Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ATTACHMENT D <br />IGR BILL REPORT <br />FEBRUARY 8, 2012 / IGR COMMITTEE MEETING <br />CITY OF EUGENE <br /> <br /> <br />HB 4066 <br /> <br />Relating Clause: Relating to taxation of centrally assessed property; creating new provisions; amending <br />ORS 308.505; and prescribing an effective date. <br /> <br />Title: For purposes of central assessment, excludes from definition of “communication” data <br />transmission services provided through contractual arrangement with person that <br />transmits data through tangible property owned or controlled by that person. Takes effect <br />st <br />on 91 day following adjournment sine die. <br /> <br />Sponsored by: Sponsored by Representative GILLIAM; Representatives BENTZ, BREWER, HARKER, <br />LINDSAY, READ, Senators HASS, MORSE, STARR (Presession filed.) <br /> <br />URL: http://www.leg.state.or.us/12reg/measpdf/hb4000.dir/hb4066.intro.pdf <br /> <br />Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation <br />Larry Hill CS-FIN 1/31/2012 Pri 1 Oppose <br /> <br />Comments: HB 4066 could have a significant negative financial impact on the City of Eugene. It <br />would exclude "data communication services provided through a contractual <br />arrangement" with the owner of the data transmission facilities from the definition of <br />centrally assessed property for the purpose of property taxation. The legislation does not <br />define "data transmission services" or "contractual arrangement". Worse, it is retroactive <br />back to July 1, 2009. Any property taxes that have been collected since then on any data <br />communication services provided under contract, whatever those are determined to be, <br />would have to be refunded and such services could not be taxed in the future. This would <br />potentially impose an unfair retroactive liability on local governments. I am unable to <br />estimate the potential financial impact to the City of Eugene because I do not know the <br />past or future taxable values of the bill's undefined "communication services". However, I <br />agree with Pam Berrian that this bill would impose an unfunded liability and move local <br />governments onto a slippery slope we want to avoid at all costs. The City should oppose <br />the bill, and should support an interim study group is that is necessary, in lieu of HB 4066 <br />and any similar bills. If HB 4066 appears likely to move, at the very least amendments <br />are needed to eliminate the retroactive feature. <br /> <br />Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation <br />Pam Berrian CS-ISD 1/29/2012 -- Oppose <br /> <br />Comments: I have added Twylla Miller & Larry Hill as additional reviewers to discuss the tax <br />treatment implications from a financial or municipal authority perspective. <br /> <br />I found the provisions of the bill vague and overly broad, whether intended or not. I <br />believe that the 2012 30-day session is not appropriate for this kind of structural change. <br />This bill seems to promote a slippery slope, especially in the current quickly converging <br />telecommunications landscape - that is cause for concern. For example, what is or is not <br />1 | Page <br />February 8, 2012 IGR Committee Meeting <br /> <br />