10. Lois Neistat (Individual / Concerned Oregonians)

We have gotten to this point, in Oregon, because of the policies put in place over the last 40 years under progressive leadership, and doing the opposite is a logical solution if we want to end up in a different place. Problems:

Too much regulation for businesses that has increased costs to operate in our state.
High taxes – income taxes, corporate activity tax, estate taxes, capital gains taxes
Poor k-12 results
Unfunded liabilities in PERS that cause more $$ to fund and fewer people to provide service
Outdated and Unrealistic Land Use Planning
Loosing companies to other states Goals:
Keep existing companies in Oregon.
Attract new companies to Oregon.
Retain our Oregonians in our state.
Improve education and infrastructure
Get our fiscal house in order
Exit interviews with companies that have left Oregon Keeping companies in Oregon and attracting new ones:
Eliminate recent regulations that have increased costs, decreased productivity and removed freedom of management in private industry. a. Eliminate mandatory paid vacation b. Eliminate paid leave c. Eliminate state-wide rent control
Eliminate the corporate activity tax. It has driven up costs for companies and individuals while doing nothing to improve k-12 education, which is what the funds are earmarked for. Solve PERS over the next 10 years:
The single biggest thing we can do for economic development is eliminate the high-cost of PERS by removing the unfunded liability. PERS is killing all government services from fire to police to k-12 to high education. a. Earmark all tax receipts from the following toward paying down PERS: i. capital gains tax income ii. estate taxes iii. Income taxes in excess of 4% over the previous biennium. b. Use the earmarked funds to provide a 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 match for all agencies to receive $2/$3 for each $1 they put toward paying down their PERS unfunded liability. Improve our k-12 ranking to above median in the USA:
We must change the system if we want change. Give power to the education consumer – the child and the parent.
Implement a voucher system whereby competition becomes part of our education system. Allow choice to improve the results.
Separate the special needs budget from the total education budget. Special needs funding remains as is.
The remainder of the k-12 budget is divided by the # of students excluding special needs. This identifies what the state provides per student.
Give each student 85% of the amount the state currently provides per student. The student may use the funds to attend any public or private school they wish to attend.
Public schools receive an allotment from the 15% not given to students. The balance of their budget is funded by students choosing to go to their school. Poor schools will close

just like a poor restaurant. Quality schools will thrive just like any quality product or service. Keep Oregonians in Oregon:

Eliminate the estate tax or increase the exemption to match the Federal exemption, which is currently $15 million per person.
Reduce the capital gains tax from 9.9% to 3.9%.
Take the top tax rate of 9.9%, which was added in 2012 to 9%, and cap government spending growth to inflation + 1% per year. The goal being to gradually reduce the income tax rate if economic growth exceeds inflation +1%.
In the long run we would be better off with a diverse tax base including a 6% income tax, 3% capital gains tax, no estate tax and 5% sales tax. The only way this would ever work is if the tax code included a cap on revenue growth tied to inflation +1%. Without the cap, the citizens of Oregon will never trust adding a sales tax. Increase state government efficiency:
Either cut the budget by 10% to force a focus on efficiency or hold the budget flat (no inflation adjustment) and allow time to trim people, departments and services that are bloated, unnecessary, or past their prime. This is a starting point. There are other problems (infrastructure maintenance, homelessness, mental illness solutions, and others) that deserve attention in round II. Higher Education The problems that SOU are confronting are not unique to this institution. Recent financial estimates show that by 2031, without changes, all public universities in Oregon will have negative ending cash balances, leaving many in similar places to where SOU finds itself right now. Hopefully, our situation will be a clear warning sign for state lawmakers regarding the severity of the consequences if they continue to underfund higher education

How did we get here? Simple answer is a chronic underfunding of public universities in Oregon. Oregon spends less by far than our neighboring states on institutional support per student FTE, and less on student financial assistance. For years, we have been able to string together enough one-time funding to operate, but in the absence of those one-time funds and no additional ongoing revenue, the gaps between revenue and costs have become too large to manage. At OSU, we face a very difficult budgetary situation, with cuts being made across the university. Public universities are an incredible engine of economic activity and transform the lives of our students. A recent study estimated that $1 of state investment in OSU results in $13 of increased economic activity. So, ask yourself again, what is your perception of Oregon's funding of public 4-year universities? Rural Oregon/ Agriculture OSU Extension Service is a statewide asset that advances economic prosperity in rural communities by supporting small businesses, producers, workforce skills, and community capacity. Extension provides a direct pathway for translating research into practice and stands ready to play an expanded role in implementing statewide economic strategies in rural and resource-dependent regions. OSU Extension programs reach approximately 90,000 youth annually through 4-H, supported by more than 8,000 volunteers and over 600 employees, providing a direct and scalable pathway to implement statewide economic strategies in rural and resource-dependent regions.

rising labor costs, complex regulatory frameworks, and regulatory disparities between Oregon and neighboring states have created a challenging economic environment that threatens the long-term viability of one of Oregon’s longest standing and iconic agricultural sectors. A November 2025 Oregon State University study highlighted the growing burden of regulation costs, finding that small pear growers pay as much as $696 per acre in regulatory compliance costs alone, representing as much as 6.6% of total revenue and placing significant strain on already thin operating margins. This partnership is essential for three reasons: • A stabilizing traded sector: While technology fuels innovation and high growth, it can be cyclical. Agriculture and Food & Beverage provide durable, statewide economic output sustaining communities across the state through market shifts and economic downturns. • A fully integrated rural–urban value chain: Agriculture uniquely connects rural production, urban processing, and global trade through Oregon’s ports. Including this perspective ensures the Prosperity Roadmap advances a truly “One Oregon” economy. • Land-use and site-readiness expertise: We noted your emphasis on industrial site readiness. As stewards of working lands, the agricultural community can help the state navigate land-use tensions in ways that expand economic opportunity while preserving long-term sector viability. Land Use Laws first put in place in the 1970’ were designed to protect open space and agricultural land. They are outdated and are a disservice to for forementioned. Southern Oregon has gone from 13,000 acres of pears to 3,000 and dwindling. If the economics are not there for agriculture people need alternatives to use their land, if not they will go out of business and the land will lay fallow. Southern Oregon Key takeaways:  Jackson County’s population stabilized in 2025, growing 0.1% (+325 residents YoY) after four years of decline—fragile, but a meaningful return to growth.  Within that modest county gain, Medford added 1,208 residents between July 1, 2024 and July 1, 2025 (88,738 → 89,946), a 1.3% increase and roughly 4× the next-largest contributor in the Rogue Valley (Eagle Point, +325). This local growth is contrasted by Oregon’s weak performance on core business-climate metrics —business friendliness (47th), cost of doing business (43rd), and cost of living (45th). These CNBC “America’s Top States for Business” rankings—widely used KPIs in state economic development—are informing Governor Kotek’s Prosperity Roadmap and accelerating Business Oregon’s first comprehensive statewide economic development strategy, to which we’ve been providing feedback alongside peers statewide.

What’s interesting is the underlying assumption being challenged here: that population growth is primarily driven by business growth. Our local data, combined with national trends (notably remote work), suggest the inverse is increasingly true. Across the country, economic development best practices are shifting toward placemaking—with Bend serving as a useful case study. This is a fundamental (and sometimes unpopular) shift given its indirect impacts and timelines that extend beyond election cycles. This perspective is informed by internal research Izrael has been instrumental in helping draft, supporting Economic Development’s development of a market-adjusted, foundational ideology. Drafts are attached in case you’re curious or if you're time crunched, here is a 6.5 minute video presentation we created for internal purposes that sums it all well. By the way, national data reinforces this shift:  NAR’s 2024 Migration Trends show proximity to friends/family and housing affordability now drive most moves; job relocation plays no role for 43% of recent buyers, and employer office policies account for ~2%.  Allied’s 2024 & 2025 Migration Reports shows interstate moves down 7%, with growing preference for small and mid-sized cities where quality of life and affordability outweigh proximity to job centers.  Analysts consistently note that remote work allows talent to prioritize climate, outdoor access, community feel, and affordability—forcing employers to follow talent rather than lead it.

Parent: Appendix E: Submissions & Feedback · PDF: pp. 165-170