Joint committee adopts HB 20 25, dash 23 amendment and sends bill to the floor with do-pass recommendation

The Joint Committee on Transportation Reinvestment adopted the dash 23 amendment to House Bill 20 25 on June 19 and voted to send the bill, as amended, to the floor with a do‑pass recommendation.

The committee approved the dash 23 amendment — the version described by staff as the base bill plus a set of vetted changes — after multiple substitute proposals failed. Committee debate centered on the bill’s estimated revenue impact (discussed in the committee as roughly $15 billion over 10 years), how new and reformed taxes would affect truckers, electric-vehicle drivers and rural maintenance, and whether automatic indexing and delegation of certain recalibration duties would reduce legislative accountability.

Why it matters: HB 20 25 is a comprehensive transportation‑funding package that, in the dash 23 form, changes motor‑vehicle and diesel taxes, revises weight‑mile tables, directs multiple studies (including EV charging and the Westside Express study), and restructures certain transfers and grant allocations. Committee members said the amendment attempts to balance revenue and program priorities; opponents warned it was the largest tax package in state history and said the public had limited time to review the post‑fiscal impact documents.

What the committee did - Adopted the dash 23 amendment to House Bill 20 25 (amendment dated 06/19/2025). - Rejected a Republican substitute, the dash 8 amendment, offered as a “no new taxes” stabilization alternative that would reprioritize existing ODOT funding. - Rejected a compromise substitute, the dash 19 amendment, offered by Representative Mannix as a middle path (including a smaller gas‑tax increase and staged payroll tax changes). - Voted to report HB 20 25 as amended to the floor with a do‑pass recommendation.

Key provisions summarized in committee remarks - Simplified the weight‑mile tables (committee described a reduction from many categories down to a smaller table intended to simplify administration). - Restored a cost‑allocation study provision (section 44) that directs legislative follow‑up if the highway cost allocation shows imbalanced equity ratios between heavy and light vehicles. - Clarified implementation dates staff said would phase in certain administrative costs (10% admin starting in 2029) and a permit tax for delivery vehicles starting in 2028. - Increased an annual transfer from the Department of Transportation operating fund to the Multimodal Active Transportation Fund from $1,000,000 to $2,000,000. - Added studies directed to the Department of Transportation on increasing EV charging stations for all classes of electric vehicles and on incentives for EV purchase; those studies have a sunset provision reported in the amendment.

Debate highlights Supporters argued the state needs new revenue to preserve and improve roads, bridges and transit and noted many public hearings and work‑group meetings over the past 18 months. Senator Pham said the choice was to invest now or risk continued degradation of road and transit service: "I...I'mgonnabevotingyesonthisdash23amendment." (Senator Pham).

Opponents focused on size, timing and process. Representative Bossard Davis (Republican) offered the dash 8 substitute and described it as a "no new taxes approach to stabilizing ODOT," arguing for reprioritization of existing funds and agency reforms instead of broad new revenue. Senator Starr, who spoke against indexing in the bill, said: "Indexing, for instance, is a terrible, terrible idea." (Senator Starr). Other members warned that automatic indexing and some fee increases could erode legislative control over future tax changes and disproportionately affect rural economies and trucking costs.

Process and public comment Committee leadership repeatedly noted that members had been given the revenue and fiscal analyses shortly before the session and encouraged members to submit written questions to staff (to Catherine Jones) for written responses. Multiple members expressed frustration that the public had not had the opportunity to comment on the bill after the most recent fiscal impact statement was posted; online testimony appearing on the committee record at that time was described by a member as showing more opposition than support.

Votes at a glance - Motion to substitute dash 8 for dash 23 (Representative Bossard Davis, mover): Failed. Recorded roll call in committee showed more "No" than "Yes" votes; committee chair announced motion failed and returned to dash 23. - Motion to substitute dash 19 for dash 23 (Representative Mannix, mover): Failed on roll call. - Motion to adopt dash 23 amendment (mover: committee co‑chair): Adopted on roll call; committee then voted to move HB 20 25 as amended to the floor with a do‑pass recommendation and that motion passed.

Next steps Because the committee reported the bill with a do‑pass recommendation, HB 20 25 (as amended with dash 23) will appear on the legislative calendar for floor debate in its house of origin. Committee staff told members to forward outstanding questions in writing so staff could prepare answers before floor debate.

Ending note Committee members emphasized the bill would not take full effect at once; many revenues and fees are phased in over multiple biennia, and committee members said the legislature retains the ability to revisit funding and formula details in the short session or future sessions.