Legislative Policies for the 2007 Oregon Legislative Session

New Search

City of Eugene Legislative Policies for 2007 Oregon Legislative Session City of Eugene Legislative Policies for 2007 Oregon Legislative Session Recommendations Recommendations ~ Oppose anygranting of new exemptions, deferrals or forgiveness of property taxes ~ Oppose the levying of property taxes by the State to fund State-level services. by the Legislature. ~ Support easing of the constitutional double-majority requirement for G0 Bonds for ~ Support reimbursement of revenue loss if the state grants an exemption that results capital construction. in a revenue loss to cities. ~ Support the Legislature revisiting all property tax exemptions granted in the past in B3. Urban Renewal Districts lightofthe newrevenue impact on /ocalgovernment. Urban renewal districts provide a tool for cities and counties to use in funding economic ~ Supportincrease ofthe corporate minimum income tax.. development and critical public infrastructure projects. Eugene has used urban renewal to ' s assist in a number of important downtown projects. 61 b. Exemption of Intangible Property The coalition of centrally assessed businesses, including telecommunications companies, As a result of Measure 50, the City undertook a full review of its. urban renewal programs power utilities, railroads and airlines, attempted to exempt intangible personal property during the spring of 1998. For the Downtown District, the City determined that it would from property taxation in the 1997,1999 and 2001 legislative sessions. Despite strong grandfather the district and redirect all revenues toward an important public project in the opposition by local government, industry successfully passed HB 2050 in 1999, which was .downtown area (construction of a new library). With the newJibrary complete, the City vetoed by the Governor. A similar bill, HB 2062, was also vetoed by the Governor Council amended the Downtown District plan in 2004 to allow projects besides the library. following the 1997 session. A veto threat in 2001 kept the same proposal bottled up in Also, the City enlarged and renewed the Riverfront Urban Renewal District to stimulate committee in 2001. development in the vicinity of the new Wayne Lyman Morse Federal Courthouse. Any exemption of intangible personal property will reduce local government revenue: A The City opposes any proposed legislation that would result in a further loss of revenue to study completed in 1998 by a Department of Revenue work group showed that more than urban renewal districts. One way that such losses could occur is from exempting certain $2 billion in assessed value, some $30 million in tax dollars, could potentially be removed types of levies or taxing jurisdictions from the division of tax calculation. Another way this ' from the tax rolls. Exempting intangible property will substantially reduce local revenue could occur is if the urban renewal statutes were changed so that compression would and will foster perpetual tax appeals and litigation, an approach which appears not to be occur where compression does not exist under current law. These types of changes would backed by economic logic. These issues could easily return in 2007. result in a reduced ability by the City to fund highly desired projects. Recommendation Proposals have been made from time to time that would mandate the types of projects on ~ Oppose the granting ofanyexemption from taxation for the intangible personal which all or a portion of urban renewal funds could be spent. This requirement reduces propertyofcentrallyassessedcompanies. /fsuch an exemption isgranted, .the local flexibility to determine the types of projects that are appropriate in the local area. In ..State shouldreimburse cities foraostrevenue. addition, proposals have been made to allow governments other than cities or cotnties to - use urban renewal to fund capital projects. The goal of urban renewal is broadly to 62. Property Taxes for Local Government Services eliminate blighted areas and improve the economic situation in communities. Use of urban .Property taxes are critically importanf to local governments and their ability to provide renewal by school districts to build schools or by other types of local governments to fund services to citizens. Property taxes will provide $70 million, or 48%, of the resources to the their capital projects would not achieve that goal City's General, Fund in fiscal year 2006-07. Recommendations Property taxes also provide revenue to repay General Obligation (GO) bonds,. used by ~ Oppose anylegislation thatreduces urban renewal revenue. cities as a means of funding a wide range of capital facilities and infrastructure. GO bonds ~ Oppose anylegislation regarding urban renewal thataffects maximum reirenue for capital construction currently must be approved by a double majority or receive a collection authoritygranted to urban renewal agencies underMeasure 50, that majority at a general election to be outside the constitutional cap for general government would cause compression where compression does notexistundercurrentlaw, or taxes. During the last legislative session, bills were introduced to ease the double majority that would exemptanylevies ortaxing districtrevenuesfrom the division oftax requirements. calculation. ~ Oppose any legislation that mandates that a portion of urban renewal funds be Property taxes should be reserved to fund local government programs and. should not be spenton particulartypes ofprojects. used for State-level services. The State may from time to time use the general obligation ~ Oppose legislation that would expand the types ofgovernments thatare allowed to pledge, which may include a pledge to levy property taxes, to provide security for bond create urban renewal districts. issues and obtain lower interest rates. The payments on the bond. issues should not, however, be made from property taxes. Property taxes should not be used to fund core State services, like higher education or public safety... 10 11