Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildfire Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Legislators, county officials debate wildfire package funding options including bottle bill and rainy‑day interest
Summary
Deschutes County commissioners and state legislators discussed competing funding options for a proposed wildfire package — including a bottle bill, redirecting interest on the rainy‑day fund, or general‑fund allocations — and reported several wildfire bills were held in committee or by request of the speaker.
Deschutes County commissioners and state legislators used a conference call to review the status of several wildfire bills and funding proposals, and to consider how different mechanisms would affect county budgets.
County staff reported Senate Bill 85 passed out of committee while Senate Bill 75 and Senate Bill 83 — the latter described as a major repeal of wildfire maps — were being held "at the request of the speaker," delaying consideration. "Senate Bill 85 passed, Senate Bill 75 and Senate Bill 83 ... are being held back at the request of the speaker," a county staff member said.
Lawmakers outlined competing funding ideas. Representative Linthicum described an amendment he plans to offer that would redirect interest from the state's rainy‑day fund instead of enacting a new bottle‑deposit tax. "The rainy day fund's about $1,800,000,000, and at 5% that would generate 90,000,000 or so a year ... the bottle bill tax was estimated to be about $200,000,000 of biennium," he said, framing the rainy‑day interest approach as a way to provide ongoing revenue without touching principal.
Other proposals discussed by legislators include relying more on the general fund and using one‑time transfers (including a one‑time use of kicker interest) to support wildfire programs. Commissioners repeatedly warned that shifting general fund dollars to wildfire response could crowd out other state priorities and repeatedly leave counties to rely on emergency transfers after fire season. "Last year, fire season ended, and we owed all the people who protected us all summer long $218,000,000, and that was withdrawn from the general fund," Commissioner Chang said.
Officials noted that some wildfire‑related bills are on hold until a broader package is negotiated and that details may be amended to fit relating clauses in other legislation. County leaders said they would continue monitoring the package and urged legislators to seek revenue mechanisms that would not repeatedly reduce other general‑fund priorities.
Ending: County staff said they remain optimistic a wildfire package will emerge but emphasized the need for durable revenue sources that do not simply institutionalize transfers from general fund accounts and thereby reduce funding for other services.
