Democrats in Salem have made their final play in a desperate attempt to curry support for their transportation funding plan. With just a few days left in the legislative session, the latest move to find support for House Bill 2025 includes major changes and one final stop in committee before what will be an all-out sprint to the finish line.
The bill, known as HB 2025-A28 will get its final public hearing and committee vote later this afternoon.
As I reported yesterday, the version of HB 2025 that was adopted by the Joint Committee on Transportation Reinvestment (JCTR) six days ago, known as HB 2025-A, has been amended. Documents posted to the legislative website Wednesday afternoon reveal a new bill with a smaller tax footprint that omits several provisions that spurred opposition among moderate Republicans and even some Democrats.
The authors of the bill need to do three things in very short order to fulfill their top priority of the session: pass the bill out of committee, get three-fifths majority on the House floor, and make sure that the language of the bill doesn’t spur a ballot referral.
To Democratic leadership, this means the bill needs to be less of an easy target to lawmakers and voters who think it takes too much out of their wallets. Their latest changes to the bill shrink it by $3 billion. According to OPB, the state would take in about $11.6 billion in new revenue over the next 10 years with the newly amended version of HB 2025, instead of $14.6 billion in the bill passed last week.
Democrats have also caved on their plan to raise the gas tax and index it to inflation. The original bill would have raised the per gallon gas tax by 15 cents in the coming three years, followed by an automatic increase pegged to annual inflation rates. In committee hearings, Republicans strongly opposed indexing the gas tax to inflation because they feel it would abdicate their power.
The newly amended bill scraps the indexing plan and would simply raise the gas tax by 12 cents starting next year.
Another way the Democrats have scaled back the bill is to give up on a new “transfer tax” that would have been levied on the retail price of used and new vehicles at a rate of 1% and 2% respectively.
To make up for that revenue loss, the new plan is to increase the dealer vehicle privilege tax and general vehicle use tax. That tax is currently 0.5% and applies only to new cars. It was boosted to 1% in the current version of the bill. The latest proposal is to increase it to 2.25% and apply it to used cars for the first time.
Money raised from the privilege tax would be distributed to these projects and programs:
- 38% to the Great Streets Fund, which invests in urban state highways to make them more humane, main streets.
- 38% to the Anchor Project Fund, the new name for what lawmakers say is “unfinished business” from the previous transportation package that mandated completion of key megaprojects like the I-5 Rose Quarter, Abernethy Bridge, I-205 widening, and so on.
- 10% to the Zero Emission Incentive Fund, which gives out rebates for purchasing electric cars (but not electric bikes because once again the legislature has failed to create equity between cars and bikes in that program).
- 8% to the Connect Oregon Fund, which invests in non-highway infrastructure like airports, marine terminals, rail, and some biking and walking projects.
- 6% to the Railroad Fund which can be spend on passenger rail maintenance and operations.
Money raised from the use tax would be spent as follows:
- Up to $5 million to the Wildlife-Vehicle Collision Fund
- Up to $25 million to the Safe Routes to School Fund
- Anything left over would be distributed via the 50/30/20 formula to the state, counties, and cities respectively.
Another hot-button issue with the version of the bill was the volume and size of increases to dozens of vehicle-related fees such as ones folks pay at the DMV for titles, registrations, new license plates, and so on. The new bill slashes those increases by significant amounts.
One final change I’m still trying to fully understand is how the new bill handles the bicycle tax. HB 2025-A kept the $15 tax on new bicycle intact. HB 2025-A28 appears to fold the bike tax into the general vehicle use tax, meaning it will now be a more progressive, percentage-based tax of 1% of the purchase price of a new bicycle. (Note: I’m still trying to find clarity on this provision and will update this post when I figure it out.)
Those are the big differences with the newly amended bill. It will get a public hearing and final vote in the JCTR today at 3:30 pm. From there, it should move onto a floor vote. According to OPB, the extremely tight timeline means Democrats need some procedural help from Republicans to get it over the finish line. I’ve heard some Democratic support for other bills this session authored by Republicans have created the opportunity for this to happen, but there are no guarantees.
Stay tuned. This bill could pass or fail. It’s anyone’s guess at this point.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
I would double that bike tax.
I’m disappointed to see this change.
Just about every written testimony is in opposition to this bill, and it seems like there will be some level of administrative difficulty in even getting the bill to a vote. I’m not very optimistic that it will pass, and I’m not even sure how to feel about it. On the one hand, this is probably better than what we have now, but the lack of vision and process shown by D lawmakers here has been utterly baffling. They did a whole state tour, got a bunch of feedback on what people wanted (more transit, safer streets, etc.) and proceeded to create a fairly bad compromise between highway expansion and the expressed needs of regular schmucks.
And something that bothers me deeply about this process is that ODOT megaprojects get carte blanche, even though they are the primary drivers of the budget crisis. It’s like no one can bother to consider that maybe we can’t actually afford to do every highway expansion project that ODOT wants to do in the way they want to. There is still very weak functional oversight. The “anchor projects” that are unfinished are not unfinished solely as a result of factors outside of ODOT’s control, they are also unfinished because of extremely poor project planning. The Newberg-Dundee bypass is a particularly galling example of this, where some $45M has been spent on construction for just phase 2A (essentially redesigning one interchange), plus $22M in design + right of way acquisition. In 2019, ODOT estimated $150M for the entirety of phase 2 and 3 (extending the bypass to connected with 99W directly just east of Newberg, and extending the west end to the junction with 233). Now, we’ve spent well over 1/3rd of that on just one interchange. How much will it cost to complete? The legislature isn’t even bothering to allocate a specific amount of money to each anchor project, just a set amount of the gas tax increase for however long it takes to generate enough revenue to complete like five highway projects. That’s outrageously bad policy in a vacuum, and while it may be somewhat understandable given how fractured this process has been, it’s hard to support a measure like this in good conscience.
Are there aspects of this that are good? Yes! I think raising the gas tax is a clear and obvious need, and I’d be gutted if we didn’t raise the state transit tax, but it’s bitterly disappointing that we spend all this time and effort advocating for better transportation policy and end up with “more of the same”, time and time again. And then to see absolutely no real leadership from the Dems on climate, transportation, or anything else I care about while also doing stupid stuff like moving to bar Multnomah County from levying the preschool for all tax (which thankfully seems to have died – but still). It gives me very little faith in any of the specific legislators who I have previously voted for, and it does not bode well for the future of Oregon transportation policy that we may end up waiting until 2027 for a reasonable funding measure.
Great comment that nicely reflects how I feel about this bill in particular and the performance of state-level elected officials generally.
I feel the same way. When I vote for them again, I’m going to color the oval less emphatically.
Ha – you nailed it, Watts. The Dems are so disappointing because the Rs are unhinged. If Rs offered a reasonable alternative, I would vote for them.
And since they’ll never be hinged enough for your liking, you’ll keep supporting the people who do the things you don’t like. Arab voters in Michigan figured this out and voted for Trump even though they knew he’d be worse for them than Harris.
I guarantee you Democrats there will be much more respectful of Arab voters moving forward, while Democrats here will continue taking us for granted.
We may very well have already exceeded 1.5 C by 2027 (based on the future 10 year average) but I think the likelihood of a science-based funding measure even then is close to zero. The pot of Oregon democrat frogs in still lukewarm and it will likely take another decade or so for the heat to be painful enough for legislators and (most importantly) their 1 percenter funders start to start to panic.
Regardless of exactly when the 1.5C threshold is reached, the crisis is already here and it is painful watching/listening to the various supposed climate supporters in the Washington and Oregon legislatures (and their sycophants among the voting throng) focus on utter nonsense that is not even attempting to mitigate what has already started. What’s happening with this transportation bill is not some shocking, unusual incompetence, its just business as usual for them and I’m glad some of the faithful seem to be waking up and seeing the process for what it is.
The sad truth is that any politician from any purple-ish district who votes against the Driving Status Quo (DSQ) is committing political suicide.
Look at Sen. Meek, who is totally beholden to drivers for support. He dare not do anything to offend them. He’s no profile in courage.
Let’s just admit we are not going to meet climate goals. Oregon is a small state and whatever positive impacts it produces are neglible in the broader scope
These aren’t just megaprojects that ODOT wants, they’re megaprojects that the legislature wants. And therein lies the problem.
Absolutely, and then the question to consider is why the legislature wants them. What is the desired goal of the project? To move more cars? To provide a steady flood of taxpayer money to special interests? To put more re-election funds in the pockets of the legislature?
Probably because they think their voters want them. And they may be right.
Sure, and I am confident that the Newberg-Dundee bypass is popular among a specific sector of Yamhill County commuters and businesses. But when I look at the highway network in the area and the plans for the bypass, the project makes basically no sense in how it’s been planned and executed. The only major traffic issue in the area is a stretch of 99W between Dundee and Lafayette that narrows from 4 lanes to 2 lanes, and that seems to be only a minor issue at the peak of the peak of commuting times. Spending $200M on fixing that issue just doesn’t seem fiscally sound to me. But of course, that issue isn’t set to be addressed until Phase 3 of the project, maximizing the amount that would have to be spent to address what should essentially be a $10M to $50M project.
The legislature and the public wants outcomes of reduced traffic congestion and a functional roadway network*, and ODOT has a responsibility to scope projects in a way that will actually deliver that for an acceptable amount of money. Rather than do this, it seems like ODOT always chooses the most expensive, deluxe, and controversial projects to bet the farm on. I chock that up to bad management and an oversight structure which is uninterested in regulating and overseeing a budget-friendly operation. If we want our transportation network to be fiscally sustainable, this has to be a bigger part of the conversation.
*the legislature may have less savory motivations too, but I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt in general
Another great take. I’d add that the RQ and I-5 projects are also all about spending billion$ to save drivers a few minutes in traffic. They are terrible uses of scarce taxpayer dollars – attempts to return us to 1950s’ levels of traffic congestion. Those days are gone forever.
” And then to see absolutely no real leadership from the Dems on climate, transportation, or anything else I care about while also doing stupid stuff like moving to bar Multnomah County from levying the preschool for all tax (which thankfully seems to have died – but still). It gives me very little faith in any of the specific legislators who I have previously voted for, and it does not bode well for the future of Oregon transportation policy that we may end up waiting until 2027 for a reasonable funding measure.”
Great comment, well thought out and very relatable.
This isn’t something that just all of a sudden happened with the Dems. It’s been like this for awhile and they have had no incentive to change because far too many people keep voting for them reflexively and supporting them.
As Watts says below sarcastically, “When I vote for them again, I’m going to color the oval less emphatically.”
The problem being is that the oval still gets filled in (which Watts is meaning of course) and this scenario with the transportation bill will continue.
If my choices on a ballot boil down to 1/2 Pol Pot or Pol Pot twice over, I’m going to hold my nose and vote for that lesser of two evils. That’s the whole point, it’s lesser! To put it more plainly, there’s a political party in this state that has some issues with its members and some platform planks that I agree with and others I disagree with, sometimes vehemently so. But then compared to the other political party that has any chance at all of being in power, who in just about every case want to do awful things to me, my family, and my community, the choice is quite clear. Sure, that batshit party might save me a few hundred dollars in taxes or make it easier for me to make a profit logging and mining in the forest next door, but that seems a pittance selling out my and my neighbors’ humanity.
That makes sense in a one-off situation. But, like the Prisoner’s Dilemma, optimal strategy changes when you play the game repeatedly, as we do with elections.
I broadly agree, though I wouldn’t frame my own tepid support for Dems as “reflexive”. It’s more like a hostage situation really, since I rarely, if ever, am presented with legitimate alternatives – and I’m generally someone who feels that a “legitimate alternative” can be a third party or independent candidate. Most state level stuff is just a straight D vs. R choice, and I’m reluctant to abstain altogether outside of extraordinary circumstances (corruption/scandal related). I voted for Tina Kotek, but it wasn’t like a “wahoo, let’s get Tina Kotek elected”, it was more like a “I don’t want a conservative ghoul (Drazan) or a corrupt moderate who is clearly in it to appeal to wealthy interests (Johnson)”
I actually think at the state legislature level, the larger issue is a lack of good candidates. In all of the elections in Portland I can recall, I’m don’t think either my state rep (Rob Nosse, who I like – mostly on account of him always answering my emails with kindness) or state senator (Kathleen Taylor, who I do not like) even had perfunctory opposition. One would think this would be an easy issue to solve (if only a few of the myriad of candidates who ran for Portland City Council ran against Kathleen Taylor specifically, I’d be very happy).
Who wants to run in a district where everyone always votes Democrat no matter how much they claim to hate the policies that vote results in?
It’s a tough balancing act. There are constitutional issues:
The Legislative Assembly can’t raise taxes without a 3/5 majority in both chambers (bad law).
The House of Representatives and Senate can’t function if 2/3 of all members are not present to do business (bad law).
Taxes raised through certain transportation functions, e.g. gas tax, must be spent on highways, vice other transportation solutions, such as passenger rail or bikeways (bad law).
Then there are just the straight political issues:
To rule, one must become a ruler, and to become a ruler in our republic, you must be elected, and to be elected you must have some level of positive notoriety, and to gain positive notoriety you usually have to do things like place some ads and hire canvassers to get the word out, and to hire those services you need money, and to get money you generally have to spend a bunch of time fundraising, and the deepest, most reliable pockets to fundraise out of tend to be corporate entities who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. If you try to champion a bill that threatens to overturn that status quo, like what would be required to reorient the state’s transportation system towards mass and active transit and dense land use, you risk pissing off those monied interests to the point that they’ll pull support and may even fund a future challenger, which robs you of the ability to rule at all. And sure, in our republic you might be able to get a few people who are brave enough or notorious enough that they don’t need to kowtow to the monied interests, but you need more than a handful to pass things out of the legislature and get the executive to sign off on (see the constitutional points above).
The people we hire to be our rulers come from diverse backgrounds and represent diverse populations. We the people of, say, Portland proper, may see the utility and need to invest in alternative modes of transportation, but that doesn’t mean that the farmers outside Newberg or the suburbanites of Gresham will agree with that vision. Sens. Pham and Gorsek may be neighbors, but that doesn’t mean they’re going to see eye to eye on the best transportation solutions for their constituents. That makes it really hard to get to “yes” on a big compromise that everyone agrees is needed, but no one agrees on what it should look like and what their limits are, doubly so when you need to get to 3/5 yes, and triply so when you need to avoid pissing off significant minority enough that they storm out and refuse to participate.
I don’t know if this bill will pass or not, and I honestly don’t really care whether it does. I’m watching it because it has the potential to be really good and really bad, but right now it’s just a big compromise that will have some good and some bad with it. I would take a half measure over nothing, but I’m not sure if the cost of that half measure will end up being less than the benefit. Regardless of this bill’s success, however, we’re still ignoring the real long-term problem, which is that our system of land use and transportation is fiscally (not to mention ecologically or socially) unsustainable. At some point we’re going to have to reckon with that, and indeed this bill is the first whispers of that reckoning that’s coming. Given the political structure of our state (not to mention the utter dysfunction and cravenness that rules the day in Washington), I strongly suspect that things will actually have to break in a significant and very painful way before we change trajectory. At best, this bill, if passed, will only soften and possibly delay that fiscal disaster; it will not avoid it entirely. I hope that I’m wrong, but either way this bill be neither a crushing defeat (except maybe for the Democrats who will look foolish for a while before the public consciousness moves on) nor a soaring success.
I think the bill would be more palatable if they limited the increase of the dealer vehicle privilege tax to 1%. The revised proposal to increase it 4.5x the existing rate of 0.5% is still going to rankle a lot of feathers. I wish they were serious about making this bipartisan from the beginning and sticking to that theme. With the future of the state economy very uncertain, now is not the time for such a broad set of new and/or significantly increased taxes on the transportation sector.
You don’t rankle feathers – you ruffle them. But I get your point.
What do you rankle? I can’t remember. Someone please enlighten us.
So a new, $5,000 bicycle will get hit with a $50 tax. A $14,000 bicycle made in Oregon with many U.S.-made components will get hit with a $140 tax. Will Oregon still offer subsidies for electric SUVs and cars made on another continent?
A one percent tax on a new bike would be nothing if it actually came with some roads to ride on. One percent on your example of an Oregon hand built bike is a lot less than the buyer will spend on shoes. Your $5000 customer is going to want a $200 lock for their new e cargo bike, that’s four percent. One percent is just not an important amount of money for most people buying a new bike, and for those who truly can’t afford it the used market is out there. A good used bike is a better value than a cheap new bike anyway.
Yes the Oregon Democratic Party is feckless with their super majority, they should quit prattling about bipartisanship and just roll the Republicans. Eat their lunch.
Yes the bike tax is a nuisance for bike shops. I’d suggest they ring it up double and use the balance to shop for legislators. An effective trade organization with a few million to spend every election cycle is worth a lot more than a few bucks here and there for MUPs. If you want to find out what your legislator is up to, find out how they get to work.
Even as a luxury good, bikes are cheap, cheap, cheap. There’s not enough money in the bike market to pay for stadiums, we lost the velodrome but here comes baseball. We have one and a quarter square miles of golf courses in public parks, but good luck getting a bike trail. Unless and until bike riders become known as noisy single issue voters we’re going to get crumbs and crappy pavement.
What a failure by the Democrats.
No one really knows how the parties get to “Yes”
The pieces that are sacrificed in every game of chess
We just assume that it happens
But no else is in the room where it happens
“But no else is in the room where it happens”
Thats definitely the problem with single party rule and has been a problem going back to the bad old deep south days or the Tammany Hall days to the east. The classic smoke-filled room far from the curious and concerned eyes of the peasantry voters.