Did Tina kotek deny ODOT further funding?

1. What the claim implies and what the record actually shows

The phrase “deny ODOT further funding” implies Governor Kotek actively withheld state money or cut the agency off. Available articles instead show Kotek sought to secure funding for ODOT, called a special session to address a budget shortfall, and directed ODOT to postpone layoffs while lawmakers worked on a funding fix — actions inconsistent with deliberately denying funds ^{[1] [5] [6]}. Reporting documents delay in signing a bill she backed and opponents’ efforts to refer it to the ballot, but not an outright refusal to fund the agency ^{[7] [3]}.

2. Kotek’s public steps to avert layoffs and keep ODOT operating

Kotek repeatedly framed the situation as a funding emergency and used her authority to manage timing: she called legislators into a special session to pass a transportation package and ordered ODOT to delay the start date of layoffs to give lawmakers time to act ^{[1] [5]}. Local reporting notes she postponed layoffs an additional 45 days and extended deadlines to avert immediate workforce reductions while pursuing legislative fixes ^[1].

3. Why some critics said she was “in no rush” to sign — and what that meant

Several outlets reported Kotek delayed signing HB 3991 after it passed, which critics framed as political maneuvering that could affect the referendum process and give opponents an opening to gather signatures to block tax increases ^{[8] [9] [7]}. Supporters of the bill — including unions representing ODOT workers — publicly backed her tactics as protecting jobs until a durable funding path was secured ^{[8] [7]}. Thus the delay was interpreted differently depending on political alignment: critics saw obstruction or tactical delay; allies saw prudent use of executive timing to manage risks ^{[8] [7]}.

4. The scale of the ODOT crisis cited by Kotek and others

Reporting repeatedly cites large potential staffing and budget impacts: ODOT warned of hundreds of layoffs and a funding gap in the hundreds of millions — e.g., notifications to roughly 483 workers, warnings of 600–700 potential layoffs, and statements that ODOT needed roughly $350 million to avoid mass cuts ^{[2] [10] [11]}. Kotek consistently presented those figures to justify calling back the Legislature and pursuing a funding package ^{[11] [5]}.

5. Legislative response and the final outcome referenced in coverage

Lawmakers ultimately passed a multibillion-dollar package that Kotek had pushed; reporting notes she signed House Bill 3991 after a delay and opponents immediately vowed to gather signatures to put much of it to a referendum ^{[3] [4]}. Coverage frames the post-passage period as contested — legal and political battles over tax increases and referendums — rather than as an executive refusal to fund ODOT ^{[3] [4]}.

6. Competing narratives and political incentives to shape the story

Republicans and referendum supporters cast any delay by the governor as obstructive or tactical to manipulate the public process ^{[8] [12]}. Meanwhile, labor unions and some local governments supported Kotek’s pause tactics as necessary to avoid sudden layoffs and protect services ^{[8] [7]}. Both sides had clear incentives: opponents wanted to stop tax increases and mobilize a ballot fight; allies wanted to preserve jobs and ensure funding stability ^{[8] [7]}.

7. Bottom line for the original question

Available reporting does not support the claim that Tina Kotek “denied ODOT further funding.” Instead, she publicly sought funds for ODOT, called a special session, delayed ODOT layoffs to provide breathing room, and ultimately signed the transportation funding bill she championed — actions documented in multiple outlets ^{[1] [5] [3]}. If you’re seeing a different assertion, current reporting does not mention an intentional executive denial of funds beyond political timing and strategic delay (not found in current reporting).