Panel remarks: The State/Local Partnership

Remarks delivered as part of a panel presentation at the
Oregon Economic and Community Development Commission meeting
by Scott R. Cooper, Crook County Judge& Central Oregon Regional Investment Board ChairValley River Inn, Eugene, Oregon, October 21, 2002

Question 1: What are your strategic goals?
To distribute jobs equitably among the communities/constituencies in our region. We have consistently distributed our expenditures among the three counties roughly 1/3, 1/3, 1/3. We use strategies such as equal representation from all counties on the board, requiring at least one vote from each county to approve projects and an executive committee consisting of one rep from each county whose decisions must be unanimous in order to make decisions

To create jobs (not necessarily family wage).

To require creation of at least job for every commitment of regional investment and give preference to projects which create larger numbers of jobs.

To ensure that only those projects which truly have broad-based community support are funded. Strategies include requiring 1:1 match, limiting funding to gap financing after other resources have been exhausted

To be accountable for funds entrusted to us. Strategies include performance contracts between applicants and fiscal agent; quarterly reporting on outcomes; UCC filings for projects involving acquisition of fixed assets by private entities; and in worst case scenarios reimbursement of funds.

Question 2: What are barriers to your goals and how can we help?
Prompt issuance of rules and contracts. Administrative contracts were issued extremely late this year—over one year into the start of the biennium. Fiscal agents drive the planning process and subsequently the funding decisions process. I doubt your staff would show up to work without a guaranteed paycheck for a year. We were fortunate that ours did, but it should be an embarrassment to the state of Oregon that we had to ask them to do so.

Consistent policy on when funds must be expended/obligated. Likewise, a consistent set of rules for when funds must be expended or returned to the state would be very helpful. During the last biennium, the “drop dead” timeframe for “expending,” later changed to “obligating” changed at least three times. There is no reason that regional boards and those who receive funds cannot know and rely on this information from the outset.

Resolution to Multi-Region Funding Dilemma. I believe you are familiar with the dilemma of administering multi-region projects. These projects have almost no natural advocates. There are only a handful of organizations and governmental entitities whose interests and jurisdictions are multi-regional. Thus, there is a very limited pool of potential project proponents, meaning that the majority of applications come from community college and industry organizations. These cash-strapped entities have little incentive to expend the time and money necessary to pitch their projects to local boards with differing priorities, competing needs and processes not synchronized with one another. This is especially true given the relatively minimal amount of funding set aside by most regional boards. In addition, if there is one theme the Department, the Commission and the Legislature has hammered home with regional boards it is the need to be accountable for the funds we distribute. In doing so, you have created great reluctance to fund projects which are outside the region and therefore not under the regular scrutiny of board members. I have been chair of the Central Oregon Board since 1993. I have seen fairs. I have seen web sites. I have seen efforts to fund projects at Challenge of Change. All have failed as a coherent means of selecting multi-regional projects. I have only seen one system work, and that was when the Commission itself held back multi-regional funds, heard presentations from project proponents and allocated funds. Not only was the method efficient, it had the side benefit of involving Commission members directly in the unpleasant task of having to pick and choose among too many qualified projects, all of whose proponents were deeply invested in the outcome of their applications. To the degree that this put the five of you in the hot seat where regional boards must sit each month, it was a wonderfully unifying experience, and I would recommend that you return to that method of distributing multi-regional funds. Alternatively, exercise your statutory option and do not fund multi-regional projects in the next biennium, allowing boards to get back to doing what they do best, which is selecting the best of many local projects.

Is the partnership between your entity and the department working?
I believe it works. It would work better if we were able to continue to run programs for more than one biennium without needing to readjust strategic course or operations based on changes in legislative/commission policy or Commission/Departmental procedure. Sometimes we the regional boards feel like the “partnership” is best described as the partnership of a puppet and puppeteer with us being the ones dancing at the end of the strings.