Annual Discover Pass price increasing from $30 to $45 this year
Starting Oct. 1, the Discover Pass' price will increase from $30 to $45.
This is the first time since 2011, when the Pass was first introduced, that a price increase has been implemented.
The increase was passed by the Legislature in April and signed by Gov. Bob Ferguson earlier this month.
The operation and maintenance of Washington's state parks relies heavily on revenue earned by the Discover Pass, camping and other fees.
Despite the increase, the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission said it will not see significant new revenue between 2025 and 2027.
A Lifetime Disabled Veteran (LDV) Pass can be used in lieu of the Discover Pass.
LDV passholders will still receive free camping, but they are no longer exempt from paying camping reservation-related transaction fees. Reservations made with LDV passes before Oct. 1, 2025 will not be subject to reservation fees. Anyone making or changing a reservation after this date will be subject to reservation and change fees.
Those who do not wish to buy an annual pass can get daily passes at parks, usually going for $10 a day.
Learn more about a Discover Pass here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
3 days ago
- Politico
New York moves to electrify buildings
Presented by Good morning and welcome to the weekly Monday edition of the New York & New Jersey Energy newsletter. We'll take a look at the week ahead and look back on what you may have missed last week. NEW YORK MOVES TOWARD ELECTRIFYING NEW BUILDINGS: The state's code council signed off on new rules requiring buildings to forgo fossil fuels starting next year. The State Fire Prevention and Building Code Council approved the new code on Friday, more than two years after the provisions were included in the state budget. 'Buildings have 40 percent of our state emissions so by cutting out building emissions, this is going to be an incredible step forward for our environmental goals,' said Assemblymember Emily Gallagher, who championed the issue in the Legislature, at a virtual press conference celebrating the latest step. 'This was a real battle to get passed.' The new code requires new single-family homes, small commercial buildings and new residential construction with seven stories or less to be electrified starting next year. All buildings will face the same requirements in 2029, with some exceptions. Environmental groups supported the new rules, which align with the state's emissions reduction plans. Business groups, the fossil fuel industry and homebuilders oppose the new requirements. 'Every new mandate adds cost, delays projects, and prices thousands of New York families out of the market,' said Mike Fazio, executive vice president of the New York State Builders Association. 'A one-size-fits-all electrification mandate ignores the diversity of New York's housing markets, climate zones, and infrastructure capacity, and working families will pay the price.' The statewide rules were based on New York City's local law mandating electrification in new buildings. Environmentalists also celebrated a recent legal victory. A federal judge for New York's Northern District rejected arguments from homebuilders, the propane industry and others that the state's new building requirements are preempted by federal law. The plaintiffs in that case plan to appeal the ruling, their lawyer said. In California, a federal appeals court blocked Berkeley's ban on new gas buildings based on a federal preemption argument. Another outstanding issue is a statutory provision directing the utility regulator to define an exemption for buildings where electric service 'cannot be reasonably provided by the grid.' This caveat was key to getting utility buy-in and for Assembly Democrats to sign off on the measure, but environmental advocates worried it might weaken the mandate. 'The [Department of Public Service] is trying to find that spot where they're not undermining the intent of the law and really saving this exemption for situations where it's just unreasonable to electrify new construction,' said Michael Hernandez, Rewiring America's New York policy director. The current proposal, which hasn't yet been finalized by the commission, would limit exemptions to when electric service for a fully electric option would take 18 months longer than providing traditional electric and gas service. — Marie J. French SIERRA CLUB FIGHTS FOR ANDY'S FARM — The New Jersey chapter of the Sierra Club is on the same side as the Trump administration in a fight to stop an affordable housing project in Cranbury. In a lengthy statement on Friday afternoon, the club waded into the fight over Andy's Farm, which the town plans to seize through eminent domain to make way for scores of affordable housing units. 'Using eminent domain to kick a family off of their farm that they have owned for generations is despicable,' said Taylor McFarland, the Sierra Club chapter's conservation and program manager. 'Cranbury needs to do a better job of finding suitable locations for affordable housing. There is no excuse. This is a massive overreach by the Township to unjustly seize land that has been in a family since 1850, displacing their livelihood and erasing their history. It is an abuse of power that sets a slippery slope for towns trying to meet their affordable housing mandates.' The farm fight has rallied conservatives and members of the MAGA movement, including Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins who said in a social media post last month that 'the Biden-style government takeover of our family farms is over.' — Ry Rivard HAPPY MONDAY MORNING: Let us know if you have tips, story ideas or life advice. We're always here at mfrench@ and rrivard@ And if you like this letter, please tell a friend and/or loved one to sign up. Editor's Note: Want to receive this newsletter every weekday? Subscribe to POLITICO Pro. You'll also receive daily policy news and other intelligence you need to act on the day's biggest stories. Here's what we're watching this week: MONDAY— The MTA's committees meet, starting at 8:30 a.m. — The Gateway Development Commission meets, 4 World Trade Center, 23rd Floor, 11 a.m. — A virtual press conference, hosted by NRDC, to announce a legal petition demanding EPA to step in because New York State and the City of Syracuse 'have failed to address the city's lead water crisis,' 1 p.m. TUESDAY— The New York Power Authority board of trustees meets, 9 a.m. WEDNESDAY— The MTA board meets, 9 a.m. — New Jersey BPU holds a virtual stakeholder meeting on the readoption of Electric Discount Energy Competition Act-related rules, 10 a.m. — The Nuclear Innovation Alliance releases a new guide for state policymakers, with discussion about New York's plans, 11 a.m., virtual. AROUND NEW YORK — New York's climate law is on trial. — The heat here and distant wildfires hammer your lungs. Around New Jersey — Sen. Andy Kim visited the South Jersey Port in Paulsboro — we used to call it the 'wind port' — and said he 'met with EEW CEO Charlie Lamb to discuss how regional stakeholders and EEW can work together to maximize the port's potential and drive South Jersey's growth.' The offshore wind industry that was supposed to anchor the port, and EEW's presence is, of course, in dire straits. — Will the next governor keep funding NJ Transit as Murphy has? What you may have missed DEVELOPERS RESET AFTER OFFSHORE WIND ORDER: The Public Service Commission's decision to halt work on a transmission project to support offshore wind has developers who were competing for the job eyeing their options. The commission last week terminated a selection process for transmission infrastructure to connect nearly 5,000 megawatts of offshore wind to New York City's grid. The commission cited concerns about ratepayer costs and lack of federal support making it unlikely that the project would be needed on the timeframe initially envisioned. Bidders and stakeholders have 30 days from the PSC's decision to challenge it by filing a petition for rehearing. One developer — Viridon — is considering its next steps. 'This decision was extremely disappointing to anyone concerned about downstate reliability, affordability and the future of clean energy in New York,' said Basil Seggos, a former New York DEC commissioner whose clients now include Viridon. 'Trump deserves the lion's share of blame due to his pause on wind. But the PSC acted too quickly and rashly, ignoring its own ability to modify the process and leaving the state — and ratepayers — with fewer energy planning options in a time of spiking demand. The Commission should quickly reconvene to get this planning process back on track.' Others were more circumspect. PJM HITS CAP WITH CAPACITY PRICE — POLITICO's Ry Rivard: The nation's largest power market will see another increase in wholesale electricity prices — but utility customers are unlikely to face the type of dramatic spike next summer like the one they're paying for now. Power prices in PJM Interconnection's latest capacity auction increased by 22 percent to $329 per megawatt day, a level PJM said it expects to translate to a year-over-year increase of a 1.5 to 5 percent in some customers' bills, depending on their state. Consumers in some areas could see a drop in retail rates when they take effect next summer, PJM added. 'While the PJM auction results reach new highs and reflects PJMs flawed market design, due to some changes that NJBPU advocated for, we don't anticipate a comparable bill impact as we did this summer at this time,' New Jersey Board of Public Utilities President Christine Guhl-Sadovy said in a statement. The capacity market auction, which locks down power supplies for the coming year in the energy market for 13 states and Washington, D.C., has drawn increased scrutiny since rates surged by more than $200 last year to hit $270/MWd. That drove dramatic, double-digit rate increases for customers, including a $25 per month bill increase in New Jersey that caused political uproar. PSEG, the owner of New Jersey's largest utility, said Tuesday it does not expect a major rate increase because of the new PJM auction results. The new capacity price is $59 more than last year, an increase that showed the ongoing constraints on energy supplies across the region. The figure is also bumping up against the price cap PJM agreed to following pressure from Pennsylvania's Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro. Many market watchers expected bids from power generators to come in as high as possible — and they did. That cap goes away, though, after the next auction later this year. That will create major uncertainty about how far prices could surge in coming years, especially given rising demand for power from artificial intelligence data centers and bottlenecks in building the natural gas and nuclear power plants that President Donald Trump is seeking. PJM HEARS FROM GOVS — The region's governors are continuing their pressure campaign against PJM. On Wednesday, as a representative spoke at a PJM meeting about their bosses' concerns, the governors announced a conference in September to consider 'necessary organizational and mission changes in PJM governance.' NEW ENERGY PATHWAYS — POLITICO's Marie J. French: Gov. Kathy Hochul's administration sees no reasonable way for New York to achieve its climate law targets on schedule. NYC LOSING MORE FOSSIL PLANTS: A fleet of floating fossil fuel units that run on the hottest days to keep the lights on plan to retire next year as their profits drop. ArcLight's Alpha Generation, which owns the barge-mounted peaker plants, filed retirement notices with the state's independent grid operator earlier this month for the Narrows and Gowanus plants, proposing to shut down in July next year. The 1970s combustion turbines have high emissions rates when they run and were targeted for retirement by regulations under former Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Gowanus and Narrows proposed shutting down during the summer to comply but have been kept online year-round by the New York Independent System Operator to ensure reliability. They're not expected to be needed after the 1,250-megawatt Champlain Hudson Power Express, a transmission line to bring power from Canada into the city, is completed next year. The arrival of that additional energy, subsidized through a contract with NYSERDA, is expected to help clean up the city's grid. The new resource is also expected to lower electricity prices — and thus, profits for existing fossil generators. 'With the entry of CHPE next summer, we expect market prices to be insufficient to support continued operations,' said Matt Schwall, director of regulator affairs at AlphaGen. The deactivation notice filed with the NYISO kicks off a review by the grid operator to check whether New York City's grid can still meet demand without these combustion turbines, even under the most stressful conditions. That could lead to the units being kept online longer by the NYISO, but is not expected under current forecasts. 'To the extent the barges are retained for reliability beyond CHPE's entry, it reflects that the value of these dispatchable assets has not been reflected in market prices,' Schwall said. The owner of the two Brooklyn plants (formerly known as Astoria Generating Company and Eastern Generation) previously made plans for the future based on the shifting winds of state policy. The company proposed shutting down the 32 Narrows barge units while repowering the Gowanus facility with eight more efficient combustion turbines in 2018, but dropped that proposal after Gov. Kathy Hochul's administration rejected permits for similar gas projects due to the state's climate goals. The company instead prioritized battery storage opportunities, although those haven't moved toward construction given a need for contracts or other financial support. While the power industry is watching with interest Hochul's shifting stance toward more openness to natural gas and its potential role in the state's energy future, none have yet moved to apply for a new gas plant permit. Given the reliance of new resources in New York (right now, renewables and storage) on out-of-market subsidies, it appears that private developers are so far unwilling to risk the yearslong process without additional signals from the state. The two barge sites do offer potential advantages for future power infrastructure, Schwall said. 'Given the critical electric and fuel interconnections, there is opportunity at these sites for a second life, both in the form of energy storage and repowered gas generation to support system reliability and the state's renewable goals,' he said. 'We are hopeful the state will invite and support such investments.' — Marie J. French DEP FLOOD RULE DEETS — The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection on Monday released 273 pages of amendments to and responses to comment about its sprawling package of coastal flood rules. Netflix details too: In response to a request from POLITICO, the department released a public comment letter CSG Law wrote on behalf of Netflix, which received a carve out for its $1 billion plan to redevelop Fort Monmouth into a film and television studio. John Valeri Jr., an attorney who is representing Netflix, wrote last November that if the company had to comply with the flood rules 'significant portions of the property dedicated for future development, including studios, may not be achievable.' In particular, certain buildings would have to be elevated or flood-proofed, which would be an 'extremely expensive enterprise, and was never considered as part of Netflix's decision' or is 'not generally an option for Netflix, particularly their stages, because the activity must rest on solid ground.' — Ry Rivard
San Francisco Chronicle
6 days ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump just floated a tax idea that would hugely benefit California homeowners
President Donald Trump just floated an idea that could benefit more homeowners in California than in any other state: eliminating the capital gains tax on the sale of a primary home. Under current law, homeowners who sell their primary home pay nothing on their first $250,000 (single filers) or $500,000 (married filing jointly) in profits. Anything over that is taxed as a capital gain. Those limits have not changed since the law that created them took effect in May 1997. Had they increased along with the Consumer Price Index, they would be double that now. California has, by far, more homes exceeding the current limits than any other state. Between 2017 and 2023, California accounted for 37% of all sales nationwide that had gross capital gains exceeding $500,000, even though it made up only 10% of all home sales, according to a study last year by Cotality. Rather than sell and pay capital gains tax – which could be as much as 33% in federal and California taxes combined – many long-term homeowners plan to stay put until they die, even if their home no longer suits them. Upon their death, all of the appreciation that occurred during their lifetime will be tax-free, thanks to a tax benefit known as the 'step-up in basis." Real estate agents say this 'lock-in' effect is slowing home sales and driving up prices in high-cost markets. 'We have had the most appreciation in the nation coupled with the highest capital gains rate in the nation when you count state and federal,' said Silicon Valley Realtor Ken DeLeon. 'I have a client, he has Alzheimer's, he should really be in a care home, but he has a highly appreciated home and he's choosing not to sell.' He noted that In Santa Clara County, single-family home sales fell fairly steadily from 24,174 in 2001 to 10,102 in 2024. In San Mateo County, they fell from 8,878 to 4,471, DeLeon said. About two weeks ago, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., introduced a bill, the No Tax on Home Sales Act, that would eliminate capital gains taxes on primary home sales. During a press conference Tuesday, Trump was asked, 'How important is it we have no tax on home sales, capital gains to unleash the housing market in this country?' His response: 'Well, we're thinking about that. But it would also unleash it just by lowering the interest rates.' Congress would have to approve any change or elimination of the capital gains tax on homes. If it did, the California Legislature would have to decide whether or not to conform to the new federal law for state taxes. Most federal legislators from California contacted for this article – including Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff and Rep. Nancy Pelosi – did not respond or declined to comment on Trump's idea until he puts forth a proposal. But a couple did acknowledge the need for change. Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Napa, said via email that there are areas of the state and nation where rising property values 'are making the capital gains tax a barrier for many empty nesters and retirees seeking to sell their homes or downsize. This has worsened California's housing crisis, leaving too many houses off the market … As Ranking Member of the (House) Tax Subcommittee, I support solutions that would address these issues, including raising the current exemption for the capital gains tax." Considering how many tax breaks Congress just granted in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, it's not clear how much support there is for legislation that would mainly benefit wealthy homeowners. Double the exemption? A more modest bill, the ' More Homes on the Market Act,' would double the existing exemptions to $500,000 for singles and $1 million for couples and index them to inflation. Rep. Jimmy Panetta, D-Santa Cruz, reintroduced the bill in February after it died in 2023, despite having broad bipartisan support. In an emailed statement, Panetta said, 'It's a good thing that the President is finally acknowledging the seriousness of the affordable housing issue…' and that he is 'willing to work with anyone on solutions for my constituents…especially when it comes to our bipartisan bill.' Asked whether he favors eliminating the capital gains tax on homes, his office said Panetta would first have to review any such legislation and the analysis. Doubling the exemption would wipe out the tax for most homeowners, but 'in the Bay Area and California, you would need to quadruple it, to $2 million,' DeLeon said. Since May 1997, the median price of a single-family home nationwide has risen by almost 250% to $441,500, according to National Association of Realtors data. But in California, it shot up 386% to almost $900,000, and in San Francisco County, it soared about 500% to $1.75 million, based on California Association of Realtors data. The old rules Freeing up inventory was also one of the main reasons behind the tax law change in 1997. Under the old law, when sellers made a profit on their primary residence, the tax was deferred (not forgiven) if they purchased a replacement home within a specified time and the new house cost at least as much as the sales price on the old home. A homeowner could continue rolling the untaxed profit from one house to another, as long as they kept buying more expensive homes. If and when they sold a home, all of the accumulated untaxed gains would become taxable. If they left it to their heirs, the gains up until the owner's death generally would escape capital gains tax because of the step-up in basis. The old law also let people 55 or older sell their primary home and exclude up to $125,000 (married or single) in accumulated profits, but only once in a lifetime. As a result, homeowners had to keep meticulous recordkeeping from every house they owned. Some lawmakers and academics believed the law created distortions in the market, such as discouraging homeowners from downsizing, moving into rental housing or from higher-cost to lower-cost markets as their circumstances changed. The new rules The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 was intended to reduce these distortions, stimulate sales, simplify recordkeeping and eliminate capital gains taxes for almost all homeowners. It exempted the first $250,000/$500,000 in profits from capital gains tax, whether or not the seller bought a new house. Profit is what's left after you subtract what you paid for the house and eligible improvements from your sales price minus commissions and other selling expenses. Taxpayers with gains under the limits generally do not have to report the sale on their tax return. Any profit over the exemption is taxed as a capital gain. The federal rate on long-term capital gains is 0%, 15% or 20% depending on income. That's lower than the rate on 'ordinary income,' such as from a job or self-employment. A large taxable gain from the sale of a home could also trigger an additional 3.8% 'net investment income tax.' A bulge in income can also force some seniors to pay substantially more for Medicare for one year. California also excludes the first $250,000/$500,000 from the sale of a primary home, but it taxes capital gains just like ordinary income, at rates up to 13.3%. Homeowners can use this exemption as often as every two years, as long as each home has been their primary residence for at least two out of five years before the sale. What happened after 1997? Initially, the new law did eliminate tax for the vast majority of homeowners, but as home prices soared, so did the number who owed tax. Between 2000 and 2003 – a few years after the rule change – only about 38,000 home sales per year nationwide, or 1.3% of all existing home sales, had gross capital gains (excluding homeowner improvements) that exceeded $500,000, according to Cotality. By the end of 2023, almost 230,000 homes or 7.9% of all home sales nationwide – and almost 29% in California – were over the limit. A study commissioned by the National Association of Realtors found that 34% of homeowners today could already exceed $250,000 in capital gains and 10% have potential gains above $500,000. Those numbers could be 56% and 23%, respectively, by 2030 and nearly 70% and 38% by 2035. 'These outdated (exemption) thresholds are already distorting the housing market and locking up inventory, and it is getting worse every year,' the association wrote. What research says Several academic studies found that the tax law change in 1997 did increase housing turnover, and may have contributed to the sharp runup in home prices from the early 2000s until 2008, when the bubble burst. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 'played a significant role in facilitating the boom in the residential real estate market that began shortly after its enactment,' Pete H. Oppenheimer, then a professor at the University of North Georgia, wrote in a 2014 paper. It created an opportunity for homeowners to receive tax free income when they resold their principal residences, which made homeownership more attractive and caused the real estate market to 'expand in volume and price,' he added. It also helped 'real estate investors and professionals to achieve tax free income … by converting rental property into a personal residence.' A Federal Reserve study published in 2008 concluded that the 1997 Act 'reversed the lock-in effect of capital gains taxes on houses with low and moderate capital gains.' However, it 'may have generated an unintended lock-in effect on houses with capital gains over the maximum exclusion amount.' Its author Hui Shan found that the short-term effect was 'much larger' than the long-term effect. A 2011 paper by Andrea Heuson and Gary Painter also found that housing turnover 'increased significantly' after 1997. 'The surprising result is how broad based the change in trading behavior is, appearing across all age ranges and impacting both trading up and trading down,' they wrote. Based on his past research, Painter predicted that eliminating the tax on home sales would increase sales. When he left his job at the University of Southern California to teach at the University of Cincinnati, Painter kept his home near Long Beach and rented it out because he didn't want to pay capital gains tax, but also in case he wanted to return to California one day. It's not just capital gains tax Capital gains are not the only culprit locking up inventory. Many homeowners with mortgages around 3% are reluctant to move, now that rates are hovering around 6% to 7%. That is the 'big 1,000-pound gorilla that has reduced mobility," Painter said. And in California, many sellers would face a big increase in their property tax assessment if they sold a long-held home and bought another. Proposition 19, passed by voters in 2020, was supposed to boost inventory by making it easier for people 55 or older to transfer their assessment from their current home to a new one, thus avoiding or reducing a property-tax increase. It also made it harder for children to keep a parent's low property tax base on an inherited home. It appears that more Bay Area seniors did move after Prop. 19 took effect, at least in the first few years. But results varied by county and the effects wore off over time. In Contra Costa, requests by seniors for Prop. 19 transfers went from around 200 per year before 2020 to about 1,000 a year after two years, but since then has tapered off to around 600 a year, said Gus Kramer, the county's assessor. In Santa Clara County, Prop. 19 'has been a lot less successful than anticipated. The biggest negative by far is capital gains,' DeLeon said. Unintended consequences If Congress eliminated capital gains tax on homes, Painter believes more people would move out of California. For people contemplating a move, losing their low property-tax base 'is not an issue, but (capital gains) taxes are. This would be an opportunity to cash in on their equity,' he said. And instead of making homes more affordable, it could increase prices. 'More generous tax treatment of homes could bid up home prices on the demand side, exacerbating concerns about housing affordability,' Joseph Rosenberg , a senior fellow with the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, said via email. San Francisco Chief Economist Ted Egan concurs. 'The expectation of reduced taxes upon sale would likely result in modest upward pressure on housing prices in places, like San Francisco, where profits on home sales often exceed the threshold,' he said via email. 'This in turn would lead to a modest increase in property taxes.'
Yahoo
23-07-2025
- Yahoo
Kotek calls for special legislative session amid ODOT layoffs, transportation crisis
PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) – Nearly one month after Oregon's legislative session ended, Gov. Tina Kotek is calling on lawmakers to reconvene in Salem amid a shortfall in transportation funding, leading to historic layoffs in the state. On Tuesday, the governor called for a special session on Aug. 29, asking lawmakers to restore funds for basic road maintenance operations at the Oregon Department of Transportation along with other funding needs for local governments and transit districts. The call from the governor comes after Oregon's legislative session ended with the death of House Bill 3402 on the House floor, which aimed to bridge ODOT's $350 million funding shortfall and aimed to avert layoffs at the agency. CNBC ranks Oregon among most expensive states. Here's why 'In the weeks since the adjournment of the legislative session, my team and I have worked every day with legislators, local partners, and key stakeholders to zero in on a solution and a timeline for the legislature to come back together and address the state's most immediate transportation needs. Oregonians rely on these basic services, from brush clearing to prevent wildfires to snow plowing in winter weather, and they are counting on their elected representatives to deliver adequate and stable funding,' Kotek said in a statement on Tuesday. 'At the same time, ODOT acted prudently in the absence of this funding, initiating a first wave of layoffs on July 7 while also working to reduce the impact to basic services as much as possible. Subsequently, with the agreement of legislative leadership and with a plan for a special session now in place, I have directed ODOT to postpone the start date of layoffs for an additional 45 days, allowing impacted staff more time to make contingency plans for their livelihoods and their families,' the governor added. Kotek concluded 'I am confident that lawmakers will step up next month to avert these layoffs by approving the necessary funding for the state's transportation needs. I appreciate their partnership and am eager to be on the other side of this crisis.' Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now The governor is aiming to bring more funding to the state highway trust fund for the 2025-27 biennium along with funds for the Statewide Transportation Fund. Kotek argues that funding ODOT will stop pending layoffs while also allowing the agency to maintain operations at facilities scheduled for closure. 'The special session will be focused on critical near-term solutions to stabilize basic functions at ODOT and local governments,' Kotek continued. 'This is just the first step of many that must be taken to meet our state's long-term transportation needs.' Portland-area residents flock from Washington, California ODOT has laid off over 480 employees out of an estimated 600-700 total layoffs, according to the governor's office, previously stating this marks the largest government layoffs in state history. Without action from state lawmakers – and depending on unpredictable winter weather – a second round of layoffs is expected in early 2026, the governor's office said. In response to the governor convening a special session, House Republican Leader Christine Drazan (R-Canby) said, 'This could have been prevented if Democrats had come to the table and considered House Republicans' alternative plan to fund ODOT by refocusing existing revenue instead of adding billions of dollars in new taxes on struggling Oregonians.' VIDEO: ClackCo deputies punched mentally disabled inmate 7 times, lawsuit claims The Republican leader added, 'This could still be prevented today, without a special session, if Democrats made the decision to use existing revenue from the emergency board. We can still protect these jobs without raising taxes — and we should. Republicans have represented the voices of the people and fought hard to find solutions that don't add new taxes. It's now time for Democrats to do the same. We invite Democrats to join us in funding essential services without raising taxes, to stand with Oregonians who cannot afford to shoulder more costs.' Senate Republican Leader Daniel Bonham (R-The Dalles) furthered, ' 'Just weeks after the Legislature rejected the largest tax increase in Oregon history, the Governor is calling us back to Salem to try again, this time with less notice and less transparency. Republicans offered a common-sense plan to get ODOT focused back on its core mission, protect critical maintenance jobs, restore accountability, and avoid raising costs on hardworking Oregonians. Democrats didn't even give it a glance.' 3 Portland spots included in Yelp Elite's roundup of the nation's best fried chicken Bonham added, 'If Governor Kotek were serious about fixing our transportation system, she would start by repealing her executive order on project labor agreements. That one decision alone adds 20 to 30 percent to the cost of every project. Her concern over budget shortfalls rings completely hollow when she's knowingly forcing taxpayers to overpay by millions. Instead, she's playing politics with frontline workers to pressure lawmakers into voting for higher taxes.' The Senate Republican leader concluded, 'For decades, Governor Kotek and her party have prioritized spending on programs that line the pockets of special interests, such as costly housing initiatives that haven't delivered real results, while neglecting critical infrastructure needs. This mismanagement has directly contributed to the crisis we face today. Oregonians deserve roads that work, bridges that last, and a government that puts them first, not more status quo policies and backroom deals to reward special interests.' While discussing an amendment for HB 3402 — which included a bump to registration and titling fees with a 3-cent increase to the gas tax, allowing that money to go to ODOT — House Republicans argued that working Oregonians don't want more taxes. Meanwhile, Kotek said during the amendment's public hearing that not passing it would be catastrophic for Oregonians, noting possible ODOT job cuts could include roles for incident response teams and maintenance crews, which would be 'unacceptable' for Oregonians. House Minority Leader Drazan echoed the sentiments of her Republican colleagues, previously stating, 'It's really, really simple for us. Oregonians themselves have said our number one issue is affordability, and this is tone-deaf. It flies in the face of what Oregonians are telling us as policymakers that they need right now.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword
