[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6193450,"mediaKeyId","3867069-5da4e72641a6923cd85e45a5951b0700","parentId",3867069,"title","State economists and child‑care officials brief Senate on Multnomah County preschool tax, program overlap and economic indicators","audioSeconds",2213,"startMs",3859000,"endMs",6072000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3867069-5da4e72641a6923cd85e45a5951b0700&start=3859&end=6072","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3867069-5da4e72641a6923cd85e45a5951b0700/thumbnail_3859000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6193450/Oregon/State-economists-and-childcare-officials-brief-Senate-on-Multnomah-County-preschool-tax-program-overlap-and-economic-indicators","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6193450-9eea5ee5110d137c2436a6c16b51c45e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770961850&Signature=ma51yMtNhxjQh0~G2Lg~evFIbie-CiGHau5TQ-ypaDiw3MEinz0tkwywyo2RzkD4-N8m7KF9KcJwhFjBbMPR4tfE9cbt2BUEgP1CTxZY9D~yQuDHIRff2D22nBo~eox8U4a6TURDfqy0lOO6rgPBPOenX9XtznB6YYKI1Nsb5QWFzyUSsFTaMmKCl4QhzUWAypBAgRYR3hqg3p-RAL4IuopEHDDcO4R2ssubHAsjUbzeA38q-ESVMODUdTURqbWHaqpAk7ApQYqbk-wERBk4rKXAhx69ut4SzHSujhHbTkhgof2YhtjQgbZuw3UivTHzIxGQkITw94d3hYP2mLYwdg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Oregon Legislature","date","2025-06-18T00:00:00Z","article","The Senate Committee on Finance and Revenue held an informational meeting on the impact of local income taxes on state and local revenue, focusing on Multnomah County’s Preschool for All tax, state preschool programs and the broader economic context.

State Economist Carl Riccadonna opened with an economic update, noting Oregon’s May unemployment rate at 4.8%, up from 4.1% a year earlier, and net payroll declines of about 1,400 jobs for the month. Riccadonna highlighted weakness in construction and manufacturing and flagged demographic trends—lower population growth and an aging profile—that could dampen future revenue growth.

Alyssa Chatterjee, Early Learning System Director for the Oregon Department of Early Learning and Care, described state-administered preschool programs and how they interact with local initiatives. She summarized three core state programs: Preschool Promise (state-funded slots for families up to 200% of federal poverty level), OPK (Oregon Prenatal to Kindergarten, the state Head Start model, generally for families at or below 100% of federal poverty level and certain categorical eligibilities), and ERDC (a childcare subsidy voucher up to 250% of federal poverty level).

Multnomah County economist Jeff Renfro explained the county’s Preschool for All tax structure and how a planned 0.8 percentage‑point increase applies: the 1.5% rate on taxable income above $200,000 would rise to 2.3%, and the 3% rate on income above $400,000 would rise to 3.8%. Renfro said Multnomah’s approach is designed to supplement state programs rather than supplant them. He also said the county is tracking tax‑return data closely and has convened a technical advisory group to study longer‑term impacts.

Program scale and funding: Alyssa Chatterjee provided slot counts for Multnomah County from state materials: 1,241 state‑funded OPK preschool slots and 616 federally funded Head Start slots across 47 sites; 587 Preschool Promise slots provided to 24 providers at 34 sites in the county. Renfro told the committee that the county’s program carried a fund balance (saved early surpluses) of approximately $480 million intended to be spent down as the program scales.

Policy questions and concerns: Senators asked whether state slots preclude county-funded slots and how eligibility and enrollment are coordinated. Chatterjee said state and county programs are administered separately but local coordination varies; grant terms prevent supplanting, so families typically are not enrolled simultaneously in overlapping state and county funded slots (though families may supplement with ERDC for additional hours). Senators also raised questions about program audits and program performance; the committee referenced a recent Multnomah County Auditor review and public reporting.

Action and outcome: This was an informational hearing; no bill votes were taken on preschool policy during the session meeting. Committee members asked staff and the county for follow-up data; Multnomah County said it will continue providing tax‑return analytics and the county will hold public hearings and convene a technical advisory group and an early‑childhood work group to study program design and tax impacts.

Next steps: The county plans additional public meetings in July and August and the county technical advisory group will study tax impacts and program changes. The Legislature’s oversight may continue as policy and budget discussions proceed.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Committee On Finance and Revenue 06/18/2025 1:00 PM","oneSentenceSummary","An informational meeting examined Multnomah County’s Preschool for All tax and how it overlaps with state-funded preschool programs; the state economist also presented data showing rising unemployment and sectoral job losses in Oregon.","taxTitle","Legislative, Oregon","taxId",17184,"location","Oregon","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6193454,"Senate committee advances SB 1196 to strengthen enforceability of recreational liability waivers",2826,335000,3161000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3867069-5da4e72641a6923cd85e45a5951b0700&start=335&end=3161","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3867069-5da4e72641a6923cd85e45a5951b0700/thumbnail_335000.jpg","/articles/6193454/Oregon/Senate-committee-advances-SB-1196-to-strengthen-enforceability-of-recreational-liability-waivers","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6193454-a8a3ddc013111a7d1983e7d093654e3d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770961850&Signature=Slgk6yUU8kHWDmYF4AcN8Qon7j8IpxNkHr-DFwNwGUbdhtwlrCyc9x1LqlkwEXaBHLPup-~DVPIEmaGhsEF3qWpb3Utb6kpwVHVh9-0Z9q8SIgsE9RLB6M2tNQkZh-60QxgNwqb5VENqmPj6eMlyWLpVAAwL3XNYgRl-P2yy~g1aVf38gcb9zJxjb8PCIpFwkc3Yxifw37kef5BvAJ2bs~zvqmim~TlteFV8JXFeqSP1JnCr3ka3urx1Ar1lOttHxkdK1060LheOo~q7Pt7w8~fb5OAKgONrwPOPk5o6zpWygU0LY5QdAZV0m32UMcBko0P3-jCOILZtmfpe~UWaMg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Finance and Revenue Committee on June 18 heard extended testimony on Senate Bill 1196, a proposal to make liability waivers and the inherent‑risk doctrine more enforceable for recreation providers. After public testimony that split sharply between outfitters and insurer representatives on one side and trial lawyers and consumer advocates on the other, the committee adopted the dash‑2 amendment and voted to send the bill to the Senate floor with a due‑pass recommendation.

Proponents — owners of guiding companies, county search-and-rescue volunteers and representatives of the ski and resort insurance market — told the committee the current liability climate has made insurance unaffordable or unavailable for many recreation providers. Zeke Heitkamp, owner and co-founder of Next Adventure, described the company’s decision to close: “We are going to be sued and we are going to lose. And we are going to exit the industry,” he said, arguing the absence of enforceable waivers has cut access to insurance for outfitters.

Insurance and resort-industry witnesses described sharply higher loss experience in Oregon. Ryan Patrick, senior vice president and general manager at Safehold Special Risks, said Oregon’s excess loss ratio in his program is “about 20 times higher than all other states,” and that excess loss dollars from Oregon represent nearly half of the program’s nationwide payouts. He told the committee his program has been forced to stop offering coverage in Oregon until legal protections change.

Opponents cautioned that similar tort-reform measures elsewhere have not reliably reduced premiums and warned that removing liability for negligence would harm injured Oregonians. Daniel Henkel, senior counsel for policy and state affairs at the American Association for Justice, said, “Evidence shows insurers will simply pocket the costs that they would have otherwise had to insure,” and argued decades of data do not show reduced liability leads to cheaper premiums for consumers.

Action taken: Vice Chair McLean moved adoption of the dash‑2 amendment. The amendment was adopted on roll call (Yes: Senator Starr, Vice Chair McLean, Chair Meek; No: Senator Patterson, Senator Taylor). Vice Chair McLean then moved the bill, as amended, to the Senate floor with a due‑pass recommendation. The committee recorded the final work session vote as: Senator Patterson — No; Senator Starr — Aye; Senator Taylor — No; Vice Chair McLean — Aye; Chair Meek — Aye. The motion passed and Chair Meek agreed to carry the bill to the full Senate.

Discussion versus decision: The committee’s votes forward SB 1196 as amended; those votes were procedural steps to send the bill to the Senate floor. The hearing record preserves substantive disagreements: proponents said the bill protects small businesses, preserves public access to recreation, and prevents insurer withdrawal; opponents said the bill reduces accountability for negligence and is unlikely to lower market premiums.

Context and next steps: Testimony repeatedly cited the 2014 Bagley Supreme Court decision and a 2022 mountain-bike verdict as background for changing liability practice in Oregon. Supporters compared Oregon to other Western states that allow waivers; opponents disputed the comparisons and said Oregon’s negligence standard and other legal details differ. The bill will be considered next by the full Senate; any final legal standard or statutory language will be established in subsequent floor debate and potential amendments.

","After hours of testimony from outfitters, insurers and trial lawyers, the Senate Finance and Revenue Committee adopted a Dash‑2 amendment to SB 1196 and voted to send the bill as amended to the Senate floor with a due-pass recommendation.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6193457,"Senate committee orders Legislative Revenue Office study of Oregon property tax system under HB 2321A",3466,83000,3549000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3867069-5da4e72641a6923cd85e45a5951b0700&start=83&end=3549","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3867069-5da4e72641a6923cd85e45a5951b0700/thumbnail_83000.jpg","/articles/6193457/Oregon/Senate-committee-orders-Legislative-Revenue-Office-study-of-Oregon-property-tax-system-under-HB-2321A","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6193457-f236f22563cdb008cc1327f9f32edaa3/orig.mp4?Expires=1770961850&Signature=H3Mahd4YYOlvolrCq145ngjKkQCB8DmKvyVIBO~aAB1UlW95V0ZJRbKBQMGPwbK~nYSxe4N6WFuh48SQsYAvUTcUzn1irAmWRfytXc5BLtnGSP6u3tzCByz9oNu701Y7EheHLB~GpLn0zSOmv1fyiOwMJnfptWiNCp4OBcwbTEn-jMybEKdUGSLuq2OH0PNLufu3tat~yG~~6xgOoGMK6Kx4uyqUTX76X4q9uILj-Rf~6p8wBzbXdFnEDL8mC0CnZfVznEkXWaFr-UdErE3D4929FHqdz~zhgeKDw4-~WMl47CUkHK63ZEutTkoXo6096Q9oStxcUkXz2D5FOYTUZg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","HB 2321A, which asks the Legislative Revenue Office to produce an in-depth report on Oregon’s property tax system, was the subject of an informational hearing and was moved to the Senate floor with a “do pass” recommendation.

The bill requires the Legislative Revenue Office to produce “an overview of the system, effects of Measure 5 and Measure 50, and stakeholder concerns including from cities and counties,” and to report to the Legislature by December 2026, Representative Paul Evans told the committee during the June 18 hearing.

Representative Paul Evans (sponsor) told the Senate Finance and Revenue Committee that the bill is meant to be a fact-finding study: “This bill is about as simple as it gets. It is an attempt to give legislative … approval to an in-depth research led by the revenue team here,” Evans said. He described the state’s property tax rules as the product of voter measures enacted in the 1990s that have produced “unanticipated consequences” for local governments.

Why it matters: Witnesses representing educators, cities and counties told the committee that the constitutional and statutory constraints created by Measures 5, 47 and 50 have limited local taxing capacity and contributed to funding shortfalls for schools, public safety and other local services. Louis Desitter of the Oregon Education Association said the measures “had a profound effect on schools, cities, counties and other local taxing districts,” and that state intervention is needed to address shrinking local resources.

Supporting details: Jenna Jones of the League of Oregon Cities said property taxes are cities’ largest local revenue source—about $1.9 billion statewide—and that measure-driven growth limits mean “at least one-third, if not more, of cities have increasing revenue shortfalls.” Justin Lowe of the Association of Oregon Counties said many counties face budget cuts this year and that counties want to participate in the proposed work group to provide data and local perspectives.

Action taken: In a work session the committee voted to move HB 2321A to the Senate floor with a due-pass recommendation. Vice Chair McLean moved the motion. Roll-call on the work session motion to move the bill to the floor recorded senators as follows: Senator Patterson — Aye; Senator Starr — No; Senator Taylor — Yes; Vice Chair McLean — No; Chair Meek — Aye. The motion passed and the bill was referred to the floor with a due-pass recommendation; Senator Patterson volunteered to carry the bill on the Senate floor.

Discussion versus decision: The committee voted only to send the study bill to the floor; HB 2321A creates a statutory request for a Legislative Revenue Office report and does not itself change tax law or policy. Several witnesses said the study is the necessary first step toward any constitutional or statutory amendments.

Next steps: With the committee’s due-pass recommendation, HB 2321A will go to the full Senate for consideration. The required LRO report must be delivered to the Legislature by Dec. 2026.

","The Senate Committee on Finance and Revenue advanced House Bill 2321A, which directs the Legislative Revenue Office to report by Dec. 2026 on Oregon's property tax system, including effects of Measures 5 and 50 and local government concerns.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

State economists and child‑care officials brief Senate on Multnomah County preschool tax, program overlap and economic indicators

Senate committee advances SB 1196 to strengthen enforceability of recreational liability waivers

Senate committee orders Legislative Revenue Office study of Oregon property tax system under HB 2321A