HB 4043
Authorizes the State Treasurer to issue Article XI-Q general obligation bonds to finance renovation or expansion of courthouses.
Jurisdiction
Oregon
Session
2026 Regular Session
At the request of
(at the request of House Interim Committee on Judiciary for Representative Jason Kropf)
Take action
Record your position on this measure.
Sign in to record your position, submit testimony, or contact your legislator.
Sign in to take actionPublic sentiment
Support
67%
Oppose
33%
- Introduced
- Passed House
- Passed Senate
- To Governor
- Became Law
Bill overview
This bill allows the State Treasurer to issue bonds to finance renovations or expansions of Oregon courthouses. Specifically, the bonds can be used to address structural issues like seismic defects, or to improve court facilities through remodeling, expansion, or new construction. The bill also outlines procedures for determining project eligibility and establishing a fund to manage the bond proceeds, and includes provisions for potential agreements between counties and the state regarding courthouse ownership and operation.
Sponsors
Official sponsors from legislative records.
Primary sponsor
Cosponsor
House Interim Committee on Judiciary
Arguments in favor
Reasons to support this legislation.
Supporters of HB 4043 argue that outdated courthouses in Oregon pose significant challenges to the justice system, including backlogs and delays in accessing justice. Many counties, such as Lane County, are experiencing these issues due to the need for renovation or expansion to meet current standards. Advocates believe that expanding the Oregon Courthouse Capital Construction and Improvement Fund would provide a more responsible and sustainable solution to address this issue, allowing counties to renovate their courthouses in a way that meets their specific needs and ensures access to justice for all parties involved.
Source: Testimony Summaries
Arguments opposed
Reasons to oppose this legislation.
Opponents of the proposed legislation argue that it fails to prioritize essential expenditures over discretionary spending, potentially leading to delays in addressing critical needs. They contend that a more balanced approach would allocate funds for basic necessities, such as healthcare and education, before allocating resources to non-essential projects like bathroom remodeling. This perspective emphasizes the importance of meeting fundamental requirements before investing in discretionary initiatives, suggesting that the current allocation may be unsustainable or inefficient. By prioritizing basic needs, proponents aim to ensure that essential services are adequately funded, thereby supporting the well-being of citizens and promoting a more stable financial foundation.
Read the latest version inline or switch to a previous version.