At an informational session on Nov. 17, three state agencies presented plans showing how they would meet a possible 5% budget reduction and warned of tradeoffs in services and revenue.

Betsy Eimholt, Service Director at the Department of Administrative Services (DAS), said the DAS 5% reduction list would "increase our security risks," lower employee engagement and retention, raise legal exposure and reduce customer service. She noted DAS manages a large portfolio of pass‑through general fund amounts ("most of that general fund, actually 92,000,000 of that 94,000,000 ... was to direct pass through to local government and nonprofits") and that DAS's other‑fund reduction target was roughly $39,700,000.

Terrence Woods, the state's chief information officer, said DAS's largest program areas are cybersecurity and data center services. He said reaching 5% would force "scaling back or canceling some of our infrastructure projects, some of our information security initiatives" and reduce vendor support the state relies on.

Department of Revenue Director David Gerstenfeld told the committee DOR's 5% reductions equate to about $13,400,000 in general fund and $8,200,000 in other funds. He said the agency prioritized steps that would minimize long‑term revenue loss — such as vacancy savings and temporary delays to hardware replacement — but warned that deeper cuts would have consequences: to reach full 5% would require about 45 positions (many currently filled) to remain unfilled, which would reduce audits, enforcement and collections and could lower future voluntary compliance.

Gerstenfeld also warned some pass‑through reductions could affect property tax deferral programs for seniors and disabled residents, potentially shifting costs to counties or increasing enforcement actions.

Ricardo Lujan Valerio, Deputy Chief of Staff at the Secretary of State's office, said the office's 2.5% and 5% options total roughly $3.2 million and $6.5 million respectively, with reductions concentrated in audits, the corporations division, elections and archives. He said the office would remove a voluntary 'safe harbor' review program for election materials under the reduction package and cautioned that cuts could complicate implementation of House Bill 4024 (campaign finance changes). "Prior review of elections materials will no longer be an option," he said.

Why it matters: committee members repeatedly raised concerns that cutting revenue‑generation or enforcement staff is counterproductive: it can reduce near‑term costs but also shrink future revenues. Members asked DAS to produce a detailed inventory of leased versus state‑owned space to identify consolidation savings and requested written follow‑ups on specific questions such as whether the Connect Oregon match cited for an ODOT item is already approved.

Next steps: agencies will post detail materials on OLIS and provide written follow‑ups; the legislature awaits the revenue forecast before deciding which reduction level (if any) to adopt.