SB 1585
Plain-language analysis
Generated analysis, not an official summary or legal advice. Confirm with linked Oregon documents.
Decision brief generation failed. The existing briefs were preserved and this version can be retried.
Latest analysis in progress. Showing the superseded Senate Amendments to Introduced brief.
The measure establishes statutory maximum matching fund requirements for state grants awarded to incorporated cities with populations under 20,000 across five major grant programs, and permits those municipalities to use grant funds for pre-construction project phases like engineering and planning. Materially, it lowers the upfront financial barrier for small cities to access state infrastructure funding, which will likely increase grant application rates among small municipalities but reduces the proportion of state dollars available per project if overall appropriations remain static.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Senate Amendments to Introduced; 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.
To address administrative and financial barriers that prevent small municipalities from applying for or completing state-funded infrastructure projects by lowering upfront cash match obligations and allowing funds to cover planning costs.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
Experience significantly reduced matching fund obligations (capped at 3% to 12% depending on population and grant size) and gain statutory flexibility to use state funds for engineering, planning, and support phases in addition to construction.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
Remain subject to existing match requirements (typically 25% to 50%) and do not receive the same funding flexibility, potentially facing shifted competitive dynamics if small cities submit more applications.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
Must update rules, application forms, fiscal tracking systems, and staff guidance to implement tiered match caps and monitor expanded allowable uses.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
Small cities will face lower upfront cash requirements, likely increasing grant application rates and project initiation speeds.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
Agencies must revise rulemaking and administrative processes to track population-based tiers and expanded allowable uses, creating minimal but necessary implementation costs.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
The reduction in required local matches means a higher percentage of each grant award will be covered by state funds, which could reduce the total number of projects funded if overall appropriations remain fixed.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
Incorporated city with a population of 4,000
Secures a $500,000 state grant for school safety improvements, pays only $15,000 (3%) in match, and uses the remainder entirely for engineering and construction. The project proceeds without requiring separate local funding streams to initiate planning, directly enabling infrastructure that would have been financially impossible under prior rules.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
Rural county or special district managing flood control infrastructure
Is excluded from the reduced match provisions, forcing it to maintain high local cash matches while competing against small cities that receive state funding at 88% to 97% coverage. This skews regional project prioritization away from unincorporated areas and forces the county to delay or scale back critical levee projects.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Senate Amendments to Introduced
The broad phrasing of allowable uses creates discretion that agencies must actively monitor to prevent duty creep beyond capital project phases.
Sources · Senate Amendments to Introduced
The measure trades a reduction in state funding leverage per project for increased grant accessibility and project initiation rates among small municipalities. Upsides include lower financial barriers for small cities, accelerated project planning, and expanded use of state funds for pre-construction phases. Downsides include reduced total project volume if appropriations are fixed, potential competitive inequity for larger jurisdictions or unincorporated areas, and administrative burdens on agencies to monitor expanded allowable uses.
Accelerated infrastructure development in small communities by removing cash match bottlenecks.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
Increased grant uptake and project completion rates due to flexible funding for engineering and planning.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
Reduced overall project capacity if state appropriations remain static while per-project state share increases.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
Administrative complexity and compliance costs for agencies managing tiered match requirements across multiple funds.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
The Senate Amendments version is substantively identical to the A-Engrossed version. Both versions amend ORS 184.742, 367.082, 367.093, 285B.420, 285B.421, 541.561, and 541.666 to impose population-based maximum match caps (ranging from 3% to 12%) for cities under 20,000 residents, and both authorize the use of grant funds for engineering, planning, and support phases. No substantive statutory changes occurred between these two published versions.
No substantive change identified.
Tradeoff: none
high confidence. The statutory text is explicit regarding match caps, population tiers, and allowable uses. Official fiscal and revenue analyses confirm minimal impact and clarify the structural changes. No legislative sponsor statements or formal purpose declarations are present in the provided record.
Possible effects if adopted; not current bill text.
The proposed amendment would cap local cash or in-kind match requirements for small incorporated cities (under 20,000 residents) across seven specific state grant programs at 3%–12% based on population tiers, and explicitly permit those municipalities to use the resulting state grant funds for pre-construction costs such as engineering, planning, and administrative support. If adopted, this would lower financial barriers for small municipalities seeking state infrastructure funding but could reduce the total volume of projects funded within fixed appropriations by shifting a larger share of project costs onto the state.
Basis: Stakeholder claim · Sources: Amendment -2 — 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 text systematically reduces match caps for small cities while explicitly authorizing grant funds to cover engineering, planning, and support phases. This structure supports a bounded hypothesis that high upfront soft costs and rigid cash-match thresholds currently prevent small municipalities from accessing state infrastructure grants, and lowering these barriers would increase project initiation and completion rates in underserved communities.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Staff Measure Summary A
Benefit from drastically reduced match requirements (down to 3–12% depending on population tier) and expanded allowable uses of grant funds for pre-construction phases. This lowers out-of-pocket financial thresholds and reduces reliance on local staff capacity for planning and engineering.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A
Must update rules, application forms, and fiscal tracking to reflect new population-based caps and expanded allowable cost categories. May experience increased application volume from small cities while facing potential budget shortfalls if fixed program appropriations are spread across higher state-funded shares.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
May receive less total grant funding per project cycle if the overall appropriation remains static while smaller cities draw a larger percentage of state dollars, potentially reducing the number of projects funded across other jurisdictions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
Small municipalities will likely submit more applications for capital projects they previously could not afford to match. Agencies must draft rules to implement population tiers and revised allowable cost categories, requiring administrative updates to forms and grant documentation.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
Directly lowers the financial threshold for small municipalities but increases state expenditure per project if grants are fully funded at higher percentages. Requires agencies to verify municipal population status using federal decennial census data.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Incorporated city with population under 5,000
A city secures a $2 million state grant for a critical levee repair project that previously required a $400,000 local match. The new cap reduces their obligation to approximately $60,000–$100,000, and they use the grant funds to hire external engineers and planners, completing flood mitigation that protects downstream agricultural land without raising local taxes.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
State transportation or water resources grant programs with fixed appropriations
A program with a static $10 million appropriation sees 40% of its grants go to small cities under the new caps. Because each grant now requires 85–97% state funding instead of 50–70%, the total number of funded projects drops by nearly half, leaving larger urban districts and rural counties without any infrastructure upgrades for a biennium.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
The broad phrasing of allowable pre-construction phases creates a duty-creep risk where grant funds are diverted to sustain municipal budgets rather than fund discrete infrastructure projects.
Sources · Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Lowering match requirements expands infrastructure access for small municipalities but reduces the total volume of state-funded projects that can be completed within fixed appropriations.
Increases equity in grant distribution by removing financial barriers for small jurisdictions with limited tax bases.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
Accelerates project initiation by allowing grant funds to cover engineering, planning, and support phases that typically stall small-city applications.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Dilutes overall program impact by requiring a higher proportion of state dollars per project, potentially reducing the total number of projects funded.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
Creates administrative burdens for agencies to monitor expanded allowable expenses and verify population-based eligibility tiers.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
high confidence. The text explicitly defines population tiers, match percentages, and allowable cost categories across seven statutes. Fiscal analysis confirms minimal revenue impact but notes potential program-level funding shifts. No contradictory official sources are present.
The amendment would cap and reduce matching fund requirements for state grants across six major infrastructure and environmental programs, specifically for incorporated Oregon cities with populations under 20,000, while simultaneously permitting those cities to use grant funds for pre-construction phases like engineering and planning. If adopted, the measure would lower upfront financial barriers for small municipalities but could reduce the total pool of state-funded construction dollars available to other applicants or shift a higher proportion of project costs onto the state.
Basis: Bill text · Sources: Amendment -2 — 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 aims to address administrative and financial barriers that prevent small municipalities from applying for or completing state-funded infrastructure projects by lowering upfront cash requirements and expanding allowable fund uses.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Staff Measure Summary A; Staff Measure Summary A; Staff Measure Summary A
Benefit from statutory caps on matching requirements (as low as 3–5% versus prior 20–50% thresholds) and expanded authority to use grant funds for engineering, planning, and support phases alongside construction.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Must update rules, application forms, and tracking systems to implement population-based tiered caps and flexible fund usage; may face increased administrative complexity in verifying decennial census populations and monitoring allowable expenditures.
Basis: Bill text · Sources: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A
May experience reduced total grant funding availability per appropriation cycle if smaller cities draw down a larger share of fixed program budgets with lower local matching contributions.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
Small municipalities are likely to submit more grant applications and initiate projects sooner, as planning and engineering costs can now be covered by state funds rather than requiring separate local financing.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Applicants must still demonstrate project eligibility under existing program rules and provide required documentation; agencies retain discretion to set match requirements below the statutory maximums.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Reduces direct out-of-pocket financial burden for small cities but may increase per-project state expenditure. Agency rulemaking and form updates are anticipated to be minimal in cost.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
Tied strictly to municipal incorporation status and population brackets derived from the most recent federal decennial census, creating fixed eligibility tiers without mid-cycle adjustments.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Caps are structured as maximums ('may be required to provide... not greater than'), granting agencies flexibility but requiring clear audit trails to ensure funds are not misapplied beyond construction-related phases.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Lowers the financial threshold for entry, potentially increasing application volume from small cities that previously self-selected out due to match requirements.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Population classification cliffs at bracket thresholds (e.g., 5,000 or 10,000 residents) could create abrupt changes in match obligations; fixed biennial appropriations may not scale with increased demand.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Incorporated Oregon cities with populations ≤ 20,000
A city of 4,000 residents secures a $500,000 transportation grant with only a 5% ($25,000) match instead of the prior 30–50%, and uses the full award for engineering, planning, and construction, enabling a critical safety project that would have been financially impossible under previous rules.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Other grant applicants (larger cities, counties, special districts, nonprofits, federally recognized tribes)
A fixed annual appropriation for a grant program is fully consumed by a few small cities receiving grants with minimal matches, leaving zero funding for larger municipalities or rural counties that previously relied on those programs for essential infrastructure maintenance.
Basis: Bill text · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
The statutory language grants broad discretion over match amounts and fund usage phases without mandating granular expenditure tracking, creating opportunities for duty creep or misclassification if oversight mechanisms are not strengthened.
Sources · Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
The measure lowers immediate financial barriers for small municipalities at the potential expense of overall program efficiency and equitable funding distribution across all eligible applicants. Upsides include increased access for cash-constrained small cities and accelerated project planning timelines. Downsides include reduced total grant volume per appropriation cycle, potential inequity for larger or rural applicants, and administrative complexity in tracking population-based tiers.
Increased access for cash-constrained small cities
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Accelerated project planning timelines
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
Reduced total grant volume per appropriation cycle
Basis: Bill text · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
Potential inequity for larger or rural applicants
Basis: Bill text · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
Administrative complexity in tracking population-based tiers
Basis: Bill text · Source: Amendment -2 — proposed amendment
high confidence. The amendment text explicitly defines population brackets, match caps, and allowable fund uses across six statutes. Fiscal and revenue impacts are formally documented by state offices. Unknowns relate to implementation data and stakeholder testimony rather than statutory ambiguity.
If adopted, the amendment would statutorily cap matching fund requirements for state grants to incorporated cities with populations under 20,000 across seven specific capital and infrastructure programs, and explicitly permit those cities to use grant funds for planning, engineering, and support phases. The material consequence is a significant increase in the state's share of project costs for small municipalities, which would lower financial barriers to application but could reduce the total grant dollars available for other eligible public and nonprofit applicants if program funding pools remain fixed.
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 likely addresses administrative and financial barriers that have historically prevented small municipalities from securing capital grants, as legislative staff analysis identifies challenges in meeting current match thresholds and notes the high cost of pre-construction project phases.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Staff Measure Summary A; Staff Measure Summary A
Face reduced matching obligations and gain flexibility to cover planning and engineering costs that were previously restricted.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Must amend rules, update application forms, and adjust compliance tracking to reflect population-based sliding scales and expanded allowable uses.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
May experience reduced award availability if total program budgets are static and small cities draw down a higher proportion of state funds.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
Municipalities would be able to allocate grant dollars to engineering, planning, and support rather than restricting them to construction. State agencies would incur minimal rulemaking costs to update forms and compliance tracking. Eligibility thresholds would shift from fixed statutory percentages to population-based sliding scales tied to the federal decennial census. Enforcement would rely on agency auditing standards to ensure funds are classified correctly under the expanded allowable uses.
Basis: Inferred · Sources: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment; Fiscal Impact Statement A
Small municipality
A city of 4,900 residents secures a $10 million levee project with only a $500,000 match requirement (5%) and uses the remaining state funds to cover three years of engineering and environmental review, completing critical flood protection that would have stalled under prior rules.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Regional nonprofit or county
A regional water conservation nonprofit applying for a fixed-pool feasibility study grant receives no funding because the statutory match caps allow small cities to absorb 88% of the available state dollars, effectively displacing non-municipal applicants.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
The statutory language grants broad discretion over 'support' phases, creating a pathway for duty creep if compliance monitoring is not explicitly defined in agency rules.
Sources · Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Lowering match requirements expands infrastructure access for small cities but risks diluting grant availability for other public and nonprofit applicants if total funding pools are not adjusted upward. Upsides include accelerated project delivery and reduced municipal debt; downsides include potential crowding out of non-small-city entities and increased state fiscal exposure per project.
Accelerated project delivery by removing pre-construction financial barriers for small municipalities.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
Reduced municipal debt and lower long-term borrowing costs for qualifying cities.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Reduced grant availability for counties, special districts, nonprofits, and larger municipalities if program appropriations remain static.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
Increased state fiscal exposure per project due to lower municipal matching contributions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
high confidence. The amendment text explicitly defines population thresholds, match percentages, program applicability, and allowable fund uses. Supporting fiscal and staff analyses corroborate the mechanical changes and note minimal implementation costs.
The amendment would statutorily cap local matching fund requirements for state infrastructure grants at 3% to 12% for incorporated cities with populations under 20,000, while explicitly permitting those cities to use grant proceeds for engineering, planning, and support phases alongside construction. Materially, this lowers the financial barrier for small municipalities to access state capital projects but shifts a larger share of project costs onto state appropriations, potentially reducing the total number of grants that can be funded within existing budget caps.
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 aims to resolve administrative and fiscal bottlenecks that prevent small municipalities from securing state infrastructure funding by eliminating prohibitive match thresholds and covering pre-construction expenses.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Gain direct access to state capital grants with drastically reduced local financial obligations and expanded allowable uses for pre-construction project phases.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Must revise rules, forms, and application processes to reflect new caps and usage allowances; will manage potential increases in application volume from previously ineligible jurisdictions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
May experience reduced access to state grant pools if fixed appropriations are redirected toward smaller municipalities with lower match requirements.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
Retain statutory protections for a 60% allocation but will operate under the same adjusted match parameters.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Small cities can now pursue complex infrastructure projects without fronting large cash matches, lowering eligibility barriers and administrative friction.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Grant agencies will incur minimal upfront costs to update documentation and rules but must manage potential increases in application volume from previously ineligible jurisdictions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
Fixed state grant pools may see reduced purchasing power per dollar, as a higher percentage of each award comes from state funds rather than local contributions.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
Population verification will rely strictly on the most recent federal decennial census, requiring administrative tracking for boundary or demographic shifts between counts.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Incorporated Oregon cities with populations under 20,000
A city of 4,900 residents secures a $5 million school safety improvement project with only a $150,000 match requirement, enabling critical pedestrian infrastructure that would have been financially impossible under prior statutes.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Larger cities, counties, special districts, nonprofits, and tribes
A static state grant appropriation experiences a sharp decline in total funded projects because the reduced match requirements force agencies to allocate a disproportionately high share of state dollars to each small-city award, leaving fewer funds available for other regional or larger municipal applicants.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
The statutory caps and usage allowances create structural incentives that, without rigorous administrative oversight, could enable eligibility misclassification or duty creep into relaxed procurement standards.
Sources · Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
The measure trades a substantial reduction in local fiscal burden and expanded grant usability for small cities against a potential decrease in the total number of state-funded projects that can be supported within fixed appropriations.
Unlocks infrastructure development in financially constrained municipalities by covering historically unfunded planning costs and drastically lowering match requirements.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Amendment -1 — proposed amendment
Reduces overall project volume statewide, increases administrative complexity for agencies managing tiered match caps, and creates potential funding displacement for larger jurisdictions and other public entities.
Basis: Inferred · Source: Fiscal Impact Statement A
high confidence. The statutory text explicitly defines population thresholds, match caps, and allowable grant uses across multiple Oregon Revised Statutes. Fiscal impact statements confirm minimal administrative costs and note potential reallocation effects within fixed appropriations.
45 records currently loaded
Records available in the current snapshot.
Earliest loaded signal
Introduced bill text posted
Posted Jan 28, 2026, 3:25 PM PST
Follow the official text for SB 1585 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
Targeted changes
What the document says to change
On page 1 of the printed bill, line 2, after “cities;” insert “creating new 2 provisions; amending ORS 184.
Inferred policy relationships
Likely revised proposal · Amendment -2
High confidence from shared inserted text: ORS 174.109, ORS 184.742, ORS 195.115, ORS 285, ORS 366.112, Program administration, 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.
Chief sponsors: Senator James Manning Jr., Senator Dick Anderson, Senator Janeen Sollman, Senator Floyd Prozanski, Representative Ed Diehl, Senator Mark Meek, Senator Deb Patterson
Regular sponsors: Senator Anthony Broadman, Senator Jeff Golden, Senator Chris Gorsek, Senator Cedric Hayden, Senator Todd Nash, Senator David Brock Smith, Senator Kim Thatcher, Senator Suzanne Weber, Representative Court Boice, Representative Paul Evans, Representative Lisa Fragala, Representative Mark Gamba, Representative Zach Hudson, Representative Emily McIntire, Representative Susan McLain, Representative Sue Rieke Smith, Representative Lamar Wise, Senator Christine Drazan, Representative Mark Owens, Representative Bobby Levy, Representative Dwayne Yunker, Representative Jeffrey Helfrich, Representative Kevin Mannix, Representative Darin Harbick, Representative Matt Bunch, Representative Boomer Wright, Representative Rick Lewis, Representative Darcey Edwards, Representative David Gomberg, Representative Travis Nelson, Representative Lesly Muñoz, Representative Ken Helm, Representative Jami Cate
Senate carrier
Senator James Manning Jr.
Third Reading Of Senate Measures · Version A
House carrier
Representative Ed Diehl
Third Reading Of Senate Bills · Version A
A carrier presents the measure or report but is not necessarily its sponsor or author.
Records already listed in Activity are not repeated here.
Official origin records are incomplete; missing facts are not inferred.
45 events
Full timeline
45 entries shown.
Effective date, June 5, 2026.
Chapter 134, 2026 Laws.
Governor signed.
Speaker signed.
President signed.
Rules suspended. Third reading. Carried by Diehl. Passed.
Ayes, 46; Nays, 5--Breese-Iverson, Grayber, Marsh, Reschke, Wallan; Excused, 6--Hartman, Javadi, Levy B, Owens, Ruiz, Valderrama; Excused for Business of the House, 3--Boshart Davis, McIntire, Wright.
Second reading.
Recommendation: Do pass.
Staff Measure Summary · Version A
Work Session held.
Work Session
Heard and Reported Out · Agenda item 2 · Room HR D · Sets maximum matching fund requirements for state grants to small incorporated cities for certain capital construction and municipal infrastructure and improvements.
IS_Impact SB 1585 A
Revenue Impact Statement
Referred to Rules by order of Speaker.
Without recommendation as to passage and be referred to Rules.
Staff Measure Summary · Version A
Work Session held.
Work Session
Heard and Reported Out · Agenda item 1 · Room HR F · Sets maximum matching fund requirements for state grants to small incorporated cities for certain capital construction and municipal infrastructure and improvements.
IS_Impact SB 1585 A
Revenue Impact Statement
Public Hearing held.
Public Hearing
Heard · Agenda item 2 · Room HR F · Sets maximum matching fund requirements for state grants to small incorporated cities for certain capital construction and municipal infrastructure and improvements.
IS_Impact SB 1585 A
Revenue Impact Statement
Referred to Commerce and Consumer Protection.
First reading. Referred to Speaker's desk.
Third reading. Carried by Manning Jr. Passed.
Ayes, 25; Nays, 3--Campos, Gelser Blouin, Pham; Excused, 2--Frederick, Linthicum.
Second reading.
Senate Amendments to Introduced bill text posted
Recommendation: Do pass with amendments. (Printed A-Eng.)
Work Session held.
Work Session
Heard and Reported Out with Amendments · Agenda item 2 · Room HR B · Sets maximum matching fund requirements for state grants to small incorporated cities for capital construction and municipal infrastructure.
Amendment -2 adopted
IS_Impact SB 1585 2
Revenue Impact Statement
Work Session
Not Heard · Agenda item 6 · Room HR B · Sets maximum matching fund requirements for state grants to small incorporated cities for capital construction and municipal infrastructure.
Amendment -2 proposed
Amendment -1 proposed
Public Hearing held.
Public Hearing
Heard · Agenda item 1 · Room HR B · Sets maximum matching fund requirements for state grants to small incorporated cities for capital construction and municipal infrastructure.
Amendment -1 proposed
Referred to Commerce and General Government.
Introduction and first reading. Referred to President's desk.
“Effective date, June 5, 2026.”
Confirm with the official record.
Supplemental, source-linked analysis from project researchers and community contributors. It is separate from Oregon's official record.