Item 2D - 2005 Leg.Policies Doc - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1. Oppose any granting of new exemptions, deferrals or forgiveness of property taxes by the Legislature. 2. Support reimbursement of revenue loss if the state grants an exemption that results in a revenue loss to cities. 3. Support the Legislature revisiting all property tax exemptions granted in the past in light of the new revenue impact on local government. b. Exemption of Intangible Property The coalition of centrally assessed businesses, including telecommunications companies, power utilities, railroads and airlines, attempted to exempt intangible personal property from property taxation in the 1997, 1999 and 2001 legislative sessions. Despite strong opposition by local government, industry successfully passed HB 2050 in 1999, which was vetoed by the Governor. A similar bill, HB 2062, was also vetoed by the Governor following the 1997 session. A veto threat in 2001 kept the same proposal bottled up in committee in 2001. Any exemption of intangible personal property will reduce local government revenue. A study completed in 1998 by a Department of Revenue work group showed that more than $2 billion in assessed value, some $30 million in tax dollars, could potentially be removed from the tax rolls. Exempting intangible property will substantially reduce local revenue and will foster perpetual tax appeals and litigation, an approach which appears not to be backed by economic logic. These issues could easily return in 2005. Recommendation: 1. Oppose the granting of any exemption from taxation for the intangible personal property of centrally assessed companies. If such an exemption is granted, the State should reimburse cities for lost revenue. 2. URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICTS AND THE SHILO 1NN DECISION As a result of Measure 50, the City undertook a full review of its urban renewal programs during the spring of 1998. For the Downtown District, the City determined that it would grandfather the district and redirect all revenues toward an important public project in the downtown area (construction of a new library). With the new library complete, the City Council amended the Downtown District plan in 2004 to allow projects besides the library. Also, the City recently enlarged and renewed the Riverfront urban renewal district to stimulate development in the vicinity of the soon-to-be constructed Federal Courthouse. Any action by the Legislature to reduce urban renewal revenues, or that would result in compression where compression does not exist under current law, would result in a reduced ability by the City to fund highly desired projects. City of Eugene Legislative Policies, 2005 Session 11