Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildfire Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Legislators debate wildfire funding options; bill would dedicate insurance ‘retaliatory’ tax, bottle-fee proposal divides
Summary
Central Oregon legislators told Deschutes County officials on April 18 that a wildfire funding proposal would dedicate an existing insurance-related “retaliatory” tax to wildfire response, but a proposed extra 5¢ bottle fee is a key point of contention in Ways and Means.
Deschutes County officials heard April 18 that a wildfire funding bill under consideration in the Legislature would redirect an existing insurance-related revenue stream to wildfire programs but faces debate over a proposed bottle-fee component.
At a Deschutes County legislative roundtable, Representative Reschke said the bill’s financing plan would “capture what’s called the retaliatory tax,” currently paid by out-of-state insurance companies and typically directed to the general fund. “But this bill, I believe, captures that and says, no. We’re gonna dedicate that to wildfire funding,” Reschke said.
The bill’s sponsor and others have proposed additional revenue sources; one controversial option is an extra 5¢ per bottle fee that would be dedicated to wildfire funding. Reschke said the bottle-fee proposal is “kind of the big hang up right now” in revenue committee discussions and that removing it would leave an open question of replacement revenue.
Representative Levy told the county the package also includes other elements relevant to local fire risk reduction, and she singled out a separate battery-recycling bill now in Ways and Means as beneficial for fire prevention. “The battery recycling bill…should help with the hopefully help with the fires,” Levy said, adding that bipartisan support helped it move out of committee.
County commissioners pressed legislators for clarity on the magnitude and reliability of the proposed revenue streams. Commissioner Chang framed the problem in local terms, noting the county had to cover a $218 million shortfall from the general fund last wildfire season and asking which specific revenue sources could help rural landowners.
Legislative staff and county policy staff said the wildfire bill remains in Ways and Means and that revenue elements and final dollar amounts will be hammered out there. County officials were told timing will depend on the revenue forecast and Ways and Means deliberations.
County and legislative participants also discussed related natural-resource priorities — including water-bank proposals and other bills in Ways and Means — that could interact with wildfire funding decisions.
County staff said they will continue tracking Ways and Means actions and alert commissioners if the finance package changes or if the bottle-fee component moves forward to floor votes.
