By Scott Unger • Of the News-Register • 

Chenoweth files initiative petition to limit tax rate

Only current online subscribers may access this article and/or our N-R e-editions.

One-day subscriptions available for just $3.

For all subscription offers, click here.

Already a subscriber, please .<0/p>

Comments

CubFan

Thank you Chris Chenoweth and George Humlie for being the voice of reason! The city council should not be allowed to bring back the $1.50 (which was the fire department allocation of our taxes). Since the fire department assessment is now separated out, it makes no sense for the city to presume they can continue to keep this part of the tax fees. Drabkin and others on the city council have stated they think citizens are in favor of keeping the $1.50. I think not. Let's do the right thing and bring this to a vote of local citizens. How do I sign the petition?

Don Dix

Why is Chris Chenoweth the only council member who looks for and feels the true sentiment of the voters? Personally, I haven't spoken to anyone who believes the city government is listening, just plotting. If the city doesn't refer a competing measure to muddle the issue, the $1.50 assessment will no longer be on the books -- by a wide margin!

Or the council could just adopt the restriction as presented and move on -- not likely with this council.

Bill B

Where do I sign?

Loretta

I am very grateful for this and I think it shows two people who are looking out for the best interests of the citizen taxpayers. It is the right thing to do, to let us decide where, how, and who spends OUR money. Thank you George and Chris.

scooter

Tax authority
Taxing districts subject to Oregon's Local Budget Law prepare their budgets for the coming fiscal year. During this process, the budget committee and governing body determine the amount of property taxes the district needs to support the budget. Public meetings are held to gather community feedback.

Taxing districts have constitutional and statutory limitations on the amount of taxes they can impose:

1. Taxes under a taxing district's permanent rate limitation. Once a permanent tax rate limit is established, it can't be changed by any action of the district or its patrons. The Legislature can add additional, lower statutory limits. New districts, or districts that haven't levied in the past, can ask voters to choose a permanent rate limit for the district. A permanent rate limit is the tax rate per thousand dollars of assessed value. A local taxing district can only have one permanent rate limit.

scooter

I know I know. Politicians shooting from the hip and feeding the masses with ideas that get them aroused really helps get their bases motivated. Plus then they can use it against the other side to say “look at what they are doing to you. Look how they are misusing your money.” All along they know what they are purposing is Unconstitutional and will only end up with taxpayers paying lawyers on both sides. Who wins? Lawyers. Whose money is it? Yours. But sure let’s get an initiative on the ballot that will lose in a courtroom instead of participating in the budget process to find real solutions that if successful will convince the city they don’t need to levy the entirety of the, let’s say it together, PERMANENT tax rate.

Chris Chenoweth

For clarity Newberg passed an identical measure in 2017. The permanent rate of $5.02 will still be there but the city will be unable to assess more than $3.52 +3% per year. This is a citizen petition and is constitutional and enforceable on passage.

Don Dix

Chris -- make sure that those who wish to sign the petition are made aware of how and when those signatures will be gathered. If this measure gets to a ballot, those 'other 13 committee members' who cannot detect actual public sentiment will be exposed to reality, rather harshly!

CubFan

Hi Chris. This has gotten very confusing. Can you clarify your statement: "The permanent rate of $5.02 will still be there but the city will be unable to assess more than $3.52 +3% per year." Also, is there anything from stopping the mayor and city council from slapping more "fees" on us? i.e. The current $13 "user fee" being added to our water & light bills and also the imminent $12-$15 storm water fee. If they don't succeed in adding to our taxes, can they just keep smacking "fees" on us?

Chris Chenoweth

@CubFan The $5.02 is a statutory limit for McMinnville. Every year the Council determines how much of the $5.02 they will assess for the next fiscal year. This initiative will limit the Council to $3.52 of that $5.02. It does allow for a 3% increase which means in approximately 13 years the full statutory limit will once again be available for assessment. In terms of assessing more fees the Council has that authority and they can increase how much they are assessing via the city services fee on your Water & Light bill. That fee is not fixed.

tagup

So, if any assessment restriction gained by your initiative can be offset by added fees to utility bills….. what’s the point?
Seems like there needs to be a restriction on additional fees if a spending cap is actually the goal.

  • Most viewed
  • Most commented
Web Design and Web Development by Buildable