OREGON PROPERTY TAX OVERVIEW

(1)

OREGON PROPERTY TAX OVERVIEW

Presentation to OCCA November 9, 2012

Carol Samuels

Senior Vice President

Mary Macpherson Vice President

(2)

(3)

Property Tax Timeline

Oregon’s property tax system can be divided into distinct “eras”

Ancient

History

November 1990 (Measure 5) November 1996 (Measure 47) May 1997 (Measure 50)

Today

(Ice Age)

(4)

Ancient History

(the Golden Age?)

 Prior to 1990, property taxes were set on a “levy-based” system.

 A municipality’s levy was submitted to the County as a dollar amount. Rates were then calculated by dividing that amount by the real market value of the property.

 Some jurisdictions had “tax bases” - authorized levy

amounts allowed to increase automatically by 6% annually. Voters could approve unlimited increases in tax bases.

 Other jurisdictions survived on temporary “serial levies” that had no automatic inflator, or permanent “continuing levies,” also no inflator.

 These discrepancies led to wide disparities in tax rates and funding levels between like jurisdictions.

(5)

Ancient History –

School District Funding

 On average, property taxes accounted for 70% of school operating funding.

 School districts were divided into “haves” and “have-nots”

where some were exceptionally well funded, others were constantly threatened with closure. Tax rates varied wildly.

School District Spending and Tax Rates 1987-88

Brookings-Harbor School District Pleasant Hill School District $ 2,591/Student $ 6.65/$1,000 $ 4,736/Student $ 28.25/$1,000

(6)

Ancient History –

Calculating Tax Rates

In subsequent years, “tax bases” (levy authority) and related levy authority would grow by 6%. If value didn’t keep pace with 6% growth, tax rates would rise. Levy Authority Real Market Value Tax Rate

City $ 0.8 million $ 100 million $ 8.00

County $ 2.0 million $ 400 million $ 5.00

School District $ 1.5 million $ 200 million $ 7.50 Total Rate $ 20.50

Levy Authority (+ 6%)

Real Market Value (+ 3%)

Tax Rate

School District $ 1.59 million $ 206 million $ 7.72 Total Rate $ 21.10

1988

(7)

Ancient History –

Calculating Taxes

House A House B Target

Real Market Value $ 30,000 $ 60,000 $ 10,000,000 Tax Rate ($/$1,000) X 21.10 X 21.10 X 21.10

Tax $ 633 $ 1,266 $ 211,000

Tax Calculation in 1989

 All properties within the same tax code paid the same tax rate

 A property valued at double the value of a neighbor paid twice as much in taxes

(8)

Ancient History –

Property Taxes Increase

Between 1981-1991, although property values rose slowly due to recessionary forces, 6% tax base increases caused much faster growth in property tax bills.

The effective tax rate statewide rose from

$19.05/$1,000 in 1980-81

to

$26.61/$1,000 in 1990-91

(9)

Property Tax Timeline

Oregon’s property tax system enters the “compression” era

Ancient

History

Today

(Ice Age)

(10)

Measure 5

 Measure 5 was approved in November of 1990 by a 52% margin; although only 14/36 counties approved, Multnomah, Washington and Clackamas all voted yes.

 Although very different in substance, the measure was inspired by Proposition 13 in California.

 M5 retained the levy-based system but added rate-based limits: $10/$1,000 for local governments and $5/$1,000 for education. The education rate limit was phased in over a five year period, starting at $15/$1,000, declining $2.50/year.

(11)

Measure 5

 Measure 5’s main difference from previous ballot measures

was the requirement that the State backfill losses to schools.

 As a result, K-12 funding shifted largely to the State,

leading to other changes (school consolidation,

equalization formula). Now, roughly 70% of education funding comes from the State.

 Property tax levies were still divided by RMV; the resulting tax rates were then compared against the limits. Tax bases could still increase by 6% annually.

 If rates exceeded the limit, levies were “compressed” proportionally until within the limit.

 For the first time, overlapping jurisdictions “competed” against each other for revenue under the limits.

(12)

Measure 5

 By 1991, 6 percent annual growth in tax bases (levy amount) drove the total tax rate in our example community to the statewide average of $26.61.

Levy Amount Real Market Value Rate General Government

Fire District $ 0.63

Education

School District $ 1.893 million $ 231 million $ 8.17

Community College $ 0.365 million $ 463 million $ 0.79

ESD $ 0.161 million $ 672 million $ 0.24

Bonds

Elementary School $ 0.051 million $ 76 million $ 0.67

High School $ 0.259 million $ 231 million $ 1.12

City Hall $ 0.095 million $ 116 million $ 0.82

(13)

Measure 5

 In 1992 the additional 6 percent growth in tax bases resulted in a pre-compression tax rate of $27.00.

Compression!

 Of the $27.00, $9.50 exceeded the Measure 5 limits and would be lost to compression:

General Government ($10 Measure 5 Limit) Education ($5 Measure 5 Limit) Bonds (Unlimited)

City $8.88 School Dist. $8.33 Elem. School $0.65

County 5.55 CC 0.82 High School 1.10

Fire District 0.67 ESD 0.25 City Hall 0.75

Total 15.10 Total 9.40 Total 2.50

M5 Limit 10.00 M5 Limit 5.00 Unlimited

(14)

Measure 5

 Compression losses are taken proportionally from all levies

Compression Calculation in 1992

Because the education rate limit was phased in over a five year period (starting at $15, declining $2.50/year), compression losses to school districts, community colleges and education service districts weren’t as immediate as general government losses.

General Government ($10/$1,000 Measure 5 Limit) Education ($15/$1,000 Measure 5 Limit) Jurisdiction Rate M5 Loss Net

Rate Jurisdiction Rate

M5 Loss

Net Rate

City $8.88 $(2.99) $5.88 School District $8.33 $8.33 County 5.55 (1.87) 3.68 Comm. Coll. 0.82 0.82 Fire District 0.67 (0.22) 0.44 ESD 0.25 0.25 Total 15.10 (5.10) 10.00 Total 9.40 9.40 M5 Limit 10.00 M5 Limit 15.00

Compression (5.10) Compression Compression % 33.7% Compression %

(15)

Measure 5

Compression Calculation in 1995 General Government ($10/$1,000 Measure 5 Limit) Education ($7.50/$1,000 Measure 5 Limit) Jurisdiction Rate M5 Loss Net

M5 Loss

Net Rate

City $8.88 $(2.99) $5.88 School District $8.33 $(1.68) $6.65 County 5.55 (1.87) 3.68 Comm. Coll. 0.82 (0.17) 0.65 Fire District 0.67 (0.22) 0.44 ESD 0.25 (0.05) 0.20 Total 15.10 (5.10) 10.00 Total 9.40 (1.90) 7.50 M5 Limit 10.00 M5 Limit 7.50

Compression (5.10) Compression (1.90)

(16)

Measure 5

Compression Calculation in 1996

By 1996, compression had reduced property taxes collected for education districts statewide by 40% in 5 years (from $1.6 billion in 1991 to $1.0 billion in 1996). General Government ($10/$1,000 Measure 5 Limit) Education ($5/$1,000 Measure 5 Limit) Jurisdiction Rate M5 Loss Net

M5 Loss

Net Rate

City $8.88 $(2.99) $5.88 School District $8.33 $(3.90) $4.43 County 5.55 (1.87) 3.68 Comm. Coll. 0.82 (0.38) 0.44 Fire District 0.67 (0.22) 0.44 ESD 0.25 (0.12) 0.13 Total 15.10 (5.10) 10.00 Total 9.40 (4.40) 5.00 M5 Limit 10.00 M5 Limit 5.00

Compression (5.10) Compression (4.40)

(17)

Measure 5

Real Market Value $ 40,000 $ 80,000 $ 10,000,000

Gener al Go v. Rate ($/$1,000) X 15.10 X 15.10 X 15.10 Tax Extended 604 1,208 151,000 Limit ($10/$1,000) 400 800 100,000 Compression Loss (204) (408) (51,000) Compressed Tax 400 800 100,000 Education Rate/Tax $ 9.40 376 $ 9.40 752 $ 9.40 94,000 Unlimited Rate/Tax $ 2.50 100 $ 2.50 200 $ 2.50 25,000 Total Tax $ 876 $ 1,752 $ 219,000 Tax Calculation in 1992

(18)

 Rapidly increasing residential real market values caused property tax rates to fall below Measure 5 limits

 If a property’s real market value increased by a greater percentage than the reduction in the tax rate, the tax bill would increase

 Compression declined

 Taxes rose

 Bill Sizemore got to work…

(19)

Measure 5

Real Market Value $ 80,000 $ 160,000 $ 10,000,000 Rate Comp Tax Rate Comp Tax Rate Comp Tax General Gov. 15.10 (5.10) $ 800 15.10 (5.10) $ 1,600 15.10 (5.10) $100,000 Education 9.40 (4.40) 400 9.40 (4.40) 800 9.40 (4.40) 50,000 Unlimited 2.50 200 2.50 400 2.50 25,000

Total Tax 1,400 2,800 175,000

Tax Calculation in 1996

Real Market Value $ 80,000 $ 160,000 $ 10,000,000 Rate Comp Tax Rate Comp Tax Rate Comp Tax General Gov. 15.10 (5.10) $ 800 15.10 (5.10) $ 1,600 15.10 (5.10) $100,000 Education 9.40 (4.40) 400 9.40 (4.40) 800 9.40 (4.40) 50,000 Unlimited 2.50 200 2.50 400 2.50 25,000

(20)

Property Tax Timeline

Oregon’s property tax system enters the “messy∙ozoic” era

Ancient

History

Today

(Ice Age)

(21)

 Approved by voters in November 1996

 Kept Measure 5 limits, but restricted annual tax increases

to three percent

 Added double majority voter requirements

 Legislature concluded that the measure was unworkable

and chose to rewrite it and refer a new measure to the ballot

 Measure 50 was approved by the voters on May 20, 1997

(22)

21

Measure 50

 Fundamental change from levy-based to rate-based system.

 New “permanent” rates were established by taking 1997 levies, reducing them by 17%, and then dividing by 90% of 1995-96 Real Market Value.

 Created Local option levies, which are levied in addition to permanent operating rates. Require voter approval.

 All levies still subject to Measure 5 limits.

Hierarchy of Rates

 Local Option Levies reduced first. If there is more than one Local Option, reductions are made proportionally

 _{After Local Option Levies are compressed to zero, permanent}

rates are compressed proportionally

(23)

Measure 50

 Created new, lower Assessed Value (AV) on which taxes are

now levied. 1997 Assessed Values were set at 90% of 1995 Real Market Value.

 Assessed Value growth limited to 3% per year; it can never

exceed Real Market Value.

 New properties are brought on at county-wide ratio of AV

to RMV (the “Change Property Ratio”).

(24)

(25)

Property Tax Timeline

The limits of both Measure 5 and 50 remain in effect today…

Ancient

History

Today

(Ice Age)

(26)

Permanent Rates

Permanent rates were calculated by taking 1997 levies, reducing them by 17%, and then dividing by 90% of the 1995-96 RMV

School District $ 1.8 million – (17%) = $ 5.53

$350 million – (10%)

Community College $ 1.0 million – (17%) = $ 1.23

$750 million – (10%)

ESD $ 0.7 million – (17%) = $ 0.74

$900 million – (10%)

(27)

2 3 4 5 6 Ash la n d B ea vert o n B en d -La Pin e B et h el Can by Cen ten n ial Cen tral Cen tral P o in t Coo s B ay Corvallis Croo k Cou n ty D allas D av id D o u glas Ea gle Po in t Est ac ad a Eu gen e Fore st Gro ve Gran ts P ass Grea ter Alb an y am-B arlo w H erm ist o n H illsb o ro H o o d Riv er erso n C o u n ty Klama th C o u n ty th Falls City Lak e Os w ego on C ommu n it y Lin co ln Cou n ty M cM in nv ill e M ed fo rd M o lalla Riv er N ew b erg o rt h Clac kama s h Wasc o Cou n ty On tario Orego n City Orego n T rail Par krose Pe n d let o n Phoe n ix -T ale n t Po rt lan d Red m o n d Rey n o ld s Ro se bu rg Sale m -Keiz er Scio Sh erw o o d Silver Falls So u th Lan e Sp rin gf ield St H ele n s Th re e R ive rs Tigard -T u alatin n -Wilso n ville Wo o d b u rn P er mane n t Ra te ($/ $1 ,0 00 A V)

Permanent Rate Inequities

(28)

Permanent Rate Inequities

Community Colleges 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 B lu e M o u n tain Cen tral Ore gon Che me ke ta Clac kama s Clat sop Colu m b ia Go rge Klama th Lan e Lin n -B en to n M t. Hoo d Orego n Coast Po rt lan d Rogu e So u th w est ern Ore gon Tillam o o k B ay Tre asu re V alle y Ump q u a P er mane n t Ra te ($/ $1 ,0 00 A V)

(29)

Permanent Rate Inequities

Counties 2 4 6 8 10 B ak er B en to n kama s (City) kamas (R u ral) Clat sop Colu m b ia Coo s Croo k Cur ry D esc h u tes D o u glas Gilliam Gran t H arn ey H o o d Riv er Jack so n Jeff erso n Jo sep h in e Klama th Lak e Lan e Lin co ln Lin n M alh eu r M ario n M o rro w M u lt n o mah Po lk Sh erma n Tillam o o k U mat illa Unio n Wallo w a Wasc o Wash in gt o n Wh eele r Yamhi ll P er mane n t Ra te ($/ $1 ,0 00 A V)

(30)

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Oregon Metro Home Prices

Eugene Portland Corvallis Medford Bend Salem 1997: Measure 50 Froze Assessed Value at 90% of 1995 Real Market Value and capped growth at 3%/year

Salem "Gap"

AV RMV

(31)

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Oregon Metro Home Prices

Eugene Portland Corvallis Medford Bend Salem 1997: Measure 50 Froze Assessed Value at 90% of 1995 Real Market Value and capped growth at 3%/year

Bend "Gap"

AV RMV

(32)

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Checking in on House A

House A "Gap"

AV RMV

House A is in hip, up-and-coming neighborhood in NE Portland.

It experienced substantial appreciation from 1997 to 2008 and held up well during the housing market downturn.

As a result, it has an AV less than 30% of its RMV

(33)

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Checking in on House B House B "Gap" AV RMV It experienced substantial appreciation, but saw a greater drop in value since 2008.

Real Market and Assessed Values

House B is in a more established

neighborhood in SE Portland. It had a higher value in 1995 which caused it’s AV to be set much higher than House A.

It has an AV that is 60% of its RMV

(34)

Tax Calculation

By 2012, our three example properties have very different ratios of Assessed Value (AV) to Real Market Value (RMV).

House A House B Target Store

Real Market Value in 1995 $ 75,000 $ 150,000 $ 10,000,000 Assessed Value in 1997 67,500 135,000 9,000,000 Real Market Value in 2012 350,000 350,000 9,000,000 Assessed Value in 2012 105,163 210,326 9,000,000

(35)

2012 Real Market Value $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 9,000,000 2012 Assessed Value 105,163 210,326 9,000,000

AV % of RMV 30% 60% 100%

Education Measure 5 Capacity

$5.00 x RMV = $ 1,750 $ 1,750 $ 45,000 Permanent Education Taxes

Rate ($/$1,000 AV) $ 7.50 $ 7.50 $ 7.50 x Assessed Value 105,163 210,326 9,000,000 Taxes Before Compression $ 789 $ 1,577 $ 67,500 Measure 5 Compression

Measure 5 Capacity $ 1,750 $ 1,750 $ 45,000 Less: Permanent Taxes 789 1,577 67,500 Compression Loss 0 0 (22,500)

Tax Calculation

7.50 $ Education Tax Rate

(36)

Measure 50 inequities not confined to Portland Metro Area

Property to Property Inequities

“Horizontal inequities — unequal tax treatment of taxpayers with similarly valued property, are

widespread among the four counties observed

(Deschutes, Jackson,

(37)

New Properties

What if you build a new house?...

 For Assessed Value purposes, the property is afforded the same relative tax break that existing property is receiving.

 New construction goes on the rolls at the Changed Property Ratio (CPR)

 The value of improvements to the property is added at the CPR

 The CPR is a calculated annually on a county-wide basis

By Property Class

Tax Rate

Average AV Countywide $ 172,618

÷ Average RMV of Same Properties 343,689

(38)

Inequities for New Properties

Use of countywide CPR in establishing assessed values means new properties are treated differently than neighbors and some communities benefit more than others:

 _{Communities with AV/RMV ratios} _higher_{than the County}

average end up losing revenue

 New homes in areas with AV/RMV ratios lower than the County average end up paying higher taxes than their neighbors

 In Deschutes County, CPR increased 50% between 2010 and 2011; thus, identical properties with the same sale price but that were permitted months apart have completely different tax liabilities

(39)

Compression Leads to Competition

In areas where there is M5 Compression, a new levy for one district can seriously impact revenues collected by overlapping districts.

Example:

 Multnomah County has long had a local option levy in place to fund its library system, which had to be renewed every 5 years.

 Falling Real Market Values have resulted in dramatic increases in compression in recent years. Because Local Option Levies are compressed first, the Library Levy and the City of Portland’s Children’s Levy (also a local option) saw the greatest reductions from compression.

 Multnomah County voters approved creation of a Library District at the November 2012 election. The new Library District will have a dedicated permanent rate, with priority over the City of Portland’s Children’s Levy. The permanent rate will be compressed proportionally with other permanent rates, causing compression in the permanent rate collections for the City of Portland, City of Troutdale, Metro, and other “general government” taxing districts.

(40)

Local Option Calculation

What if voters in our example community pass a Local Option Levy? Who pays? Who doesn’t?...

2012 Real Market Value $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 9,000,000 2012 Assessed Value 105,163 210,326 9,000,000

AV % of RMV 30% 60% 100%

Local Option Taxes

Local Option Rate ($/$1,000 AV) $ 1.50 $ 1.50 $ 1.50 x Assessed Value 105,163 210,326 9,000,000 Taxes Before Compression $ 158 $ 315 $ 13,500 Measure 5 Compression

Measure 5 Capacity ($5 x RMV) $ 1,750 $ 1,750 $ 45,000 Less: Permanent Taxes 789 1,577 67,500 Compression Loss 0 0 (22,500) Measure 5 Capacity 961 173 (22,500) Less: Local Option Taxes 158 315 13,500 Compression Loss 0 (143) (13,500) Total Local Option Taxes Paid $ 158 $ 173 $ 0

(41)

“The compression of education-related property taxes is a big problem, too, both in Portland and across the state. Here (Portland), for instance, compression sapped the district's local option levy of about $23 million, or roughly 30 percent, in 2011-2012.

Because compression occurs on a

property-by-property basis, owners of affected properties effectively vote to impose higher property taxes on others than on themselves, though they may not know this when they cast their ballots. ”

“Property Tax Quirk Helps Many Voters Hike their Neighbors’ Taxes” – The Oregonian, July 29, 2012

Local Option Inequity

“Oregonians have heard

complaints about the state's property tax system so

often that many have

probably stopped listening. That's too bad. In many ways, our system really is nuts.”

(42)

41 2 4 6 8

Ashland SD Tigard-Tualatin SD Pendleton SD Sisters SD

Mill

ion

s

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Falling Local Option Collections

0 0 1 1 1 1

Ashland SD Tigard-Tualatin SD Pendleton SD Sisters SD

M il li on s 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ashland SD Tigard-Tualatin SD Pendleton SD Sisters SD

M

ill

ion

s

(43)

Falling Property Values, Falling Tax Revenues?

 _{Because tax bills are calculated on Assessed Values, which in}

many cases are well below Real Market Values, falling housing prices have in many cases not resulted in falling tax bills.

 _{In fact, most property owners have seen year-over-year}

increases in their tax bills as their Assessed Values increase 3%.

 Under Measure 50, Assessed Values will increase by 3% until they hit the Real Market Value.

 _{Many residential properties still have a substantial “gap”}

between AV and RMV.

 This provided a “buffer” for local taxing districts

 _{In many communities, that buffer is now gone, and further}

erosion in property values has resulted (or will result) in falling tax revenue

(44)

Where do we go from here?

 Many local governments are being strangled

 Compression is worsening, undermining voter-supported

levies and resulting in significant cuts to services

 Major inequities exist among permanent property tax

rates and among property owners with similarly valued property

 But does the public understand the problem and are they

(45)

Potential Reforms

Voter Control Referral

 Empower voters to pass local option levies outside of statewide limitations

Reset at Sale Referral

 Reset assessed value (AV) to real market value (RMV) at the time of sale or at construction

(46)

45

Potential Reforms

– “Voter Control”

Voter Control Referral

 Introduced in 2011 Session as HJR 26.

 Constitutional amendment that, if approved by voters, would authorize

jurisdictions to seek approval of local option levies outside of M5 limits for up to 10 years.

 Levies would be applied against AV, like GO bonds. No compression.

 Would allow jurisdictions to reduce levy rate requested to obtain a given

amount.

 Would allow more predictability, stability and equity between properties.

Much easier to explain to voters.

 Would reduce competition between jurisdictions.

 Gives voters the ability to once again raise their own taxes to support

services they desire. Would returns “local control” to property tax requests. While this measure won’t solve revenue issues for everyone, it’s a strong first step on longer road to revenue reform.

(47)

Potential Reforms – “Reset”

Reset at Sale Referral

 Constitutional amendment to reset property’s AV to market value at the time of sale or new construction.

 _{Would restore some degree of equity by periodically}

recalibrating taxes based on market value, reducing huge disparities in tax bills.

 _{Fifteen of seventeen states with property tax limitations similar}

to Oregon’s readjust property taxes at the time of sale.

 According to a Lincoln Institute of Land Policy report, Oregon’s system “has gone the farthest of any [in the country] in breaking the link between property taxes and property values.”

(48)

Questions?

SEATTLE-NORTHWEST SECURITIES CORPORATION

Carol Samuels, Senior Vice President csamuels@snwsc.com

503-275-8301

Mary Macpherson, Vice President mmacpherson@snwsc.com 503-275-8307