write a blank check, we'd really appreciate it, because we like what we're doing, and we'd like to continue all of it. We don't think that's fair to Oregonians right now. It's just so expensive, and I don't believe they can afford it. And I think it's our duty as policy makers to look first to the agency to see where the agency can cut, where the agency can be more efficient, where the agency can get back to core mission before asking Oregonians to pay more.
MICHAEL DUNNE: Do you and your colleagues feel as though you could still fund the most important needs that Oregon has, transportation wise, while still making these cuts?
CHRISTINE DRAZAN: We absolutely proposed a plan that we believe keeps the agency focused on its core mission. And this proposal takes vacancy, vacant positions that have been open for more than six months, and rather than leaving those positions fully funded but empty, we said, that's a cost savings. You don't need that position. It's been sitting there open for more than a year. You guys can reallocate some of these positions. We took a look at some of the programs that the agency identified for us as non-essential. We asked them the question, what are you doing today? That isn't the core mission. It was page after page after page after page of programs that, over time, somebody had thought was a really good idea, and they asked ODOT to do it. But it's not, it's not the core mission. And so, we're suggesting that those kinds of programs be eliminated today, rather than assuming that the things that we've been doing that we have to do all of it. So, this proposal protects on the ground jobs, it protects maintenance, preservation operations, and it ensures that we have safe, well-functioning highways and state roads. And so, this proposal gets that done. The minimum that we were told was required to be able to ensure that they protected those core functions was around $350 million which is a lot of money, sure, but this proposal puts about double that on the table for consideration. So let's say that the things that we're suggesting, that not everybody agrees with every bit that should be cut. There's a lot of room there for compromise, and we can still fund core functions of this agency without raising taxes. We certainly don't need $2 billion in new taxes. And we have a governor that paused tolling, but she's only paused it. It hasn't gone away permanently, which means that they're talking about raising $2 billion today. You know, extra 20 cents on the gas tax - that's a 50% increase - the 3% tire tax, a 60% increase on the cost that you would pay if you go in to buy a new car, a new and increased car registration fee increased idle fee at almost a doubling of our existing payroll tax, like a delivery charge if you have FedEx, Amazon or UPS delivered to your door. This is significant increases in the day-to-day expense of just living our lives here in Oregon, and rather than perpetually expanding this agency. I believe it's time to look at what we've been doing and get back to core functions and this, this budget does that.
MICHAEL DUNNE: I saw in the announcement that the biggest cuts come from I believe the bucket is the Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund. Can you remind listeners what that is?
CHRISTINE DRAZAN: That's a payroll tax that funds bussing and TriMet and Chariots in Salem and the like. And to be clear, all of these local transit districts are what receive funding from the Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund. But just to give folks a little bit of a history lesson on this, this Fund was created for the first time in 2017 it became operational around I think, 2018. So, bussing across our state and rail and all those kinds of things, across our state have only had this fund to help with operations for about seven years. And prior to that, local bussing, local transit were federal dollars. It was some local dollars. There were some state grants, and it was not a slush fund from the state that funded local bussing, and the reason we put that on the list is we did a very thorough analysis of how people are using transit programs right now in Oregon, and I would be more than happy to share our data with you. But what we found, was a system that is dramatically underutilized by Oregonians. And so that means that if transit were important to Oregonians, they would use it, and if they were using it, then we would not have put it on the list. And so right now, instead of continuing to have passengers share some of the burden, you know, having some charge when they get on a bus, some charge when they get on max and instead funded it with this payroll tax. There is a future for local transit, and there is a future where the people who use it help pay for it, like they did before this payroll tax was put into place. And we're not suggesting eliminating the payroll tax, but we're saying that it can be used to help stabilize this program that actually should be ongoing, stable funding for filling potholes and plowing roads and making sure that our roads are safe instead of transit. And the ridership on transit in the major transit lines across our state is not strong. We have costs that used to be down around $1 per rider are now all the way up, between seven and $10 per rider and if you take a look at TRIMET’s analysis on a month-by-month basis, for what their ridership looks like across various lines, you have lines where, over the course of an entire week, you'll have locations that will have 50 people get on that bus over the course of an entire week, and that is not efficient use of taxpayer dollars. And so, I think that this is a program that we should take a look at. The world's changed. People can use Uber. People can use Lyft. You know, we are in a modern world where bussing isn't the only option for people to run an errand or to go or go meet friends for dinner, or, you know, or make or you know, do some do, do some fun stuff across town, like we don't have to get on a bus and be on a bus schedule and sit on a bus and wait for it to go, stop after stop after stop. It's not efficient. There's a lot of different ways to approach mobility in Oregon now, and Oregonians are voting with their feet. They're not getting on the bus. They are instead using other modes of transportation. Our funding should reflect that. We shouldn't continue to over fund a system that is antiquated.
MICHAEL DUNNE: Did your data show that COVID took a big chunk out of that type of bus ridership, and it hasn't rebounded?
CHRISTINE DRAZAN: Like so many other things in the COVID era, it does look like it permanently changed some people's behavior, and so ridership hasn't rebounded. And in some categories, it's come back half. Maybe it's come back a little bit more than that, but it certainly is nowhere near the stability of historic levels. And we now have some people who don't take the bus to work because they are remote. The whole world has changed since then, and the opportunity for us to change with it is urgent. We can't afford to pay for everything like we always have, and so I think we should listen to Oregonians, and if they're not using this service, if this isn't, if this isn't central to their lives, we need to take a look at where we can find efficiencies and how we can right size it for the people that are using these programs and that need these programs, and that don't have alternatives. I think there's a way to right size this program, and there's flexibility in our recommendations to be able to do that, but we put it on the list to elevate this idea like we need to look at these things, we cannot assume that just because we've done it for 50 years, or, you know, or in this case, eight years, that we have to do it in perpetuity. We need to be responsive to what Oregonians need today.
MICHAEL DUNNE: I did see in your announcement that in your proposal, you're hoping to help protect federal funding. Is that correct?
CHRISTINE DRAZAN: Yeah, that has that is our approach. We believe that there are opportunities to reflect a core mission focus within the agency that will continue to be in line with what the federal administration is calling on states to do across the nation. And so, as the federal administration has been looking at ways to achieve additional efficiencies, they've been letting states across the nation know that their priorities are not going to be agenda driven programming and that their priorities are going to be core function. And our proposals are core functions. We are proposing that the Department of Transportation be responsive to its own recommendations. And we do think that that's in line with what Oregonians want right now for our state. I think they want us to be respectful of their taxpayer dollars and use them wisely. And I think that that has also been the message that the federal administration has been giving to states for how they are approaching their grants.
MICHAEL DUNNE: Representative Drazan, my last question for you is that any proposal from the Republicans is going to face some uphill challenges given the makeup of the legislature. Do you feel like you can gain some bipartisan support for this?
CHRISTINE DRAZAN: I think that we are giving the Democrats supermajority the opportunity to make a better decision. There's no doubt that we have single party control at every layer of government, at a state level, from the House and the Senate, governor's office, you know, judicial all of it is single party control right now in Oregon. But if they move ahead with this $2 billion tax increase on the backs of Oregonians today, we wouldn't be doing our jobs if we didn't say you don't have to do that, and philosophically, they might be real comfortable with that as a natural kind of reflexive thing that they feel like they have to do, but that I really feel strongly that we are on the side of Oregonians on this question, And it's our responsibility to elevate that perspective to the people that are actually in control, that have the but that have the numbers to pass whatever taxes they want.
MICHAEL DUNNE: Oregon's House Republican leader Christine Drazan, thank you, as always, for coming on and talking with us.
CHRISTINE DRAZAN: Thank you so much.
MICHAEL DUNNE: We don't just pay for gas, electricity, and water from utilities. We also pay for their PR and lobbying. A new bill in Salem, however, aims to change that. Monica Samayoa, a reporter with Oregon Public Broadcasting, thanks so much for coming on and talking with us.
MONICA SAMAYOA: Thanks for the invite.
MICHAEL DUNNE: I know you wrote a story and recorded a story about SB 88. Would you tell our audience what it is and what it does?
MONICA SAMAYOA: Yeah, so Senate Bill 88 which has been dubbed the get the junk out of rates bill, would essentially divert some of the utility costs back to the utility, rather than us rate payers paying for certain things, and so that includes using ratepayer funding for advertising, political influence or lobbying, lawsuits, paying for association or membership fees and even fines. So a little background, utilities go through a rigorous, yearlong process when they want to change their rates that goes to the Public Utilities Commission, which ultimately decides what those rates could be. Within that process, there are also other groups that look into what the new rates are and what those costs are connected to. And so, in recent years, through this process - these groups are called interveners - they found that some utilities are using ratepayer money for things where the utility should be fronting the costs, not the ratepayers. So, Senate Bill 88 would essentially create more clarity and transparency on that utility spending, and it would have to be taken from company profits, instead of ratepayers. And within this bill, the utilities would also basically make a whole new report on what those unrecoverable or non-recoverable costs or spending could be to make it easier for everyone to see what it is, rather than going line by line through this year-long process.
MICHAEL DUNNE: Okay, now I would imagine that some utility companies are trying to fight this. Can you give an idea of what opponents of this bill are saying?
MONICA SAMAYOA: So, the main thing that utilities that oppose this are saying they already go through this year long rigorous process with the Public Utilities Commission, and they're basically saying it's redundant work and that it would end up costing more money to get this done. So basically, they're saying that the bill isn't necessary. And some of the claims that I've heard on the reasons why rates are increasing is that, you know, they're saying that's due to inflation or repairs, and it's not tied to spending money on lobbying or the other things that the proponents or people that want this bill to pass. They also said an interesting thing when I was listening to the public hearing, which is that it would make it a little bit more difficult for them to determine, Okay, well, what's, what's actual community engagement, and what isn't? And could we expense that? And if we did, and the utility, the Public Utilities Commission, says that that wasn't, would we get penalized for that? So, it's, they're saying right now, there's just still some things that need to be worked out for, for the bill.
MICHAEL DUNNE: So, if I'm hearing you right, for example, sometimes utilities sponsor, like a gala for a nonprofit, or something like that. Is that the part of what might still need to be worked out?
MONICA SAMAYOA: Yes. So right now, I think the last thing that I've seen is that they are working on the definitions of what could and what couldn't be used as spending when it comes to advertising as well as community engagement. So, they're still working that out, because, again, they want to avoid penalties if they think this is something that they're supposed to do and end up getting fined for it.
MICHAEL DUNNE: Do you have any idea how much a typical utility spends on these things?
MONICA SAMAYOA: That's a tough one, because it really depends on the utility and what they want to advertise and how they do it. In the past, there has been some examples that have made news, and I've written about how some utilities have been spending rate payer funds on certain things that they shouldn't. And that's kind of like what's been essential that interveners in this process have been able to find within that, and that's why they want this additional report to be created there. It's kind of like instead of going line by line using a highlighter and saying, maybe we need to check in on this, they're saying let's have a separate report that already highlights where that spending has been going toward.
MICHAEL DUNNE: And I know you mentioned that but if it gets signed it would cut out things like lobbying. I guess I could imagine that there could be some pushback from utilities.
MONICA SAMAYOA: Well, one of the things that was also interesting in the public hearing process is learning that the PUC already allows utilities to recover at least 75% of like membership fees from ratepayers engaging in what they call reasonable lobbying activities. So, I recently just looked at the bill. I didn't see any changes yet to that number, but again, there's still time between now and the end of the session in which these things can be worked out and what that new number could be. Maybe they could keep it or, like I mentioned earlier, update the definitions of lobbying and advertising and then kind of have a clear picture on what that could be.
MICHAEL DUNNE: Do you have any idea of where Governor Kotek is on this bill?
MONICA SAMAYOA: I haven't heard her mention anything directly on this bill, but what I was told is that if it reaches her desk, you know, she'll review the legislation and sign it, and if it makes it through the House and Senate floor before the end of the session, she has five days to review and sign it, so that's as much as information I have on what the Governor thinks about this.
MICHAEL DUNNE: Monica Samayoa, she's a reporter with OPB. Monica, really appreciate you jumping on and explaining this, this bill to us.
MONICA SAMAYOA: Thank you. Thank you for the invite. It was fun to talk about legislative bills and energy costs.
MICHAEL DUNNE: That's the show for today. All episodes of organ on the record are available as a podcast atklcc.org
Tomorrow, on the show, there's a new editor for the Register Guard, and you'll meet her and hear about her vision for the paper. I'm Michael Dunne, and this has been Oregon On The Record from KLCC. Thanks for listening.
