Experts in philanthropy and fundraising are now saying that charitable contributions will never be sufficient to cover basic needs that we are choosing not to pay for with taxes. These basic needs include education and job training, health care, housing, child care, etc. Think of all the public schools scrambling to compete for grants, education foundation fundraisers, parent donations, alumni support, etc. Think of all the community hospitals competing for grants, with their foundations and auxiliaries, fundraising auctions/dinners, etc. Think of all the nonprofit board members, volunteers, and staff who are working hard to beat out another organization for money to feed, clothe, shelter, protect and encourage people who have basic unmet needs. Where and how are Oregon citizens learning about the important role of taxation and how to make decisions on what basic resources/services should be available for everyone (paid for by taxes), partially paid for (subsidized by taxes), and which resources/services should only be available to those who can pay the full cost themselves?

Oregon can serve as a national and world model for conducting a “zero-based” approach to evaluating and redesigning governmental jurisdictions and public services. Given advances in communication, technology, transportation, and other areas, all units of government (e.g., cities, counties, school districts, community colleges, universities, state agencies, and special districts, plus Federal agencies serving our state) need to re-examined and restructured to serve Oregonians in the 21st century. MMT can form a statewide task force with a charter to conduct an audit of all governmental jurisdictions, programs, and services. The task force would have a mission to assess needs, set goals, and propose changes by identifying inefficiences, overlapping and redundant services, and initiating comprehensive planning and pooling of resources. As an example of one area that needs examination, when Oregon became a state in 1859, it was divided into 36 counties each with a county seat, which was located within a day’s horse ride. While respecting the differences of each region and county, given the advances in roads and transportation, do we still need 36 counties? What should be their roles and services in conjunction with cities, towns, regional entities, and the State of Oregon, going forward? Greg Hansen

On the OPB program, the Meyer Trust's CEO said that in this difficult economic environment, we need to develop new models for delivering scarce social services. There already is a great model for this in Portland that is bringing tons of new Federal dollars into the city, but it is only available to a couple of agencies and should be replicated throughout the state. The model is simple: Get disabled folks the Social Security Income they need by changing the "rules" of the application game. Instead of two thirds of SS applicants waiting two years to be denied their benefits, this new model has shown they can get 90% of applicants their benefits in only 90 days! And for each person who gets their benefits, they receive a minimum of $674 per month that goes INTO the local economy for housing, health care, food and basic needs, and there is ONE LESS person needing local safety net dollars. This stretches these scare resources to more people. How do they do it? Instead of handicapped people trying to play the SS application game without knowing the rules, a specialist takes control of the application process. They fill out the forms FOR SS instead of simply providing information and they arrange medical evaluations rather than relying on SSA doctors. These and other "shortcuts" have earned the local B.E.S.T. program 100% increases in funding from the county this past year. The county increased their funding because every dollar that is spent on benefits specialists, returns an estimated 4 dollars in Federal Funding into the local economy. A huge number of disabled people, and their families, are homeless. 25% are veterans and many are children, and the numbers continue to grow. Now there's something we can do about it. I saw a friend's life change when they got SSI, and the medical treatment they needed. There is a pile of money that we can gain access to for our most vulnerable citizens if we expand this model. I would give a million dollars to to train more specialists in this innovative process for every county in Oregon, which would generate approximately 4 million in Federal dollars. The ripple effect in local housing , health care and social services agencies could not come at a better time. This concrete and measurable work results in restored hope and restored lives.

To Whom It May Concern.

My idea is pretty simple and surprised no one has thought of it yet. A 2% non resident sales tax on everything. If you live here you do not pay and if you do not live here you do. If you do not want to verify you live here then you pay. Using 100% of the funds received from all the tourists and area states that abuse us for no sales tax could be split up like 20% to administer the program, 25% to schools, 20% police, 20% to fire and the remainder to the food banks. If you have funds left over each year, they would be donated to a proper needed area. Just an idea.

Thanks for your time

Maybe we can save Oregon by spending less while receiving more value for our tax dollars. Currently public buildings are paying more than 20% over what competitive projects would cost. It is called CM-GC and those wasted dollars multiply in burden over the 20 year bonded period.

At this time the bond cost is 4.5%. A CM-GC job awarded at Oregon State University cost $10 million. Bid competitively it would have cost $8 million or less. That wasted $2 million will burden our children over $3 million.

Most public projects are being delivered CM-GC. There are no competitive bids. The general contractor is subjectively selected.

We believe that taxpayers are currently losing $150 million each year CM-GC continues. Considering the bond cost that’s $227,753,775 each year

There is a simple fix. Put competition back into public construction projects. Stop charging everything to Oregon’s next generation.

Some of us involved with the Forum on Geonomics are proposing: fund a Resident’s Dividend (akin to Alaska’s Permanent Fund dividend; includes children) with a lease fee or tax (5%) on land value. Taxing land value gets at the idea of leasing private use of nature, rather than paying a purchase price once, forever. At current Oregon land values, this would fund $2500/resident/year, which would provide significant cash flow for those on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder. Of course, taxing land value (price) at this rate would cause the price to fall, so after 5 years of phasing in, land prices might be half of what they are now, so the dividend would then be around $1250/resident/year, still significant for the poor. To help provide for the future, half of children’s dividends could go to an account in the Oregon College Savings Plan. To help ensure funds are not wasted, the dividend could be dispensed through Oregon Trail Cards. Taxing private land use at this rate encourages more productive use of land; price of unproductive land falls drastically, so productive people are encouraged to buy. Sprawl is discouraged. All around, this gives Oregon residents (those who can prove they’ve lived here a year) more of a stake in society.

Mentor program for business or individual's based on their past or present work experience to train non-college bound high school students. Offer a tax credit based on hours of participation at the local high schools. Trades, retail, finance, manufacturing can all be utilized and experience tapped into with little or no cost as it is all volunteer. Use existing job requirements and standards to create the certification and educational materials needed. Link the business and retired professionals to our youth in the schools before they graduate, especially those not college bound. Vocational training is saddly lacking in our schools due to budget cuts, so entice those who know to teach those who don't and give them an incentive to get involved!

Have an additional page added to our state income tax form that allows each Oregon tax payer to designate where 20% to 25% of their individual tax money will be spent. The bottom line of this proposal is that, just like in our daily lives, the person who pays the money gets to decide what to buy.

Ours is supposed to be a system of checks and balances, and yet no individual Oregon taxpayer gets to decide exactly where, and how, their individual income tax money will be spent. It is time each of us got to decide where we want some of our own tax money to go.

For example, lets say in 2009 the State of Oregon withheld $10,000 dollars from your pay check to cover your state taxes. In 2010, when you file your Oregon Tax Return, the tax table indicates you only owed $5,000 in state income tax, and that you will be given a $ 5,000 income tax refund. This plan will impact only the $5,000 kept by the State of Oregon, and will have no impact on the size of your income tax refund

This plan requires an additional page be added to the state income tax form that contains checkboxes that list public agencies where you, as the tax payer, get to direct where to spend a portion of your $5,000 the state kept. If you paid $5,000 income tax and the portion is 20%, then you get to decide where $1,000 is spent, or if the percentage is 25%, then you get to decide exactly where $1,250 will be spent.

This check-off plan will provide direct input into the statewide budget process and it will provide fiscal leadership to all elected officials. This check-off plan may even break the polarization and partisan bickering in the current legislative process, and perhaps also serve to help bridge Oregon’s urban versus rural divide.

If we have truly entered into the Information Age, then, through this check-off system, we tax payers have the resources to institute a new form of Direct Democracy. Don’t we always tell each other we are smarter than the elected politicians; this plan lets us prove it.

When trying to start my small farm 6 years ago I found it nearly impossible to purchase the land necessary to support my emerging business goals. The land use laws in the state of Oregon are prohibitive to the development of small farming operations.

Farmers are getting older, many are retiring. Young families who are interested in taking over the baton from older farmers often cannot afford to purchase the multi-million dollar farms on the market.

Most small or 'farmers market' farmers need only between 5 and 10 acres of land to produce enormous, profitable amounts of local, delicious, often chemical-free produce. However, due to the overy restrictive land use laws in this state, most land owners are un-able to divide their land parcels into affordable acreage sizes. It prevents young, enthusiastic, creative farmers from making a living growing food for the people of this state, it also prevents retiring farmers from selling their land for the highest possible return on their investment. It results is the increase of big-farming operations (the only ones able to purchase 40, 100 or 300 acre parcels being sold today) - or even worse - unused farm land all over the state.

Land use laws are currently written to 'protect' agricultural areas from urban growth, but they guidelines are overly restrictive. Many counties have outlandish restrictions around subdividing large farms into many smaller farms (eg: turning a 300-acre farm into 100, 30-acre farms) that include limiting the number of residences that can be built, water rights divisions, permanent structure limits (eg: you can have a mobile home with little resale value, not a stick built home) and income levels (eg: you must make over $80K/year to qualify for a second residence and that permit cannot be transferred to next owner).

Oregonians need fresh, affordable, safe produce and they are showing an ever growing interest in spending their money on that kind of product. Unfortunately, our current state and county land use laws do not support the economic reality of new small farmers. I propose we spend a million dollars working with farmers to understand the obstacles that exist today and set about to change them. I guarantee small farmers would support the change and would show their appreciation by growing local produce, paying taxes, improving their land, reducing the amount of toxic chemicals in the environment and developing their communities.

The Oregon Legislature meets in Salem, virtually inaccessible to the majority of Oregonians.

I propose the Meyer trust assist in supporting a Constitutional amendment to require our elected officials (State Senators and Representatives) to conduct the business of the State from offices which are publicly accessible and physically located within the geographic district they represent.

This would be accomplished by setting up district offices which are connected to the state capitol by teleconferencing technology, so constituents could attend and participate in legislative hearings and other activity without traveling to Salem.

Oregon voters could supervise their employees (our elected legislators) more conveniently and be sure the public interest is considered, not just the special-interest lobbyists. Better communications, better representation, better government. It's a win-win-win!

There is more information about this proposal at the web site for the Oregon Open Legislature amendment: <http://www.oregonopenlegislature.org/>

Thank you for your consideration. Stu Rasmussen