Senate committee hears technical fixes to SB 1537 in SB 48

The Senate Committee on Housing and Development held a public hearing March 5 on SB 48, a technical amendment bill that would modify implementation language from 2024’s Senate Bill 1537. Senator Khan Pham, chair of the committee, opened the hearing and invited a presenter from the governor’s office to explain the proposal.

Matthew Schallbel, identified in the hearing as a presenter from Governor Tina Kotek’s office, told the committee “this is a technical fixed bill to SB 15 37 from last legislative session.” He described the measure as a set of narrowly targeted clarifications stakeholders identified after SB 1537 passed, and said the package reflects agreements reached among the bill’s negotiating parties.

Key clarifications Schallbel walked through include: reapplying a provision that lets housing developers choose whether to vest under the set of development regulations in effect at application or under subsequent city changes (now clarified to apply to both cities and counties within urban growth boundaries); closing a potential loophole related to mandatory design and development adjustments and the exemption process; and technical fixes tied to the one‑time urban growth boundary (UGB) site‑addition tool, including clarifying that a tract or site may have an internal road and multiple owners and still qualify.

Schallbel also described changes to the Moderate Income Housing Revolving Loan Fund intended to ease local administration. He outlined that the fund’s loan or grant structure and the program’s fee‑in‑lieu calculation language are being revised to emphasize use of an “estimate” in assessor calculations and to allow cities, at their discretion, to pledge general fund revenue rather than requiring a separate fee‑in‑lieu mechanism for repayment. He said that change would allow jurisdictions to participate in the program in places where property taxes are reduced or absent because of urban renewal or existing local tax exemptions.

Corey Harland, cities and towns director with Central Oregon Land Watch, testified in support of the dash‑2 amendment, saying the changes “provide important clarity that will ensure the policies and tools are implemented more effectively and as intended.” Harland noted the amendments were “thoroughly vetted with a really broad group of stakeholders.”

Schallbel and committee members said the bill will need further drafting — a dash‑2 amendment — before returning to the committee. No formal action or vote was taken at the hearing; the committee closed the SB 48 public hearing and moved on to a separate public hearing on SB 49 during the same session.

Next steps: bill sponsors expect a technical dash‑2 amendment to be filed to refine language on the mandatory design and development adjustments exemption and to finalize wording for provisions tied to the revolving loan fund before the committee takes further action.