Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Higher Education Applied Learning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House hearing spotlights Sustainable City Year program and request for continued matching funds
Summary
Supporters of House Bill 3109 told the House Committee on Higher Education that the University of Oregon–based Sustainable City Year Program (SCYP) gives students hands‑on experience while producing hundreds of community projects across Oregon; presenters asked the committee to continue state matching funds after a federal match expires.
Get email alerts on the Higher Education Applied Learning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Representative Tom Anderson, chief sponsor, opened a public hearing on House Bill 3109 on Jan. 30, urging support for the Sustainable City Year Program, saying the bill “addresses issues Oregonians face while also helping the next generation with practical experience.”
The bill would provide state matching funds to continue SCYP’s work pairing university courses with community‑identified projects across Oregon. Mark Schlossberg, professor of community and regional planning at the University of Oregon, told the committee, “SCYP is a gem of a program that we have here in Oregon that is simultaneously a program of education, of workforce development, and public service to Oregon communities.” He said the requested state match is intended to replace expiring federal congressionally directed spending that previously expanded participation.
Nut graf: Supporters described SCYP as a multi‑disciplinary, applied‑learning partnership that has delivered hundreds of projects and thousands of student hours to Oregon communities; the program’s backers asked for modest state funding to reduce the financial burden on city partners and to maintain statewide participation after federal support ends.
Program scope and examples SCYP participants told the committee the program matches university classes to city projects over an academic year and scales projects to community need. Sienna Fitzpatrick, a master’s student in community and regional planning, described a fall term project for the city of Corvallis that tasked students with reimagining a newly rezoned parcel to meet the state’s climate and housing goals. “In such a short amount of time, we were able to present our vision for this parcel of land to the city of Corvallis,” Fitzpatrick said, noting students completed site visits, data analysis and professional deliverables in about 10 weeks.
Presenters said the program has served more than 5,000 students across more than 300 projects and has logged roughly 750,000 student hours. Schlossberg told the committee SCYP includes partnerships with cities large and small — from La Pine to Portland — and noted that communities contribute cash to projects so municipal staff remain invested in outcomes.
Finances and administration Schlossberg told members the typical state funding request is modest in the budget context: an estimated biennial ask that he described as “low, medium, and high” ranging in recent planning between $300,000 and $600,000 over the biennium. He said the program’s largest cost is staff time to coordinate projects, scoping, site visits and class logistics across universities and municipal partners. Schlossberg said the program received a federal match through congressionally directed spending (sponsored by U.S. Senators Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden) that is ending and that the state match would help preserve participation levels.
Committee process Committee members asked about selection criteria for partner cities, program outcomes and past funding. Schlossberg said communities are chosen based on the match of projects to class disciplines, local commitment, and timing with municipal decision cycles. Representative Wright asked about the bill’s financial estimate and was told by Schlossberg the range is roughly $300,000–$600,000 over the biennium. No vote was taken; the item was heard as a public hearing and may be scheduled for a work session before the first chamber deadline.
Ending Supporters left the committee with public testimony files and a list of example projects and community endorsements; no committee action was taken during the hearing.
