Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Did Tina kotek decide to fund other things opposed to ODOT
Executive summary
Gov. Tina Kotek signed House Bill 3991 — a roughly $4.3 billion, 10-year transportation package that raises gas taxes, vehicle fees and transit payroll taxes — to fill roughly a $300 million ODOT shortfall and avert hundreds of layoffs, but she delayed signing for weeks while opponents prepared a voter referendum (HB 3991 will raise about $791 million in the 2025–27 biennium and roughly $4.3 billion over 10 years) [1] [2] [3].
1. Why people ask if Kotek “decided to fund other things” instead of ODOT
Critics and some reporters framed Kotek’s weeks-long delay to sign HB 3991 as political maneuvering that could shift the timing or focus of revenue use and limit opponents’ ability to gather referendum signatures; opponents argued the strategy could be seen as protecting broader Democratic priorities rather than immediately securing ODOT’s needs, while allies said the bill’s revenue was intended to stave off cuts to ODOT and local transportation agencies [4] [3] [5].
2. What HB 3991 actually funds (and the headline numbers)
The enacted package increases the state gas tax by six cents, doubles certain registration and payroll taxes for transit and raises EV fees; it’s projected to raise about $791 million in the 2025–27 biennium and then $1.1 billion and $1.2 billion in subsequent biennia, totaling roughly $4.3 billion over 10 years — explicitly framed as revenue for road maintenance, operations and to prevent ODOT layoffs [1] [2] [5].
3. Immediate impact on ODOT: layoffs mostly averted, services protected
Multiple outlets report the bill prevented hundreds of layoffs at ODOT (nearly 500 or about 10% previously threatened) and allowed ODOT to hire winter operations and DMV frontline staff; agencies and local governments were described as avoiding major cuts to snowplowing, transit and local road maintenance that would have followed an unfilled budget gap of roughly $300 million [6] [7] [3] [5].
4. The political calculus behind Kotek’s delay to sign
Reporting shows Kotek waited more than a month to sign, a move opponents say delayed their ability to collect valid referendum signatures (signatures must be collected in person after the bill is signed). Allies — including unions representing ODOT workers — were reportedly untroubled by the delay, suggesting the governor balanced procedural timing with the desire to get the bill passed in a special session that had already averted immediate cuts [4] [8] [9].
5. Competing narratives: “saved ODOT” vs. “priorities shifted”
Supporters frame HB 3991 as a stopgap that primarily shores up ODOT and local road/transit services and prevents layoffs [5] [2]. Opponents frame the package as tax increases that could be referred to voters and argue Kotek’s timing and the bill’s broader provisions represent political choices that don’t fully fix long-term structural funding problems or that divert focus from other ODOT megaprojects [3] [10] [11].
6. What reporting does not say (limits of current coverage)
Available sources do not mention any clear, documented reallocation by Kotek of HB 3991 revenues away from ODOT to unrelated programs; instead, coverage consistently ties revenues to ODOT, local roads and transit and to averting layoffs. Sources do not provide a line-item accounting showing funds diverted from ODOT to other state priorities after the signing [2] [5] [1].
7. Longer-term questions and watchdog concerns
Several outlets and advocates warn HB 3991 may not solve structural funding issues: it’s characterized as a stopgap with transit funding sunsets and ongoing gaps in project oversight and long-term stability. Critics and watchdog voices point to prior ODOT accounting errors, project delays and leadership turnover as reasons to watch how revenues are spent and whether promised accountability measures will be enforced [1] [10] [12].
8. Bottom line for the original question
If the question is whether Kotek “decided to fund other things opposed to ODOT,” current reporting shows she signed a bill whose revenues are explicitly allocated to transportation — primarily ODOT operations, local road and transit needs — and that signing averted hundreds of layoffs and a roughly $300 million hole; reporting does not show she redirected those revenues away from ODOT to non-transportation purposes [5] [6] [3]. At the same time, political disagreement exists over timing, sufficiency of the funding and longer-term priorities, and opponents are pursuing a referendum that could delay implementation [4] [11].
If you want, I can pull exact quotes from Kotek’s signing letter, the legislative fiscal estimates, or opponents’ petition language to show precisely how revenues are authorized and what parts could be subject to a voter referral (not found in current reporting).