Loading policy item
SB 1506
This proposal did not become law. The measure would have established a new BOLI Expenses Fund financed by a separate hourly assessment on employers and employees, mandating minimum deposits that reach at least $9.5 million annually by 2031 to fund Bureau of Labor and Industries enforcement staffing starting July 2029. It would have raised the maximum prevailing wage fee for public works contracts to $12,500, would have prohibited diverting Workers' Benefit Fund moneys to this new fund, and would have required a biennial study on staffing sufficiency and peer-state funding models.
Generated explanation · A-Engrossed · Analyzed 8/20/2026 · Open official A-Engrossed text
This proposal did not become law.
Generated analysis of A-Engrossed text; it does not establish that the bill applies to you. Read the full decision brief.
No upcoming event is verified in the available records.
Plain-language analysis
Generated analysis, not an official summary or legal advice. Confirm with linked Oregon documents.
This proposal did not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would have required if enacted.
The measure would have established a new BOLI Expenses Fund financed by a separate hourly assessment on employers and employees, mandating minimum deposits that reach at least $9.5 million annually by 2031 to fund Bureau of Labor and Industries enforcement staffing starting July 2029. It would have raised the maximum prevailing wage fee for public works contracts to $12,500, would have prohibited diverting Workers' Benefit Fund moneys to this new fund, and would have required a biennial study on staffing sufficiency and peer-state funding models.
Basis: Bill text · Source: A-Engrossed
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The measure likely aims to stabilize BOLI's enforcement funding by creating a dedicated revenue stream insulated from general fund fluctuations and protecting the Workers' Benefit Fund, while simultaneously addressing staffing adequacy through a comparative study of peer states.
Basis: Inferred · Source: A-Engrossed
Potential effect if enacted: Subject to a new hourly assessment calculated separately from the Workers' Benefit Fund, increasing labor costs. The assessment is retained by employers and paid to DCBS based on hours worked.
Basis: Bill text · Source: A-Engrossed
Gains access to dedicated revenue for enforcement expenses starting July 2029, subject to a position cost cap of $5.25 million per year. would have had to report biennially on staffing needs relative to the prevailing wage fee cap.
Basis: Bill text · Source: A-Engrossed
Potential effect if enacted: Face higher prevailing wage fees capped at $12,500 for public works contracts subject to prevailing wage laws.
Basis: Bill text · Source: A-Engrossed
Potential effect if enacted: Legally shielded from transfers to the new BOLI fund, preserving its assets for statutory programs.
Basis: Bill text · Source: A-Engrossed
Potential effect if enacted: Responsible for managing the new fund and setting assessment rates. Incurs administrative costs with unclear pre-2029 reimbursement mechanisms.
Basis: Bill text · Source: A-Engrossed
Potential effect if enacted: Costs: New assessment adds variable cost to employment; prevailing wage fee increases project costs for public works.
Basis: Bill text · Source: A-Engrossed
Obligations: DCBS would have had to set rates to minimize volatility and maintain a 12-month reserve; BOLI would have had to report biennially on staffing needs relative to the fee cap.
Basis: Bill text · Source: A-Engrossed
Risk: Ambiguity in defining "BOLI reinvestment package positions" and "BOLI funding positions" would have created uncertainty regarding which roles are funded and how the $5.25 million cap would have applied to classification changes.
Basis: Bill text · Source: A-Engrossed
Enforcement: Dedicated funding might have enhanced capacity for enforcing ORS 651.050 duties, though actual impact would have depended on rate setting and position authority approvals.
Basis: Bill text · Source: A-Engrossed
Workers and Public Agencies
Potential effect if enacted: BOLI leverages the full $5.25 million cap to hire specialized investigators in high-violation industries, resulting in a significant reduction in wage theft and improved compliance with prevailing wage laws across all public works projects.
Basis: Inferred · Source: A-Engrossed
Small Employers and Workers
Potential effect if enacted: DCBS sets assessment rates that over-collect due to optimistic revenue projections, imposing excessive costs on small employers during an economic downturn, while BOLI fails to utilize the funds effectively due to hiring freezes or classification bottlenecks, leaving workers without enhanced enforcement protections.
Basis: Inferred · Source: A-Engrossed
Potential effect if enacted: The position cost cap and duty limitations rely on internal classification and reporting; without external audit or clear definitions, scope creep into non-enforcement functions is structurally possible.
Sources · A-Engrossed
Potential effect if enacted: The measure trades increased direct costs to employers and employees for dedicated, protected funding to potentially expand BOLI's enforcement capacity, while safeguarding the Workers' Benefit Fund from diversion but introducing administrative complexity and unfunded pre-implementation costs for DCBS.
Potential effect if enacted: Dedicated revenue stream for enforcement staffing.
Basis: Bill text · Source: A-Engrossed
Potential effect if enacted: Protection of Workers' Benefit Fund assets.
Basis: Bill text · Source: A-Engrossed
Potential effect if enacted: Increased prevailing wage fee revenue.
Basis: Bill text · Source: A-Engrossed
Potential effect if enacted: Study of peer-state funding models to inform future policy.
Basis: Bill text · Source: A-Engrossed
Potential effect if enacted: New assessment burden on the labor market.
Basis: Bill text · Source: A-Engrossed
Ambiguity in position definitions and cost caps would have created budgeting uncertainty.
Basis: Bill text · Source: A-Engrossed
Potential effect if enacted: DCBS faces indeterminate administrative costs with no clear pre-2029 reimbursement source.
Basis: Bill text · Source: A-Engrossed
Potential effect if enacted: Potential for rate volatility despite minimization requirements.
Basis: Bill text · Source: A-Engrossed
The measure has shifted from a study-only proposal to a substantive funding mechanism. The introduced version directed LPRO to study peer-state labor agency funding and recommend a permanent source, with no immediate fiscal changes. The engrossed version creates a new BOLI Expenses Fund, imposes a new hourly assessment on employers and employees, raises the prevailing wage fee cap, and mandates dedicated deposits for BOLI staffing, while retaining a sunset provision and a study requirement.
Introduced: No new assessments or fees. Engrossed: New hourly assessment on employers/employees; higher prevailing wage fee for public agencies.
high
Sources · Introduced; A-Engrossed
Introduced: Study only. Engrossed: Creates BOLI Expenses Fund with minimum deposits reaching $9.5M/year by 2031; positions capped at $5.25M cost.
high
Sources · Introduced; A-Engrossed
Introduced: No WBF protection. Engrossed: Explicitly bars transfer of WBF moneys to the new fund.
medium
Sources · Introduced; A-Engrossed
Introduced: Study due Sept 2027. Engrossed: Biennial reporting on staffing sufficiency; study retained with sunset Jan 2028.
medium
Sources · Introduced; A-Engrossed
Tradeoff: The measure evolved from a policy study to a direct fiscal intervention, trading no immediate costs for a new assessment burden in exchange for dedicated enforcement funding and WBF protection.
Model self-rating: high. Analysis based on exact published bill text and official fiscal/staff analysis. No speculation presented as fact. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
Possible effects if adopted; not current bill text.
Decision brief generation failed. The existing briefs were preserved and this version can be retried.
This proposal has not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would require if enacted.
If adopted, the measure would establish a dedicated BOLI Expenses Fund in the State Treasury, continuously appropriate its revenues to BOLI for enforcement operations starting July 2029, and finance it through a new hourly assessment on employers and employees alongside the existing Workers’ Benefit Fund assessment. Material consequence: It would shift BOLI’s operational funding from annual legislative appropriations to a dedicated workers’ compensation-derived revenue stream, increasing employer/employee compliance costs while insulating enforcement budgets from standard budget cycles.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The measure may aim to secure stable, long-term operational funding for BOLI enforcement positions independent of annual appropriation negotiations, using statutory minimum deposit thresholds and position cost caps as fiscal guardrails.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Subject to a new hourly assessment tier on top of existing workers’ compensation assessments; costs scale with reported hours worked and are set by DCBS to meet fund reserve targets.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A
Potential effect if enacted: Receives a continuously appropriated revenue stream for ORS 651.050 enforcement duties starting July 2029, but faces statutory caps on funded positions ($5.25M/year as of 2031) and mandatory reserve requirements.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
WBF balances are legally protected from transfers to the new fund; DCBS would have to set separate assessment rates, potentially altering the funding mix available for WBF programs.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Face an increased maximum fee cap from $7,500 to $12,500 for public works contracts subject to ORS 279C.800–870.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Employers would have to track and report hours for a dual-assessment structure; DCBS would have to calculate separate rates that minimize volatility while maintaining a 12-month reserve. BOLI gains budget predictability but loses direct legislative appropriation control over operational funds, with actual costs remaining indeterminate until rate-setting methodology is finalized.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A
BOLI enforcement operations
Stable, dedicated funding would allow BOLI to permanently expand wage theft and discrimination inspection units without annual budget uncertainty, leading to a measurable, sustained reduction in unreported employment law violations across the state.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Employers and low-margin industries
During an economic downturn, reported hours decline; DCBS would raise assessment rates sharply to meet the $9.5M reserve target, disproportionately increasing compliance costs and triggering widespread reporting delays or workforce reduction.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
The text would legally permit reserve-driven rate adjustments and position funding caps, but does not define 'new position' or restrict administrative cost allocations, creating ambiguity that could be exploited to circumvent fiscal guardrails.
Sources · Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Would provide BOLI with long-term budget stability for enforcement operations at the cost of shifting operational funding away from annual legislative appropriations and imposing new hourly assessments on employers and employees.
Predictable, multi-year funding would reduce political budget volatility for critical enforcement roles and aligns agency capacity with statutory duties under ORS 651.050.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Would reduce legislative oversight of agency budgets, introduces potential rate volatility during economic shifts, and increases compliance costs for businesses without a defined sunset or periodic reauthorization.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Model self-rating: medium. The measure is a proposed amendment with indeterminate fiscal impacts at this stage. Rate-setting methodology, position definitions, and long-term revenue projections remain unspecified in the supplied text. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
This proposal has not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would require if enacted.
If adopted, the amendment would create a dedicated BOLI Expenses Fund financed by a new mandatory hourly assessment on all Oregon employers and employees, establish minimum reserve targets of $4.25 million to $9.5 million by 2031, cap funded staffing costs at $5.25 million annually, raise the maximum prevailing wage contract fee to $12,500, and legally separate BOLI’s operational funding from the Workers’ Benefit Fund, with full appropriation authority taking effect in July 2029.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The measure appears designed to establish a stable, dedicated revenue stream for BOLI enforcement operations by decoupling those costs from the Workers’ Benefit Fund, which currently supports worker compensation programs. This structural separation is inferred from the creation of independent assessment rates, explicit reserve targets tied to staffing costs, and the statutory prohibition on transferring WBF money to the new fund.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Would have to calculate, retain, and pay a new hourly assessment on all employee wages starting January 1, 2027, in addition to existing WBF assessments.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Subject to mandatory wage retention for the assessment portion of their compensation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Face an increased maximum prevailing wage fee cap ($12,500) and biennial reporting requirements.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Gains a continuously appropriated funding stream for enforcement duties but faces statutory caps on funded positions ($5.25M/year by 2031) and would have to operate within DCBS-managed rate-setting constraints.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Legally insulated from BOLI operational costs; prohibited from transferring funds to the new BOLI Expenses Fund, preserving its dedicated use for worker compensation programs.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Employers would face increased payroll compliance and administrative burdens starting in 2027. DCBS would assume ongoing rate-setting, forecasting, and fund management responsibilities, with costs initially borne by DCBS before BOLI could access funds in 2029. BOLI’s ability to hire or retain staff is strictly capped at $5.25 million annually for new positions, creating a hard ceiling on expansion regardless of assessment revenue growth. The separation of funds ensures WBF solvency for benefits but may strain BOLI if assessment rates fail to meet reserve targets.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A
BOLI and Oregon workers
If assessment rates successfully generate surplus revenue beyond the $9.5 million reserve target, BOLI could theoretically use the continuously appropriated funds to rapidly expand wage theft enforcement or workplace safety inspections without competing for general fund appropriations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Employers and BOLI enforcement capacity
If economic downturns reduce total hours worked, assessment revenues could fall short of the mandated 12-month reserve targets. DCBS would be forced to raise rates sharply to avoid unintentional program reductions, potentially triggering employer litigation over rate volatility or forcing BOLI to curtail enforcement activities despite statutory mandates.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
The text would permit rate adjustments and position funding but does not authorize pre-2029 administrative cost recovery for DCBS or define position classification thresholds.
Sources · Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A
Potential effect if enacted: The measure trades predictable, dedicated funding for BOLI enforcement operations against capped staffing growth and increased payroll compliance costs for employers, while legally insulating worker compensation benefits from operational budget volatility. Upsides include stable agency financing and protected benefit funds; downsides include rigid revenue caps, potential rate volatility during economic shifts, and delayed administrative cost recovery for DCBS.
Stable, dedicated funding stream for BOLI enforcement would reduce reliance on general fund appropriations or WBF transfers.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Legal separation of operational and benefit funds protects workers’ compensation solvency from agency budget fluctuations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Hard statutory cap on funded positions ($5.25M/year) limits BOLI’s ability to scale enforcement regardless of revenue growth.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Employers face increased payroll compliance costs and potential rate volatility if DCBS would raise assessments to meet reserve targets during economic downturns.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Model self-rating: high. The amendment text explicitly defines the fund structure, assessment mechanism, reserve targets, staffing caps, and effective dates. Fiscal impacts are documented but noted as indeterminate pending rate finalization. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
This proposal has not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would require if enacted.
Would establish a dedicated BOLI Expenses Fund in the State Treasury, financed by a new split assessment on hourly wages paid by employers and employees plus an increased prevailing wage contract fee, to permanently fund additional BOLI staffing and enforcement operations starting July 2029, while legally separating these revenues from the Workers’ Benefit Fund.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The measure likely aims to stabilize BOLI’s operational funding by creating a dedicated, reserve-backed revenue stream insulated from annual appropriations cycles and WBF balance fluctuations. Basis inference: The text mandates minimum reserve targets ($4.25M/$9.5M) and caps new position costs at $5.25M, while requiring DCBS to set rates to "minimize volatility" and avoid "unintentional program or benefit reductions."
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A
Would face a new dual assessment on hourly wages, increasing payroll costs and administrative tracking obligations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Would pay an increased prevailing wage fee (up to $12,500), raising project compliance costs.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Would gain a continuously appropriated revenue stream for enforcement expenses starting in 2029 but would have to operate within statutory position cost caps and reserve requirements.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Would assume fund management and rate-setting duties with indeterminate administrative costs, including printing, mailing, forecasting, and interagency billing.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
Would be legally barred from subsidizing the new fund, requiring independent reserve maintenance and separate rate-setting.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Employers would have to track and report hourly wages for dual assessments, increasing payroll administration. DCBS would be obligated to forecast revenues and set separate rates for the WBF and BOLI Expenses Fund to maintain a 12-month reserve, with authority to raise rates if reserves fall short. BOLI’s enforcement capacity could expand if assessment revenue meets targets, potentially improving worker access to wage theft and discrimination remedies. The measure introduces complex rate-setting mechanics that could create funding volatility if payroll hours decline or forecasts prove inaccurate.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A
Statewide workers and BOLI enforcement operations
Potential effect if enacted: DCBS successfully sets rates that perfectly balance reserve targets without overburdening employers, allowing BOLI to hire approximately 150 new compliance specialists by 2031, drastically reducing wage theft recovery times and increasing workplace safety inspections statewide.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Employers and BOLI program stability
A prolonged economic downturn would reduce covered payroll hours, causing assessment revenue to fall short of the $9.5M reserve target. DCBS is forced to sharply increase rates or cut BOLI enforcement programs to avoid unintentional reductions, creating a volatile funding cycle that undermines the measure’s stability goal and increases compliance costs for remaining employers.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
The text would legally permit DCBS to set assessment rates and continuously appropriate funds to BOLI for expenses incurred by the Commissioner under ORS 651.050. Weak oversight could allow duty creep where BOLI uses the fund for non-enforcement activities (e.g., lobbying, general administrative overhead) or misclassifies existing agency costs as "BOLI funding positions" to bypass the $5.25M annual cap, particularly because the measure leaves the definition of a "new position" undefined and does not explicitly prohibit using assessment revenue for indirect administrative costs.
Sources · Amendment -3 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A
Would provide BOLI with a stable, dedicated funding stream for enforcement at the cost of increased payroll assessments on employers and employees, while introducing complex rate-setting mechanics that could create volatility if revenue forecasts prove inaccurate. Upsides include predictable staffing capacity and reduced reliance on annual appropriations; downsides include direct payroll tax burden, administrative complexity, and risk of unfunded reserve shortfalls during economic downturns.
Potential effect if enacted: Predictable staffing capacity for BOLI enforcement operations without annual legislative appropriation battles.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Legal separation of BOLI operational funding from Workers’ Benefit Fund balances, protecting enforcement budgets from workers' compensation market fluctuations.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Direct payroll tax burden on employers and employees, with costs distributed across all covered hourly work.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Administrative complexity requiring DCBS to forecast, set, and adjust dual rates while maintaining a 12-month reserve, risking rate volatility if economic conditions shift.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -3 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Indeterminate administrative costs for DCBS and potential funding gaps before the 2029 operational date, as assessment revenue cannot be accessed until then.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
Model self-rating: high. Analysis is grounded in the explicit statutory text of the proposed amendment and official fiscal/staff summaries. All impacts are conditional on adoption, and no legislative intent or unverified claims are presented as fact. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
This proposal has not become law. The generated effects below describe what it would require if enacted.
If adopted, this amendment would create a dedicated BOLI Expenses Fund financed by a new hourly assessment on all Oregon employers and employees, separate from the existing Workers’ Benefit Fund. It would mandate minimum fund balances ($4.25 million by June 2029/2030; $9.5 million by June 2031), continuously appropriates those funds to BOLI for commissioner duties starting July 2029, caps new funded positions at $5.25 million annually as of July 2031, and would raise the prevailing wage contract fee cap from $7,500 to $12,500.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A
Official sources do not state why this measure was proposed.
Sponsor testimony, staff summaries, committee materials, or statutory findings may explain it.
Inferred from cited text; not a stated purpose.
The measure appears designed to insulate BOLI enforcement funding from annual biennial budget cycles by establishing statutory reserve thresholds and dedicated assessment rates, ensuring predictable capitalization for agency expansion.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Would incur a new hourly payroll assessment on top of existing workers’ compensation rates, increasing operational costs across all sectors.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Gains a continuously appropriated revenue stream for enforcement and expansion duties starting July 2029, subject to statutory position cost caps.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Assumes fund management and rate-setting authority but faces unclear administrative funding prior to 2029.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: Face indirect fiscal exposure as the amendment separates assessment rates for the BOLI Expenses Fund from the Workers’ Benefit Fund, potentially altering reserve dynamics and benefit funding stability.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Employers would have to calculate and remit dual assessments via Department of Revenue forms, increasing payroll compliance burdens.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
DCBS would set separate assessment rates for each fund with a statutory mandate to minimize rate volatility while maintaining 12-month reserves.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Potential effect if enacted: BOLI cannot access its new fund until July 2029, creating an administrative funding gap for DCBS’s rate-setting and management work.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
The measure would prohibit transferring Workers’ Benefit Fund balances to the BOLI Expenses Fund, legally isolating the two revenue streams.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
BOLI & Statewide Labor Market
Potential effect if enacted: A sustained economic expansion generates sufficient payroll hours to meet the $9.5 million reserve target without rate hikes, allowing BOLI to rapidly hire compliance specialists and administrative law judges, significantly accelerating wage theft and safety violation enforcement statewide.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Employers & Injured Workers
A severe recession drastically would reduce total payroll hours; DCBS is forced to raise assessment rates sharply to meet the $9.5 million floor, but rate volatility caps prevent timely adjustments, causing WBF reserves to fall below required levels and triggering delayed or reduced benefits for injured workers while employers face unsustainable payroll costs.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A
The text would legally permit DCBS to adjust assessment rates upward to maintain statutory reserves and fund BOLI positions. Weak oversight or broad interpretation of “BOLI funding positions” could allow the agency to expand administrative overhead beyond the $5.25 million annual cap by reclassifying roles, while delayed rate adjustments during economic downturns could shift fiscal shortfalls onto the Workers’ Benefit Fund or employers without triggering automatic corrective mechanisms.
Sources · Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A
Potential effect if enacted: The measure trades predictable, long-term funding for BOLI enforcement expansion for increased fixed payroll costs on all employers and reduced fiscal flexibility during economic volatility. Upsides include insulated agency capacity and reduced biennial budget dependency; downsides include inelastic business costs, complex dual-rate mechanics, and potential strain on injured worker benefit reserves.
Would guarantee stable, dedicated revenue for BOLI enforcement without annual legislative appropriation battles.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
Would establish statutory position caps and reserve requirements to prevent unfunded mandates or fiscal drift.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Would impose inelastic payroll assessments on all employers, including public agencies and small businesses, regardless of economic conditions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
Potential effect if enacted: Separates assessment rates from the Workers’ Benefit Fund, creating complex rate-setting mechanics and potential reserve instability for injured worker programs.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Fiscal Impact Statement A; Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Model self-rating: high. Analysis is grounded in the proposed amendment text and official fiscal/staff summaries. Legislative intent beyond statutory mechanics is not established. This is the model’s assessment of its own analysis, not independent verification or human review.
23 records currently loaded
Records available in the current snapshot.
Earliest loaded signal
Introduced bill text posted
Posted Jan 28, 2026, 3:25 PM PST
AI-assessed adopted replacement
The adopted rewrite removes the study and replaces it with BOLI financing law.
AI assessment dated 2026-09-29. This classification is separate from enactment and legal effect.
Evidence snapshot: 2026-09-29. Later legislative records are not automatically reassessed.
Policy purpose: substantially changed.
Reviewer: /root/review_recent_a · 2026-09-29
AI-assessed adopted replacement
The adopted rewrite removes the study and replaces it with BOLI financing law.
Policy purpose: substantially changed.
“SECTION 1. The Legislative Policy and Research Director shall conduct a study of the 5 manner in which state labor agencies in other states are funded. The director shall submit 6 a report in the manner provided by ORS 192.245 to the interim committees of the Legislative 7 Assembly related to labor and business no l”
Introduced
“SECTION 1. Section 2 of this 2026 Act is added to and made a part of ORS chapter 656. 6 SECTION 2. (1) The BOLI Expenses Fund is established in the State Treasury, separate 7 and distinct from the General Fund. Interest earned by the BOLI Expenses Fund shall be 8 credited to the fund. Moneys in the fund shall be inv”
A-Engrossed
Reviewer: /root/review_recent_b · 2026-09-29
AI-assessed adopted replacement
The adopted -1 amendment removes the comparative study and creates operative funding obligations.
Policy purpose: substantially changed.
“SECTION 1. The Legislative Policy and Research Director shall conduct a study of the 5 manner in which state labor agencies in other states are funded. The director shall submit 6 a report in the manner provided by ORS 192.245 to the interim commit”
Introduced
“SECTION 1. Section 2 of this 2026 Act is added to and made a part of ORS chapter 656. 6 SECTION 2. (1) The BOLI Expenses Fund is established in the State Treasury, separate 7 and distinct from the General Fund. Interest earned by the BOLI Expenses Fund shall be 8 credited to the fund. Moneys in t”
A-Engrossed
“Gut and stuff” research tracks substantial replacements of a bill’s substantive text. Policy change is assessed separately: a rewrite can retain the same purpose. A proposed amendment is counted as adopted only when the official evidence supports adoption.
Two subscription subagents independently examine the same official evidence without seeing each other’s answers. An additional subagent can adjudicate disagreements against the sources. Unsupported conclusions, missing evidence, and unresolved disagreements remain uncertain. Agreement is not a guarantee of accuracy.
Session totals count each HB or SB once, including bills that did not become law. Resolutions and memorials are excluded. Counts describe the research inventory, independent of your search, interests, following, and status filters. Missing or unassessed bills are not negative findings.
The replacement watch is a rule, not an AI assessment: a bill whose introduced text is a short study bill (a study word, at most three sections, under 400 words) or a blank form (a run of blanks, 300 words or fewer) is listed once a proposed amendment is posted for it. In the 2021 to 2026 training sessions, 271 of 374 such bills were later replaced; the rate is historical and says nothing about a particular bill’s intent.
Assessments are published research snapshots. Opening this page reads saved research and does not run an AI review. Refreshes require another evidence export, independent assessment, and validated import; reports do not continuously refresh. Each bill’s evidence and reviewer provenance are available on its detail page.
Follow the official text for SB 1506 and every amendment branch. Connections come from each amendment's stated base. Horizontal position shows when each document was first posted, when available. Dotted links flag likely related proposals based on their text.
Click a card to isolate its connected lines; use View summary to jump to its details. Horizontal position shows first posting time in Pacific Time. Drag or use the arrow keys to pan. Pinch with two fingers on mobile, or zoom with the controls, +/− keys, or Control/Command + scroll; press 0 to reset. Dashed branches remained proposals. Dotted teal links are text-based early signals, not official amendment relationships.
Selected document summary
Substantial replacement
What the document says to change
Delete lines 4 through 10 and insert:
Inferred policy relationships
Likely revised proposal · Amendment -1
High confidence from shared inserted text: ORS 279, ORS 316.168, ORS 316.197, ORS 651.050, ORS 651.185, Tax deduction, Effective date.
This is a text-based early signal, not an official statement that one amendment changes the other.
No deeper official pre-number history was found.
The text changed substantially while keeping measure number SB 1506.
Chief sponsors: Senator Kathleen Taylor
Records already listed in Activity are not repeated here.
Official origin records are incomplete; missing facts are not inferred.
23 events
Full timeline
23 entries shown.
In committee upon adjournment.
Senate Amendments to Introduced bill text posted
Referred to Ways and Means by order of the President.
Recommendation: Do pass with amendments and be referred to Ways and Means. (Printed A-Eng.)
Work Session held.
Work Session
Heard and Reported Out with Amendments · Agenda item 1 · Room HR E · Requires the Legislative Policy and Research Director to conduct a study of the manner in which state labor agencies in other states are funded.
IS_Impact SB 1506 3
Revenue Impact Statement
IS_Impact SB 1506 1
Revenue Impact Statement
Amendment -3 proposed
Amendment -1 adopted
Public Hearing and Work Session held.
Public Hearing and Work Session
Heard · Agenda item 1 · Room HR E · Requires the Legislative Policy and Research Director to conduct a study of the manner in which state labor agencies in other states are funded.
Amendment -3 proposed
Amendment -1 proposed
Informational Meeting held.
Informational Meeting
Heard · Agenda item 4 · Room HR E · Requires the Legislative Policy and Research Director to conduct a study of the manner in which state labor agencies in other states are funded.
Referred to Labor and Business.
Introduction and first reading. Referred to President's desk.
ure of these funds for positions was authorized by BOLI’s biennial budget bill, HB 5015 (2025). Positions in the budget bill that are funded by moneys from the WBF tra
I reinvestment package positions by reference to positions funded by section 7, chapter 629, Oregon Laws 2025, and defines BOLI funding positions as new positions not included in that reinv
I reinvestment package positions’ means those positions 20 funded by section 7, chapter 629, Oregon Laws 2025. 21 “[(a)] (d) ‘Employee’ means a subject worker as defined in ORS 656.005 22 [
I reinvestment package positions’ means those positions 20 funded by section 7, chapter 629, Oregon Laws 2025. 21 “[(a)] (d) ‘Employee’ means a subject worker as defined in ORS 656.005 22 [
I reinvestment package positions’ means those positions 20 funded by section 7, chapter 629, Oregon Laws 2025. 21 “[(a)] (d) ‘Employee’ means: 22 “(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B)
I reinvestment package positions’ means those positions 20 funded by section 7, chapter 629, Oregon Laws 2025. 21 “[(a)] (d) ‘Employee’ means: 22 “(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B)
I reinvestment package positions’ means those positions funded by section 7, 35 chapter 629, Oregon Laws 2025. LC 26/SB 1506-1 1 “[(a)] (d) ‘Employee’ means a subject worker as defined
I reinvestment package positions” means those positions funded by section 7, 23 chapter 629, Oregon Laws 2025. 24 [(a)] (d) “Employee” means a subject worker as defined in ORS 656.005 [(28)
defines “BOLI reinvestment package positions” as positions funded by section 7, chapter 629, Oregon Laws 2025 (SB 960 (2025)). This section of law authorizes the one-time transfer of $14.7
age positions” as positions funded by section 7, chapter 629, Oregon Laws 2025 (SB 960 (2025)). This section of law authorizes the one-time transfer of $14.7 million
I reinvestment package positions’ means those positions funded 11 by section 7, chapter 629, Oregon Laws 2025. 12 “(d) ‘Employee’ means a subject worker as defined in ORS 656.005. 13 “(e) ‘
I reinvestment package positions’ means those positions funded 11 by section 7, chapter 629, Oregon Laws 2025. 12 “(d) ‘Employee’ means a subject worker as defined in ORS 656.005. 13 “(e) ‘
I reinvestment package positions’ means those positions funded 19 by section 7, chapter 629, Oregon Laws 2025. 20 “(d) ‘Employee’ means: 21 “(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B) of th
I reinvestment package positions’ means those positions funded 19 by section 7, chapter 629, Oregon Laws 2025. 20 “(d) ‘Employee’ means: 21 “(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B) of th
Source title: Requires the Legislative Policy and Research Director to conduct a study of the manner in which state labor agencies in other states are fundedThis source title may describe an earlier version. Read the current brief and version history above.
“Requires the Legislative Policy and Research Director to conduct a study of the manner in which state labor agencies in other states are funded.”
Confirm with the official record.
Supplemental, source-linked analysis from project researchers and community contributors. It is separate from Oregon's official record.