Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agency Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BOLI funding plan draws broad support and constitutional objections; committee schedules work session
Summary
Senate Bill 15‑06 would create a BOLI Expense Fund funded by employer/employee assessments to stabilize enforcement staffing. Stakeholders and unions supported the proposal; business groups argued the measure may raise revenue and should originate in the House. The committee set a work session for Feb. 9 to resolve legal and fiscal questions.
Senate Bill 15‑06, which would create a new Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) Expense Fund funded by assessments on employers and employees, drew support from employers, unions and the agency on Feb. 4 — but also prompted legal and constitutional objections that the committee will address at a follow‑up work session.
Deputy Commissioner Jess Genentino Viatoro told the committee the dash‑1 and dash‑3 amendments create a BOLI Expense Fund in the state treasury, authorize the director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services to manage the fund on behalf of BOLI and permit setting assessments from employers and employees to ensure minimum funding for enforcement work. The dash‑1 would raise the prevailing wage fee cap from $7,500 to $12,500 and create a separate account to fund staffing; the dash‑3 modifies definitions to exclude employers with 10 or fewer employees from the assessment.
Paloma Sparks (OBI) said employers agree BOLI needs stable funding but urged the committee to consider the Oregon Constitution’s origination and supermajority requirements for revenue‑raising measures. Anthony Smith (NFIB) argued on process grounds that using the worker benefits fund as a revenue source outside its original purpose would be improper and cautioned against setting a precedent of using the fund as a general revenue source for other agencies.
Alan Dale, Senior Deputy Legislative Counsel and the drafter of the opinion provided to the committee, summarized a legal conclusion that the dash‑1 amendment did not, on its face, dictate a specific rate and therefore may not be a bill "for raising revenue" triggering House origination or a three‑fifths threshold. He compared the measure to prior payroll tax measures and said the question turns on statutory text and case law.
Labor groups (AFL‑CIO, SEIU) and construction interests (AGC) urged a funding solution, saying BOLI’s enforcement work relies on predictable funds and that the dash‑1 amendment results from a bipartisan work group. Committee Chair Taylor said she will have the identical amendment considered on the House side (House Bill 4,027) and requested annual reporting from BOLI to the committee on how the funds are spent if the measure is enacted. The committee closed the public hearing and scheduled a work session for Monday, Feb. 9 to continue discussion and to get detailed cost and inclusion estimates.
No final committee votes occurred on SB 15‑06 on Feb. 4.
