INFORMATIONAL MEETING
TAPES 27 A-B,28 B, 29 A
FEBRUARY 2, 2005 1:30 PM STATE CAPITOL BUILDING
Members Present: Rep. Tom Butler, Chair
Rep. Vicki Berger, Vice-Chair
Rep. Mark Hass, Vice-Chair
Rep. Brian Boquist
Rep. Sal Esquivel
Rep. Larry Galizio
Rep. Betty Komp
Rep. Andy Olson
Rep. Chuck Riley
Witnesses Present: Dennis Day, Polk County Assessor
Jerry Hanson, Director of Assessment & Taxation, Washington Co.
Tom Linhares, Director, Tax Supervising & Conservation Commission
Staff Present: Paul Warner, Legislative Revenue Officer
Mary Ayala, Economist
Kristi Bowman, Committee Assistant
TAPE 27, SIDE A
003 |
Chair Butler |
Calls meeting to order at 1:34 p.m. |
|
|
|
006 |
Chair Butler |
Committee business announcement for field trip on 2/4/05. |
|
|
|
007 |
Rep. Boquist |
Additional information regarding field trip on 2/4/05. |
|
|
|
INFORMATIONAL MEETING |
||
|
|
|
045 |
Jerry Hanson |
All speakers provide their professional experience and provide brief program introduction. |
|
|
|
087 |
Hanson |
Discusses handout (exhibit 1). Discusses post Measure 50 property tax system. |
|
|
|
174 |
Chair Butler |
Asks clarifying question on Measure 50 limit of 3% on assessed value. |
|
|
|
180 |
Hanson |
Responds that normally the maximum limit on assessed value is 3%, and many properties are assessed at “real market value” because that value is less than the maximum assessed value, especially with industrial and utility and personal property. This type depreciates more quickly because of other tax depreciations. |
|
|
|
199 |
Hanson |
Continues Measure 50 discussion. |
|
|
|
215 |
Dennis Day |
Comments on local option/school compression issues. Taxing districts need to be careful about the amount of money asked for and what actually is realized after compression |
|
|
|
243 |
Rep. Riley |
Asks for explanation of compression.
|
250 |
Day |
Responds that there is no specific definition of compression in the handout, but continues with specific examples (see comments below for additional information regarding compression).
|
260 |
Rep. Hass |
Comments on local option taxes being considered this session. Asks how compression would affect those taxes. |
|
|
|
265 |
Hanson |
Responds that taxes would not be affected. Compression is in the constitution. Gives specific information regarding Measure 50 compression language. |
|
|
|
290 |
Rep. Hass |
Follow-up comment. If there was any way to change state law to increase local option, is there a way to deal with compression parameters. Is it a constitutional or statute issue. |
|
|
|
304 |
Paul Warner |
Local option is the amount that can be raised without affecting the Measure 50 formula. First limit is compression. The taxpayer wants to know the impact of an increase, and that depends on the type of property and the various options on that property. |
|
|
|
328 |
Rep. Boquist |
Comments on the high number of counties and taxing districts that have compression limits. |
|
|
|
340 |
Chair Butler |
Gives examples of compression in his district (Ontario, OR). |
|
|
|
370 |
|
Comments and discussion on compression interspersed. |
|
|
|
403 |
Rep. Hass |
Comments on local option recently passed in Beaverton that recently resulted in an excess amount of money for the school district in the second year. |
|
|
|
TAPE 28 SIDE A (malfunction) |
||
TAPE 27 SIDE B |
||
005 |
Hanson |
Continues Measure 50 discussion. |
|
|
|
020 |
Hanson |
Discusses Wall St. Journal article in handout which discusses revolt against tax assessors in other parts of the country. |
|
|
|
030 |
Hanson |
Continues overview using handout. |
|
|
|
047 |
Hanson |
Discusses complexities of dealing with Measure 50. 1) There is a limit on how a property can increase value. 2) The term “minor construction” was not clearly defined and is difficult to track over time. 3) Exceptions: how are values assessed if there are multiple changes to the property. Comments that a lot of time is spent on this process. |
|
|
|
240 |
Hanson |
Explains how Measure 50 exception is applied to a specific property (see example in the handout). |
|
|
|
270 |
Rep. Berger |
Clarifies how the property is taxed before and after improvements. Asks how the exception value is determined. |
|
|
|
287 |
Hanson |
Explains that the permit process, copy of plans, and site visit determine valuation. |
|
|
|
300 |
Day |
Discusses annual functions in an assessment office (see Assessment/Tax Calendar page in handout). |
|
|
|
365 |
Day |
Discusses types of value to maintain. There are now six additional values that must be tracked on all properties. |
|
|
|
399 |
Day |
Discusses a real property tax statement (handout) to demonstrate various values. |
|
|
|
TAPE 28 SIDE B |
||
030 |
Chair Butler |
Asks for clarification on some of the values stated on tax statement in handout. |
|
|
|
048 |
Day |
Explains the different values as applied to this property. |
|
|
|
074 |
Hanson |
Adds additional explanation to the value definitions. |
|
|
|
079 |
Rep. Komp |
Asks about availability of data regarding property values. |
|
|
|
099 |
Day |
Explains that the special assessed value is based on the use of the land, not the zoning. |
|
|
|
105 |
Rep. Esquivel |
Comments on assessment appeal situations. |
|
|
|
130 |
Day |
Uses specific situations (the change of course of a river or a house that has burnt down) that have occurred in his county to explain examples of appeals. |
|
|
|
180 |
Tom Linhares |
Comments on Measure 50 anomaly regarding maximum assessed value and real market value involving reduction of property values. |
|
|
|
224 |
Chair Butler |
Follow-up questions about appeal process. |
|
|
|
226 |
Hanson |
Explains that the homeowner goes to local assessor and requests an appeal. Next step is the magistrate division at the tax court, then the tax court, and finally the supreme court. |
|
|
|
244 |
Day |
Discusses Changed Property Ratio (see handout) designed to equalize new properties to a similar level as existing properties. |
|
|
|
280 |
Rep. Riley |
Asks if all classifications are the same for all counties. |
|
|
|
286 |
Hanson |
Responds that these classifications were defined by statute in 1997. Maximum CPR is 1.00. |
|
|
|
370 |
Chair Butler |
Asks where assessors can go for further assistance. |
|
|
|
383 |
Hanson |
Responds that the county assessors have organizations that provide on-going training as well as access to Dept. of Revenue on-going training. The counties use off-the-shelf software for maintaining their databases, and often small counties will pool their resources to research the best s |
|
|
|
444 |
Chair Butler |
Due to time constraints, panel is asked to return to provide the rest of the presentation. |
|
|
|
446 |
Warner |
Discusses open dates for further discussion. |
|
|
|
TAPE 29 SIDE A |
||
045 |
Chair Butler |
Adjourns meeting at 3:02 p.m. |
Tape Log Submitted by: Reviewed by:
Kristi Bowman, Committee Assistant Kim Taylor James, Committee Coordinator
Exhibit Summary:
1. Handout: Oregon Property Tax Administration, Dennis Day and Jerry Hanson, 37 pp., 02/02/05