Relating to vacant home fees; prescribing an effective date.
Summary
Senate Bill 1095 authorizes cities and counties in Oregon to create a local fee on certain vacant noncommercial residences, often described as a vacant home fee. A residence would be considered a “vacant home” if it is a subject noncommercial residence that is vacant for more than 180 consecutive or cumulative days in a calendar year. The bill defines vacancy to include homes that are unoccupied, empty of personal property, or occupied without the owner’s knowledge or consent, while excluding certain situations such as absence due to health, active military service, or first responder duties during an officially declared emergency.
The measure also excludes newly constructed, converted, or rehabilitated residences that have not yet been occupied, and it does not apply to buildings with more than four dwelling units, except condominiums. Local governments that adopt the fee may also provide additional exemptions and exclusions. The fee may be structured so that it creates a lien against the property, and the bill directs that revenue be used only for administering the program and for developing and constructing housing affordable to households earning between 80 and 130 percent of area median income.
Impact
SB 1095 would add a new local government tool in Oregon law by expressly authorizing cities and counties to impose and collect a fee on qualifying vacant homes. It would affect owners of noncommercial residential property that remains vacant beyond the statutory threshold, while carving out several categories of property and vacancy circumstances. The bill also creates potential lien authority tied to unpaid fees and limits the use of fee revenue to program administration and middle-income housing development and construction.
Sentiment
The available vote history suggests the bill had at least initial support in committee, passing the Senate committee 5-0 with amendments and a referral request to Finance and Revenue. That indicates a generally favorable or at least noncontroversial committee reception at that stage. No committee transcript is available here, so broader public or stakeholder sentiment cannot be directly assessed from the provided materials.
Contention
The main policy tension is likely between housing advocates and property owners. Supporters would view the fee as a way to discourage long-term vacancy and generate revenue for housing production, while opponents may argue it burdens private property rights, could be difficult to administer, or may capture owners with legitimate reasons for leaving a home unoccupied. The bill tries to address some of those concerns by excluding certain vacancy reasons and property types, but the scope of local discretion to add exemptions and the lien mechanism could still be points of debate.