Item 2H: Ratifiaction of Unanimous IGR Actions

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

e to taking a neutral stance. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to adopt a neutral stance on the bill. The mo- tion passed unanimously, 3:0. SJR 35 and SJR 36 Ms. Wilson stated that a Joint Resolution did not change the law and in this particular case it was a constitutional amendment and would have to go out to the voters. She stressed that any committee could adopt a bill to be introduced on behalf of the committee but it did not mean that the committee members supported the bill. Mr. Hill stated that the resolutions , to levy local option levies, and the permanent property tax rates allowing them to decrease, among others. of Oregon Cities had not taken a position because of concern of the magnitude of some of them. He be good, and he was not certain without further study what impact some of the others would create. He had recommended opposition on the first two because they were substantially bad for cities. Mr. Hill had recommended taking a neutral position on SJR 37 because he thought the modification of the change of property ratio would be beneficial. He explained that this meant that in properties that had been added to or remodeled and in properties that had newly constructed buildings on them, the property tax assessment would also be changed. He said currently the level of assessed value was set in relation to real market value at a percentage rate that equaled the average relationship between the assessed value and the real market value in that class. He stated that at present the current assessed value of a new home was 58 percent of the real market value; in 1997 it had been 79 percent. He stated that industrial property came on the roles at 100 percent of its value but commercial property came on at 48 percent of the value. Continuing, Mr. Hill said the one thing worth investigating would be the change in the way assessed value was assigned to exceptions value property, or changed property, as it would make it a flat 75 percent of the real market value. He noted that one resolution was bad because it dictated that the value could never go higher than 75 percent. He had some concern that if industrial property currently came on at 100 percent, a change to 75 percent would mean a substantial reduction in tax revenue. He believed that the at they needed to vigorously point out what they knew was bad for the City. He was amenable to adopting a neutral stance for the present and indicated that he planned to conduct a more extensive analysis, which he would provide to the City Council. Ms. Ortiz thanked him for the information. SB 806 he or she would complete the project. MINUTESCouncil Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 1, 2009 Page 14