Senate committee debates fee on long‑term vacant homes; cities and advocates raise implementation and preemption concerns

The Senate Committee on Finance and Revenue held a public hearing and work session on Wednesday, June 4, 2025, on Senate Bill 10 95 A, which would authorize cities and counties to impose a fee on single‑family homes, middle housing and condominiums that remain vacant for a defined period and require that fee revenue be used for administering the program and for development of housing affordable to households at lower income levels.

The bill’s A‑3 amendment increases the vacancy threshold in the draft from 180 days to 360 days and expands exemptions for homes that are for sale, in foreclosure, undergoing probate, under remodeling, or occupied by owners who are temporarily absent for hospitalization, work relocation or other permitted reasons. The amendment also allows local governments to exempt additional properties.

Why it matters: Municipal officials, housing advocates and local officials gave mixed testimony about whether a statewide statute is the right approach. Jenna Jones of the League of Oregon Cities testified in opposition to SB 10 95 A, saying cities already have home‑rule authority to address vacant properties and warning that a statewide statute could preempt local revenue and spending decisions. ‘‘If the state intervenes and decides how our revenues get to be spent on the vacant home fee, then it creates a preemption that we will have to fix later,’’ Jones said.

Concerns and operational questions: Representative Anna Scharf (House District 23) raised concerns that the bill’s text and background examples could be read to include agricultural worker housing and urged an explicit statutory exclusion for farmworker housing to avoid interpretive problems in rulemaking. She asked how occupancy inspections would be conducted and whether enforcement could intrude on privacy or require warrants in some circumstances. Rural and tourism‑area officials urged a lower day threshold than 360 days so short seasonal stays would not exempt properties from a vacancy fee.

Local government testimony and alternatives: Barb Knopf, mayor of Cannon Beach, said her community faces many vacant homes and asked that revenue be allowed for rental assistance; she urged a shorter vacancy threshold than 360 days, saying a 360‑day test would let a property be vacant for nearly a full year except for short summer weekends. Tax Fairness Oregon’s Jody Weiser said the bill was improved by the A‑3 changes, but the group remained neutral and urged careful consideration of whether a fee would produce meaningful housing outcomes.

Process and next steps: Multiple senators, including Vice‑Chair McLean and Senator Starr, expressed skepticism that the bill was ready for a final vote this session. Chair Meek said the committee likely would not work the bill that day; the public hearing and work session for SB 10 95 A were closed without a vote.

Closing note: The hearing produced a range of practical questions about inspection and enforcement, exemptions for agricultural and farmworker housing and whether the state should set a single model or leave those choices to local governments.