Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vacancy Fee Second Homes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public hearing opened on bill allowing cities to impose fees on long-vacant noncommercial residences
Summary
Senate Bill 1095 would authorize cities and counties to impose a fee on noncommercial residences vacant for more than 180 consecutive or cumulative days in a calendar year. The League of Oregon Cities testified in support of the concept; the mayor of Sisters attempted to testify but could not be heard because of technical problems and was invited
The Senate Committee on Housing and Development opened a public hearing on Senate Bill 1095, a bill that would authorize cities and counties to impose a fee on noncommercial residences that are vacant for more than 180 consecutive or cumulative days in a calendar year.
Senator Broadman introduced the concept to the committee, saying the idea originated with the mayor of Sisters and has been discussed with builders and other stakeholders. Proponents described the fee as a locally optional tool to offset local burdens created by second homes or long-term vacancies; they emphasized that local governments would need to analyze impacts before adopting any fee and that the bill is intended to give local jurisdictions a tool rather than mandate a statewide tax.
Jenna Jones of the League of Oregon Cities said LOC has heard interest in some form of a second-home surcharge during its revenue-reform work and that many cities operate under home-rule authority; counties may need explicit statutory authority. Jones said the revenue yield is uncertain and cautioned that a charge on vacant homes could shift properties to short-term rentals in tourism areas, creating trade-offs. She suggested jurisdictions consider applying similar tools more broadly (for example to vacant commercial main-street properties) and asked to work further with the bill sponsor.
Mayor Jennifer Letts of Sisters had planned to testify in support of the bill but was unable to be heard on the record due to technical issues; the committee offered options for the mayor to submit written testimony or to testify by phone and closed the hearing to allow later follow-up.
No committee action or vote was recorded during the public hearing.
