Item C: Ordinance Concerning Real Property Value-Added Charge

Home Browse Search

additional types of regulations, but those apply only to the state or the regional government in the Portland metro area.) This ordinance is none of those. Moreover, this ordinance does not restrict the use of property, which is another requirement under Measure 37. Is the charge subject to the property tax limits of Measure 5 and Measure 50? No. Measures 5 and 50 limit “taxes on property.” A “tax on property” is defined for those measures as a charge that is imposed directly on the property itself (like the library local option levy), or a charge that is imposed on the owner of property as a direct consequence of ownership. The real property value added charge is not imposed on the property, and is not imposed on the owner of property as a direct consequence of ownership. Instead, the charge is imposed as a consequence of an “upzoning” that increases the fair market value of the property. Will any of the tasks on the Planning Commission’s work plan potentially create Measure 37 claims? potential Yes. The following high priority work tasks have the – depending on the ultimate policy choices – to include components that could create Measure 37 claims: opportunity siting/infill compatibility standards; mixed use centers; minor code amendments; downtown and courthouse associated projects; south ridgeline habitat study; and Jefferson-Westside Neighborhood Metro plan amendments. For non-requested changes, is the change in value measured at the time of the change, or at the time that the property owner takes advantage of the change? As currently drafted, the ordinance would measure the change in value at the time that the council amends the zone, the UGB or the refinement or metro plan designation. Would a property owner be required to pay too much when property zoned agriculture is rezoned to R-1 (at time of annexation or otherwise), since the Assessor’s Office data on the value of property zone AG underestimates the fair market value of that land? No. Although the ordinance provides a “default” determination on the value of property (which is based on data from the Assessor’s Office), the property owner has the option of rejecting that default determination and submitting an appraisal that provides a more accurate measurement of the property’s fair market value before the zone change (e.g., agriculture) and after (e.g., R-1). The assumption in the question is that property zoned agriculture (if inside the UGB) is already selling for R-1 zoned prices. If that is the case, then the property owner can submit an appraisal demonstrating that fact, and unless the City obtains its own appraisal containing a different value, the value-added charge will be based on the property owner’s appraisal, rather than the default value. (If the City obtains its own appraisal, then the property owner can accept the value in the City’s appraisal, or can request that an independent hearings officer hold a hearing and determine the correct value.) How does the Assessor obtain its data and how accurate is that data? Attached as Attachment C is a memorandum from Larry Hill that answers the question. The Assessor’s data is by no means 100% accurate for every property at every moment in time. From staff’s perspective, the lack of 100% accuracy should not matter since the property owner has the choice of accepting the Assessor’s data, or submitting his/her own appraisal that more accurately identifies the real market values. Does the ordinance limit the use of the funds to payment of Measure 37 claims? The intention – as directed by thecouncil – is certainly to limit the use of the funds. The purpose section L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M061211\S061211C.doc