Laserfiche WebLink
On December 20, 2001, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled on a tax appeal filed by Shilo <br /> Inns against Multnomah County, the City of Portland, the Portland Development <br /> Commission, and State Department of Revenue. The court decided that all urban renewal <br /> division of tax revenues, including those revenues generated by school levies and GO <br /> bond levies, are subject to the Measure 5 limit of $10 per thousand of real market value <br /> for general government taxes. This increases the possibility that cities will experience tax <br /> compression resulting in loss of revenue. <br /> <br /> The City opposes any proposed legislation that would result in a further potential loss of <br /> revenue to local taxing jurisdictions, unless the State fully reimburses the local <br /> government. <br /> <br /> Recommendations: <br /> <br /> 1. Oppose any legislation that reduces revenue to cities without full reimbursement <br /> from the State. <br /> <br /> 2. Oppose any legislation regarding urban renewal that affects maximum revenue <br /> collection authority granted to urban renewal agencies under Measure 50 that <br /> would cause compression where compression does not exist under current law, or <br /> that requires any retroactive reimbursement of tax revenue already collected. <br /> <br /> 4. ASSESSMENT AND TAXATION APPEALS, FUNDING AND STANDARDS <br /> <br /> Although the assessment and taxation (A&T) function is carried out at the county level, <br /> the results are important to cities, particularly in a post-Measure 50 environment. Cities <br /> have always relied on county tax collections for city property taxes; now they must rely <br /> on the completeness and accuracy of the assessment process to ensure that they receive <br /> the full amount of property taxes due. If, for example, the county assessor does not add <br /> new properties to the rolls, does not adjust assessments for major improvements or if the <br /> market value of properties are not kept up-to-date, additional revenue loss could occur. <br /> <br /> The counties have taken the <br /> position that they need help Assessment and Taxation Funding <br /> with funding of the A&T <br /> function. Assessors say that <br /> declining county revenues .Support statewide standards for assessment and <br /> have resulted in fewer staff, taxation services to ensure that assessment records <br /> particularly appraisers, are correct and up-to-date, and thus can be used to <br /> They have sought a stable provide accurate calculations of property tax <br /> funding source for A&T revenue. <br /> activities, and in particular, <br /> have proposed that cities, · Support stable and dedicated sources of statewide <br /> schools and special districts funding for assessment and taxation activities. <br /> <br /> · Oppose a shift to the cities for funding of county <br /> assessment and taxation activities unless an <br /> additional source of revenue is identified. <br />City of Eugene Legislative Policies, 2005 Session <br /> <br /> · Support a requirement that cities be notified of <br /> appeals of non-residential assessed value. <br /> <br /> <br />