Item 2H: Ratifiaction of Unanimous IGR Actions

Home Browse Search

within the corporate limits of the city on the effective date. He said staff had read this initially to be more of a directive, but had concluded that the bill actually meant that if a city had a tract of city land that was outside the UGB but was part of city limits and it was 70 acres and it was adjacent to the UGB, it must be brought into the UGB within six months. He observed that having land outside the UGB but inside the corporate city limits was a unique situation. He said no such circumstance existed in Eugene and he surmised that the bill must be specific to Portland or Salem. He related that staff had changed its position to either neutral or drop because it did not affect Eugene. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to adopt a neutral stance on the bill. The mo- tion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2875 Ms. Wilson stated that HB 2875 also related to annexation and would allow a taxpayer to elect to defer payment of increased property taxes that were attributable to the annexation of a property by a city. Staff had recommended taking a Priority 2 Oppose position. Ms. Taylor said she would prefer to change the position to Priority 2 Support. She felt that people should be allowed to defer taxes. Larry Hill, Senior Management Analyst for the Finance Division, explained that the bill would allow any person or persons who owned residential property to obtain a deferral for ten years. He said the City would still need to provide services to the property. He added that the State Department of Revenue would reimburse jurisdictions that would otherwise receive the tax revenue, so theoretically the State would pay the lost revenue. He stated that the principal would be held in a lien against the property by the State and interest would accrue at 6 percent per year and would be payable in full at the end of ten years or upon the sale of the property. This could become a large amount of money. He pointed out that there was no qualification process for the program and people already had access to the senior property tax deferral program or the low-income disabled property tax deferral programs if they were suffering hardships. He had recommended the City oppose the bill because it would provide the relief to people who did not need it, it would require the State to reimburse the local jurisdictions with no assurance that the money would be adequate, and the money would come out of the senior tax deferral fund. He also had some concern that the lump sum at the end of ten years would create a hardship for people. Ms. Taylor remarked that whether or not it would be a hardship was for the property owner to decide. Ms. Ortiz had decided not to pull the bill because the City did not arbitrarily annex property. She noted that the bill was being brought forward by Rep. Edwards and State Senator Vicki Walker. Ms. Taylor moved to change the position on the bill to Priority 3 Support. The motion died for lack of a second. HB 2983 Ms. Wilson said the bill was related to property tax liens and would permit counties to sell tax lien certificates. Mr. Hill related that staff had changed its recommendation from a Priority 3 Support position to a neutral position based upon recent conversations with the County Assessor, Annette Spickard. He said the tax assessors and collectors were not taking a stand on the bill because they did not believe it would move. MINUTESCouncil Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 1, 2009 Page 13