How did Tina Kotek prioritize transportation versus other agencies in the 2023–2025 budget?
Executive summary
Tina Kotek made transportation a high fiscal priority during the 2023–25 cycle by repeatedly moving to close a roughly $300–$354 million shortfall at the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), proposing a package of gas-tax and fee increases that her office and allies said would raise roughly $650 million in the two‑year cycle and avert layoffs and service cuts [1] [2]. Kotek pushed an emergency special‑session funding package that focused most new revenue on road and bridge maintenance and ODOT operations while also directing dollars to local governments and transit agencies; she signed the eventual $4.3 billion transportation package to forestall layoffs and preserve transit service, though she delayed the signature for weeks for political reasons [3] [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. Kotek framed transportation as an urgent budgetary crisis
Kotek repeatedly presented ODOT’s shortfall — variously described as about $300 million to $354 million — as an immediate threat that would force nearly 500 layoffs, the closure of maintenance stations and cuts to services unless lawmakers approved new revenue quickly [1] [2] [8]. Her office cast the special session and the proposed tax and fee increases as the remedy to “halt pending layoffs” and “keep highways and local roads safe and open to traffic” [6] [5].
2. Revenue choices: gas tax, fees and a transit payroll tax
The funding plan Kotek unveiled and pressed in the special session relied on a mix of traditional transportation revenue streams: a six‑cent increase in the gas tax, higher vehicle registration and title fees, a new $30 electric‑vehicle fee and a doubling of the 0.1% payroll tax for transit — measures Kotek argued would fund roads, transit and avoid ODOT layoffs [3] [9]. Her office estimated the package would generate roughly $650 million over the two‑year budget cycle, which advocates said would cover the ODOT gap [1] [3].
3. How funding was allocated: maintenance and operations first
Reporting shows the enacted plan prioritized basic maintenance and ODOT operations: most new money was slated for road and bridge maintenance and to the Oregon Department of Transportation, with additional splits to local governments and transit districts to preserve service [5] [4]. Multiple outlets emphasize that the bulk of revenue was aimed at averting layoffs and maintaining routine snow‑clearing, maintenance centers and transit service [6] [5].
4. Tradeoffs vis‑à‑vis other agencies and budget lines
Available sources do not provide a full line‑by‑line comparison showing exact dollar shifts between transportation and other state agencies in the 2023–25 budget; reporting focuses on Kotek’s targeted transportation proposal to backfill ODOT’s shortfall and on how the package would be split among ODOT, local governments and transit (not found in current reporting). The broader 2023–25 Kotek budget proposal did reallocate reserve dollars toward housing, education and mental health priorities, indicating she had been willing to redirect funds across categories in that cycle [10].
5. Political calculation: urgency and the delayed signature
Kotek used urgency as a policy argument but also as a political tool: she delayed signing the transportation bill for weeks after passage, a move reporters and opponents said was designed to limit the time citizens could mount a referendum effort to block the tax increases [11] [7] [6]. Critics, including Republicans and even some Democrats, accused her of manipulating timing to blunt the public process; Kotek said the measures were necessary to avert layoffs and service disruptions [11] [6].
6. Estimates, gaps and agency concerns
Revenue analyses of early drafts showed discrepancies. One initial revenue analysis estimated roughly $290 million for ODOT in the current budget from an early draft — less than the agency said it needed — prompting concern that final adjustments would still be required to fully close the gap [2] [12]. ODOT officials warned that the precise revenue mix would determine whether additional agency budget changes were needed [12].
7. Alternative viewpoints and political friction
Supporters framed the package as responsible emergency action to preserve essential services and jobs [5] [4]. Opponents emphasized tax hikes totaling more than $4 billion over a decade and argued Kotek’s timing undercut democratic review; they pledged to attempt referendum campaigns targeting the new taxes [11] [5]. The trucking industry’s eventual support followed negotiated changes, illustrating compromise and competing interests within the coalition that passed the bill [2].
Limitations: reporting in the provided sources centers on Kotek’s transportation push, the proposed revenue mechanisms and political timing; they do not give a full accounting of how those transportation increases compared dollar‑for‑dollar with funding shifts for other specific state agencies across the entire 2023–25 budget (not found in current reporting).