Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek has unveiled the details of a potential funding solution to preserve state transportation and maintenance services.

, revealed Thursday, would deliver funding for the State Highway Fund in the 2025-2027 biennium, while maintaining Oregon’s emergency funds for urgent needs, such as wildfire suppression, a press release states.

Due to a budget gap, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) must make severe budget cuts, according to the proposal. Without intervention, this would lead to hundreds of layoffs and reduce state and local services. Also, 12 maintenance facilities across the state would need to close.

On July 21, legislative leaders committed to finding a funding solution during a special session and pledged to backfill dollars if needed. Kotek then directed ODOT to postpone the first wave of layoffs until Sept. 15, allowing time to reach a funding solution. However, those layoffs, and a second wave of layoffs scheduled for January 2026, will take place if additional revenues are not secured during a special session, the proposal states.

As part of the proposal, half of the revenues from the gas tax, registration fees and title fees would go to ODOT to prevent layoffs, service reductions, and maintenance station closures. Remaining state highway dollars would flow to counties and cities as part of the traditional 50/30/20 split.

The plan calls for a six-cent increase to the state’s gas tax, a $42 increase for car registrations and a $139 increase to title fees.

Additionally, funding from the 0.1 percent payroll tax increase would be directed to the Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund to prevent additional layoffs and maintain services within transit districts across the state.

The post Oregon transportation funding proposal revealed appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

A pair of companion bills that would change how prevailing wage is calculated for public construction projects are under consideration during the 2021 Oregon legislative session.

Senate Bill 493 and House Bill 2419 would largely do away with regional surveys that currently are used to set prevailing wage and would instead mandate that collective bargaining agreements for each of the craft trades involved be used to determine prevailing wage across the state. Where more than one collective bargaining agreement exists in the state, an average of the wages set by those agreements would then determine the prevailing wage. The current wage surveys would be used only where no collective bargaining agreement exists for a given trade or occupation.

Public hearings have been held by both the House and Senate committees on business and labor, with the Senate committee voting 3-1 on March 9 to pass SB 493 to the Senate floor for consideration. HB 2419, meanwhile, was debated by the House committee on Feb. 10, but no further action has been taken.

Supporters of the bills include organized labor and trade associations. Officials are optimistic that SB 493, in particular, may have a fighting chance at passage.

“It is a positive sign,” Professional Business Development Group (PBDG) Executive Director Kenechi Onyeagusi said following the Senate committee’s vote. “I can tell you that I have conversations like this all the time where people will not bid on work if it’s not prevailing wage. It’s very important to us that prevailing wage is the standard, because what it does is allow smaller firms that might otherwise not be competitive to attract workforce.”

The PBDG is a trade association that represents minority-owned, woman-owned and COBID (Certification Office for Business Inclusion and Diversity) certified contractors. These are precisely the types of firms that would benefit most from the proposed bill, Onyeagusi said. Such firms would then be able to recruit and retain skilled and experienced craftspeople, who in turn would help make those firms more competitive in the marketplace.

“When you’re starting off a one-man firm, or with a couple of employees and you’re needing to attract workforce, having a job that pays prevailing wage, it’s a cost that the owner is ultimately agreeing to pay,” she said. “That small firm is able to attract the same caliber of workers as a much larger firm. It levels the playing field in a way that not a lot of things do.”

Matt Swanson, political director for the Pacific Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters, agreed. The legislation would aid contractors in rural communities across the state, he said.

“We feel really good about the prospects,” he said. “We’ve had a number of good conversations about making the rates less cumbersome and setting the prevailing wage rate in a way that’s more predictable.”

A similar policy is already law in Washington, Swanson said, adding that fears of it significantly increasing public project costs appear to have been overblown.

“It’s been an ongoing issue in Oregon for some time,” he said. “We saw it pass in the state of Washington, and it really offers more stability in the wage rates. That’s good for public works and public employees.”

Opponents of the two bills include the Oregon School Boards Association, the League of Oregon Cities and other organizations that represent public agencies. They say the bills could significantly raise labor costs.

“We are highly concerned that relying upon one collective bargaining agreement, which could reflect specialized work or unique project-based needs, could result in significant wage spikes and contribute to a lack of certainty for cities when planning and budgeting for public infrastructure investments, school capital construction projects and some affordable housing projects,” Tracy Rutten Rainey, a lobbyist for the League of Oregon Cities, testified during the House committee hearing.

Washington’s policy has increased costs of public projects such as affordable housing, and generated litigation, Rainey and others say.

“If this bill passes and becomes effective, we expect wages to increase,” Lori Sattenspiel, director of legislative services for the Oregon School Boards Association, said during the House committee hearing. “These eight districts going out for a bond now may find themselves short of funds to complete projects.”

Robert Camarillo, executive secretary of the Oregon State Building and Construction Trades Council, said this stance could be the result of a lack of understanding of how prevailing wage works.

“I think a lot of them, from what I hear, they don’t understand the concept of prevailing wage,” Camarillo said. “The goal is never to increase the cost of projects. We’re all taxpayers, and we want to see our tax dollars spent responsibly.”

Instead, Camarillo said, it is more likely that a higher prevailing wage will allow contractors to attract workers with a higher skill level, leading to a need for a smaller labor pool.

The current annual wage surveys fail to accurately measure wages across all trades, he added, because they do not capture the entirety of the projects being queried.

“Our concern is when the survey is done, we don’t know what phase of the project that survey will capture,” he said. “If we had all the crafts on the job all the time it might be a better snapshot. But to come in only those four weeks, we can’t get an accurate snapshot of the work being done that week.”

The post Prevailing wage bills being weighed by Oregon Legislature appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The post Test Post for Primary Category appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Legislators are gathering in Salem for a five-week session that could have long-lasting effects on construction, commercial real estate and development.

Or, it could end with another walkout by Senate Republicans, limiting legislative progress on a host of priorities set forth by Gov. Kate Brown, House Speaker Tina Kotek and other Democratic leaders.

The Oregon Legislature will convene on Monday. At the top of the agenda for Democrats, who control both chambers, is cap-and-trade legislation that would limit carbon emissions. It’s broadly similar to systems in other states that cap emissions and let polluters trade for credit, with twists to address Oregon’s urban-rural divide.

Conversations are under way to persuade Senate Republicans to stay in Salem for the session.

“We’re hoping that they’re not going to use the same tactics and basically kill the short session, because there’s other important legislation that needs to be dealt with,” Rep. Mark Meek, D-Clackamas County, said.

Brown made a case for climate change legislation on Monday at a City Club event in Portland.

“We must do something meaningful and soon about climate change,” she said. “This is the challenge of our time.”

Yet Brown turned aside a critical question about the Oregon Department of Transportation‘s nearly $1 billion Rose Quarter project.

“We absolutely must address the Rose Quarter issue to increase safety and, at the same time we can do this with a layer of congestion pricing, and that should make sure it’s carbon neutral,” Brown said Monday.

Several changes have been made to climate change legislation that the House passed last year. The new Senate Bill 1530 would sharpen different approaches for urban and rural Oregon. The bill would require 80 percent of fund raised to be spent locally. ODOT would receive the remaining 20 percent, but the agency would be required to spend much of the revenue where it’s raised.

The cap-and-trade – or, to supporters, “cap and invest” – bill would roll out gradually by region, with Portland first subject to the requirements in 2022. Other cities would follow in 2025. Rural areas would have the option of opting in thereafter, but would not be required to do so.

“The majority of truly rural communities will be exempted from price increases at the pump,” Brown said.

The city of Portland has supported legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but hasn’t taken a position on the Senate bill, said Elizabeth Edwards, director of the city’s Office of Government Relations. “We’re reviewing it now and getting input,” she said.

The Senate Republican caucus did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In other legislation:

• Brown has filed a resolution, H.J.R. 203, which would authorize real estate transfer taxes to fund affordable housing. The resolution would be referred to voters as a constitutional amendment. It would essentially undo Measure 79, a 2012 ballot measure that prohibits real estate transfer taxes.

If the new measure were approved, the transfer fees would not apply to the first $500,000 of real estate value, exempting most home sales. (The median price of a Portland-area home was $410,000 in 2018, according to RMLS, and most rural areas have lower property values). The bill is likely to attract fierce opposition from the real estate industry.

• State Rep. Nancy Nathanson, D-Eugene, is sponsoring a bill that would “disconnect” state taxes from federal opportunity zone tax breaks. Investors would still earn federal tax breaks, but not additional state tax breaks, she stated in an email.

“The intent was to provide incentives for investors to invest in low-income communities,” Nathanson stated. “The cost to the state, however, is significant – estimated at $10 million or more for the first year – and legislators, constituents and some advocacy organizations are questioning whether the public benefit is worth the loss of revenue to fund critical programs.”

The bill would suspend state opportunity zone tax breaks for a year to allow time for a study of Oregon’s zones.

Portland’s opportunity zone has received national attention for its location covering downtown, Pearl District and Central Eastside real estate that is highly desirable to developers. Opportunity zone funds have been created in Portland for the 35-story Block 216 tower, a luxury hotel and condominium project; 11 West, a 25-story mixed-use building; and a proposed eight-story office building in the Central Eastside.

“The goal would be to come back next year and find out whether we want to reconnect with these opportunity zone breaks with a better understanding of what would best suit Oregonians and how we could best support Oregon,” Meek said.

The post 2020 Legislature: another climate change bill anticipated appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

SALEM – A climate change bill that could dominate the 2020 Oregon legislative session got its first public hearing last week as lawmakers try to find a compromise on an issue that led to Republican senators walking out of the Capitol last year.

Oregon Public Broadcasting reported the bill to implement a so-called cap-and-trade program in the state took center stage Jan. 13 in a three-hour meeting of the Senate Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. Lawmakers met for part of last week in regularly scheduled interim committee hearings.

Currently known as Legislative Concept 19, the new cap-and-trade proposal includes many provisions that appeared in last year’s House Bill 2020. Its authors say it’s a first draft, which will be tweaked during the 35-day session that begins Feb. 3.

Like HB 2020, the bill would force big greenhouse gas emitters to obtain credits for each ton of gas they emit, and create an overall cap for emissions allowed in the state. That cap would lower over time, in theory ensuring Oregon meets stringent conservation targets in 2035 and 2050. Entities required to obtain permits could trade them with one another.

But the bill largely authored by Senate Democrats includes a number of changes designed to assuage critics in the manufacturing and utility sectors, and create fewer impacts for rural Oregon. Those tweaks are largely centered on how automotive fuel suppliers and big industrial players are treated.

Rather than regulate automotive fuels uniformly statewide, the new proposal would split the state into three geographic zones that would be phased in separately. That approach is designed to address concerns that cap and trade would hike gas prices statewide, disproportionately affecting rural communities that have little option but to drive.

The Portland-metro area would see its fuels regulated first, beginning in 2022. The rest of the state’s metropolitan planning organizations – areas like Eugene, Bend and Salem – would follow in 2025, along with cities that receive at least 10 million gallons of fuel per year.

The remainder of the state would not see fuel supplies regulated until at least 19 counties decide to voluntarily participate in the program. In theory, that means rural Oregon would not be forced to pay more for gas because of cap and trade – a central issue Republicans raised in opposing HB 2020. Last year the Oregon GOP caucus in the Senate staged a nine-day walkout to kill a cap and trade measure. Being in the minority, Republicans said denying the chamber a quorum was an effective way to block a bill they said would kill jobs, raise the cost of fuel and gut small businesses in rural areas.

But this year there’s a trade-off for areas that wouldn’t see their fuel supply regulated: Money the state collects from selling credits for fuel emissions would largely flow back to the areas paying for emissions. Just 20 percent of that money would be eligible for transportation projects statewide. The rest would be put in the hands of local governments.

“The goal was to get a bill that can pass this session,” said Sen. Michael Dembrow, D-Portland, who has played a leading role in pushing the climate bill. “That’s the priority.”

Some manufacturers also remain opposed to carbon regulation, despite provisions designed to make the program less impactful.

“We appreciate the efforts that have been made by the governor’s office and legislators to come up with a more reasonable proposal,” Preston Mann, a spokesman for Oregon Manufacturers and Commerce and a related group, wrote in a statement earlier this month. “Unfortunately, despite efforts to mitigate the worst impacts of the program, the draft maintains the vast majority of the framework from last session’s bill.”

The post Oregon lawmakers tackling a new cap-and-trade bill appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

After failing to advance a rent control bill into law in 2017, Oregon Democrats are optimistic a favorable political landscape will change the result in Salem this session.

With strong majorities in both chambers, House and Senate leaders are moving aggressively on a host of policy priorities.

“I think it will be an activist session,” said John DiLorenzo, a lobbyist for More Housing Now, a trade group of large-scale apartment owners.

A bill co-sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Ginny Burdick, Sen. Laurie Monnes Anderson and House Speaker Tina Kotek would cap annual rent increases at 7 percent plus inflation, tied to the Consumer Price Index‘s West region. At current rates, that would limit rent hikes to about 10 percent annually.

“We want to prevent the kind of extreme rent increases we’ve seen throughout the state that lead to displacement and frequently, unfortunately, homelessness,” said Danny Moran, a spokesman for Kotek.

Senate Bill 608 would also protect tenants from eviction without cause, with some exceptions.

The stage was set for rent control by Shemia Fagan’s 2018 primary win over longtime incumbent Sen. Rod Monroe, a landlord who was widely viewed as a roadblock for tenant-protection measures. Fagan now serves as chairwoman of the Senate Housing Committee. She has indicated she intends to move quickly on SB 608.

Political groups are still studying the 2,000-plus bills that were posted to the Legislature’s website ahead of the session’s start on Tuesday. 1000 Friends of Oregon, a Portland nonprofit that runs the pro-housing group Portland For Everyone, has not taken a position on SB 608, Deputy Director Mary Kyle McCurdy said.

The bill would likely have little effect on large, institutional apartment owners, DiLorenzo said.

“If you’re a landlord who’s attentive to the market, you’re probably not going to be raising rents 10 percent,” he said.

Rents in Portland have stabilized after sharp increases in recent years. Average rents slipped 0.2 percent in January compared to a year earlier, according to Apartment List. Median rents for January were $1,120 for a one-bedroom apartment, and $1,320 for a two-bedroom. Statewide, rents fell 1.9 percent during the past year, according to Apartment List.

The rent control bill would most affect landlords who have been leasing their properties at well below market rates, DiLorenzo said, a situation he characterized as “no good deed goes unpunished.”

While some municipalities across the nation have some form of rent control, Oregon could be the first state to implement it. While setting a statewide cap, the bill would leave in place a statewide pre-emption on local rent control programs.

Economists have been broadly critical of rent control, saying such measures tend to depress housing production. Democrats said the bill would provide a level of stability, preventing only major rent spikes.

Other provisions of SB 608 include:

• extending protection from eviction to tenants who have been in place for 12 months or longer,
• limiting rent increases to one per year,
• allowing evictions after three documented violations of the rental agreement in a 12-month period, and
• allowing evictions with 90 days’ notice and payment of one month’s rent if the landlord has agreed to sell the property, if the landlord intends to demolish or convert the rental from residential use, if the landlord intends to undertake major repairs or renovations, if the landlord or a family member intends to occupy the property as a primary residence, or if the unit is unsafe or unfit for occupancy. Landlords with four or fewer units would be exempt from the requirement to pay one month’s rent.

The post Legislative proposal calls for cap on rent hikes appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The 2019 Oregon Legislature is now in session, and lawmakers could consider a wealth of bills that would affect the construction industry.

From workforce development and the prevention of wage theft to prevailing wage requirements and a controversial gross receipts tax proposal, the issues that likely will come under debate are numerous and complex.

“There will be everything from taxation to the revenue tax that will touch all industries, not just ours, plus employment issues, paid family leave … we’ll have more than enough to pay attention to,” said John Rakowitz, director of public and strategic affairs for the Associated General Contractors’ Oregon-Columbia chapter. “But we’ll probably be focused on a number of different issues.”

When it comes to priorities, both the AGC chapter and the Associated Builders and Contractors’ Pacific Northwest chapter will be focused on a handful of key topics. Those, Rakowitz said, include a proposed gross receipts tax on businesses, paid family leave legislation, bills that would redefine “public works” projects to include some private-sector projects and much more.

“I think this session we’re really going to be looking at an issue that was brought up during the last session addressing construction wage theft,” ABC lobbyist Shawn Miller said. “We’re looking to address that in a constructive way without burdening our contractors with increased litigation.”

One area of obvious interest will be House Bill 2408 and House Bill 2409, which would change the prevailing wage landscape.

HB 2408 would redefine “funds of a public agency,” for purposes of applying prevailing wage rates to public works projects, to include state tax credits or tax abatements connected with projects.

“That will be a big issue for us this session,” Miller said.

HB 2409 would require that the prevailing wage in a given locality be the same as that set forth in collective bargaining agreements for trade or occupation in that locality. That methodology would replace the old survey method, and, Rakowitz said, potentially cause upheaval.

“That bill (2408) is an example of what we see as an expansion of what has never been public works in Oregon,” he said. “We have no issue with the prevailing wage, but in our view it should only be required for true public works.”

One example of how this could play out, Rakowitz added, would be in the state’s numerous enterprise zones, which provide property tax breaks for developers. But under HB 2408, prevailing wage requirements would likely apply to development in those zones.

“There’s little doubt that much of that construction would no longer occur if this law were to pass,” he said.

Rakowitz expressed even more alarm on the potential disruptive nature of HB 2409.

“You’re undermining the whole notion of what prevailing wage is about,” he said. “In a given locality that wage, because of surveys, it could be a collective bargaining wage or an open shop wage; it depends on that local construction market. We’ve only ever been able to sort through that with an annual survey with BOLI, so to simply declare it will be automatically a collective bargaining rate for a given craft is a substantial change from a way of doing business that Oregon has done for a very long time.”

Another outsized issue for businesses in this session will be the so-called cap-and-trade bill expected to be introduced by legislators in coming weeks. Depending on the language used, it could be of greater or lesser concern to the construction industry, Rakowitz said. One sticking point, he said, is what to do with revenue raised from sales of carbon credits.

“Exactly what those funds would be used for is unclear,” he said. “Those funds, by the Oregon Constitution, have to go into the highway trust fund. We’ll be watching closely so that the legislation in some way does not impact the constitutional requirement and uses of those funds, meaning they go into the highway trust fund and are spent on roads and bridges, city streets and county roads; that’s what the constitution requires. But we have not seen bill language yet, so we don’t know what’s being proposed.”

A host of potential bills cover workforce development. These include Senate Bill 82, which would create a pass-through mechanism attached to federally funded highway projects to support pre-apprenticeship and apprenticeship training programs, and Senate Bills 344 and 345, which would expand funding for the State Workforce and Talent Development Board.

House Bill 2551, meanwhile, would create one or more statewide pilot programs to provide training, job placement services, financial assistance, technical support and business creation assistance to veterans in construction and construction materials industries.

Revenue bills in the form of increased taxes also will be closely watched. These could take a number of different forms in the final legislation. The makeup of the Oregon House, with 38 Democrats and just 22 Republicans, also will play a role.

“It’s not just a supermajority,” Rakowitz said. “The revenue has to start in the House, and that number is 38. So there is a big shift there. And obviously there’s a lot of discussion about the number that is often mentioned – the $2 billion in new revenue, and that’s a really big number. That kind of number can impact the economy going forward, and what does that do to Oregon’s investment environment? So, yeah, we’re paying close attention to that.”

Miller is too.

“Generally I think more so on the tax discussion,” he said. “There definitely is a desire for this Legislature and governor to get another two billion dollars, so definitely from the standpoint from their ability to raise revenue. But other than that we work with any and all legislators. We’re just going to go in and advocate for the industry and we’ll work with who’s there.”

Rakowitz also noted that much of the legislation that will be considered will be introduced later in the session.

“We have about half the bills out there that we’re expecting,” Rakowitz said. “Who knows what else will show up in the coming days and months before June 30? We certainly will be all eyes and ears, and we believe there will be many more bills, or there could be many more bills, and in a session where it would appear anything and everything might be under discussion.”

The post Politicians, building professionals converging appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

There’s no end in sight to the shortage of skilled tradespeople in the construction industry. That, in short, is motivating supporters of Senate Bill 82 in the Oregon Legislature‘s 2019 session. It would direct the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries to establish a new program that would provide supportive services for pre-apprenticeship and apprenticeship programs throughout the state. The program would be funded by a pass-through fee attached to certain public works projects subject to prevailing wage rates.

Kelly Kupcak, executive director of Oregon Tradeswomen Inc., worked with representatives of other pre-apprentice groups to help craft the bill. While with the Chicago Women in Trades, Kupcak in 2006 helped push for the passage of similar legislation supporting pre-apprenticeships for women and other disadvantaged groups by linking funding for training in a larger infrastructure bill.

“In Illinois they were able to get enough support from the state Legislature and governor’s office to institute a set-aside from capital improvement projects for pre-apprenticeships,” Kupcak said. “There is this ongoing demand for skilled labor, and report after report that says we can’t meet that demand.”

In some ways, SB 82 is quite similar to the Illinois model. But SB 82 also offers a wide range of support for people receiving training. This includes assistance with the cost of transportation, lodging, child care, job supplies and equipment, and even housing stabilization services.

“We had suggested this is an opportunity to have an assurance of a pool of dollars that would ebb and flow based on demand,” Kupcak said. “If the state has a lot of capital projects on the books, there is an obvious need and a funding stream to get them in. In a lot of ways the model is simple, but it makes sense.”

Money from the pass-through fee would go into a new State Apprenticeship and Training Supportive Services Fund. From there, money would be disbursed to qualifying pre-apprenticeship and apprenticeship programs.

The legislation also calls for establishment of new standards for approving so-called “qualified” programs.

While there would be no year-to-year guarantee of funding, the program would funnel more money into training programs at times when demand for construction workers peaks.

John Rakowitz, director of public and strategic affairs for the Associated General Contractors’ Oregon-Columbia chapter, told the 91��Ƶ he has not yet reviewed SB 82. But he noted that given AGC‘s obvious support for workforce development, it’s likely the organization would back that bill. He added that it is just as important for the Legislature to fully fund the high school career and technical education programs that were brought to life by the passage in 2016 of Measure 98.

“We’ve been at the forefront of advocating for career technical education, and we supported Ballot Measure 98 for that reason,” Rakowitz said. “And we want Measure 98 to be fully funded; that’s where our focus has been.”

Shawn Miller, a lobbyist for Associated Builders and Contractors’ Pacific Northwest chapter, shared similar sentiments.

“We’re very supportive of apprenticeships and legislation that will increase workforce development and getting folks into the trades,” Miller said. “So, generally we’ll be supportive of a lot of those bills and support the Legislature. We can’t comment on specific bills, as we haven’t got all the positions down, and there may be another 1,000 bills introduced. There will be a lot of bills surrounding the construction industry.”

SB 82 was introduced for a first reading Jan. 14 and referred to the Senate president’s desk. The following day, the bill was referred to the Senate Workforce Committee, where it awaits a hearing.

“I’m excited about it,” Kupcak said. “We’ll be reaching out to legislators in the coming months to say, ‘Hey, here’s the impact this investment can mean for the state.’”

The post Funding stream sought for workforce training appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Sweeping legislation to break the dominance of single-family zoning in Oregon cities has the backing of some of the state’s most powerful politicians.

The proposal, House Bill 2001, would require cities to allow more housing options. For each single-family lot, neighborhoods would have to allow one alternative dwelling unit, or ADU.

Also, duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes would be allowed in single-family zones. Perhaps most notably, municipalities would not be allowed to ban middle housing types within their urban growth boundaries.

Backers of the legislation say traditional single-family detached houses are an increasingly poor fit for a large segment of the population, as millennials have shown a preference for having smaller families and living in urban cores.

“One of the disconnects we see is in the types of housing that’s available to buy or to rent,” said Mary Kyle McCurdy, deputy director of 1000 Friends of Oregon. “Over half of households consist of one to two persons, and yet well over half of our land is zoned just for detached single-family homes on one lot.”

HB 2001 has bipartisan support, McCurdy said. The legislation is sponsored by House Speaker Tina Kotek.

“The housing crisis throughout the state has continued, and it continues to be an urgent issue that needs to be addressed,” said Danny Moran, spokesman for Kotek.

The proposal bears some similarities to Portland’s Residential Infill Project. The proposed draft of changes to zoning in many of the city’s single-family neighborhoods to allow middle housing types is being examined by the Planning and Sustainability Commission. The proposed changes are expected to go before the City Council by summer.

In both cases, policymakers are breaking with decades of zoning practice that protected single-family neighborhoods from apartments, condos and duplexes. An increasingly vocal tenants’ movement has challenged the status quo, saying single-family zoning results in segregation by race and class.

Advocates for tenants’ rights have scored some notable victories, helping elect Sen. Shemia Fagan, D-Portland, to replace Rod Monroe, a landlord, to the Oregon Legislature as well as tenant-friendly commissioners Jo Ann Hardesty and Chloe Eudaly to the Portland City Council.

Meanwhile, Minneapolis recently became the first city to abolish single-family zoning and allow middle housing types throughout. Democrats in Oregon are seeking to essentially supersize the Minneapolis approach by taking it statewide.

HB 2001 would apply to Oregon cities with populations of 10,000 or more, and counties with 15,000 or more residents within their urban growth boundaries. The statewide approach could result in more middle housing options in cities such as Bend and Ashland.

“It’s not a panacea, but it’s one option to really create more housing within the state’s urban growth boundaries,” Moran said.

The bill is likely to be controversial among residents in some Portland neighborhoods such as Eastmoreland, which has historically resisted multifamily and middle housing types.

The multifamily landlord group More Housing Now has not taken a position on the bill, lobbyist John DiLorenzo said.

“We’re looking at it carefully,” he said. “We realize we need more housing in the city. There are lots of ways to do that.”

If HB 2001 were enacted, local governments would have until Dec. 31, 2020, to bring their zoning into compliance.

The post Democrats pushing for more middle housing appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Oregon State University won approval from the Oregon Legislature for $39 million in state-backed bonds to construct a second academic building at its Cascades campus in Bend.

The state funding for the Bend campus construction has been long in coming.

“Funding for this academic building will allow us to serve our mission in Oregon, and especially in Central Oregon, where there are no other four-year university options closer than three hours,” OSU President Ed Ray said in a news release.

Plans for the 55,000-square-foot academic building call for laboratory facilities, kinesiology and engineering program space, classrooms and faculty offices. The building is viewed as part of a larger expansion to provide higher education to Central Oregon’s fast-growing population. Construction is expected to begin in summer 2019, with the building scheduled to open to students in fall 2021.

The bond funding was one of the highlights from the Oregon Legislature’s 27-day short session, which concluded on Saturday.

“It was a phenomenally successful short session,” Rep. Alissa Keny-Guyer, D-Portland, said. “We had done a lot of planning ahead of time on the bills and had a lot of partners. We brought forth things that had a lot of support.”

Affordable housing advocates celebrated the passage of increased funding. A bill passed that raises the document recording fee for real estate transactions to $60, up from $20. Money generated can be used for developing and preserving affordable housing, addressing homelessness and providing emergency housing assistance. The law requires 25 percent of the money to go to veterans.

In the past, money from the fee has been used to build affordable housing in rural towns such as North Bend and Klamath Falls.

“Increasing the document recording fee is a great opportunity for us to build affordable housing all over Oregon,” said Alison McIntosh, spokeswoman for the Oregon Housing Alliance.

The same bill also allows Oregonians to create first-time homebuyer savings accounts. The accounts enable prospective homebuyers to save up to $50,000 in tax-free earnings in a 10-year period.

The accounts are limited to buyers with up to $187,000 in taxable income for those filing jointly, or $131,000 for filing singly.

Oregon ranks 43rd in the nation for homeownership rate, Keny-Guyer said. The bill earned the avid support of the Realtors lobby.

“We know that homeownership is really a key for climbing out of poverty, for stability,” Keny-Guyer said.

Democrats who control the Legislature stayed away from controversial housing topics that have run aground in the past, including attempts to end the statewide pre-emption on rent control.

Tenant advocates are likely to be busy in 2019 with efforts to replicate their success enacting rules limiting no-cause evictions in Portland on a statewide scale.

“We’re still hearing that that’s a growing problem all around the state, and it’s starting to spread in more rural areas of the state,” McIntosh said.

Increasingly, tenants on the Oregon coast are being displaced during the summer months by landlords who turn apartments into more lucrative short-term rentals for the tourist season, McIntosh said.

The 2019 session could also be dominated by discussion of cap and trade legislation. House Speaker Tina Kotek and Senate President Peter Courtney have announced they’re forming a Joint Committee on Carbon Reduction to study carbon reduction with an eye toward passing legislation during next year’s session.

The post OSU, affordable housing benefit from state legislation appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.