Brady Shields: Mayor not in charge of taxes
By BRADY SHIELDS
McMinnville resident
With the upcoming mayoral election in McMinnville, there will be rhetoric pushed by both sides. But one particular piece of rhetoric from the Kim Morris campaign caught my eye.
Morris claims that unlike incumbent Remy Drabkin, she wants to “minimize tax increases.” However, in Oregon, property taxes are constitutionally limited as a result of Measure 5, notwithstanding the bond measure process.
What’s more, the mayor does not have unilateral power to increase or decrease taxes. That made me curious to know how Drabkin could be help unilaterally responsible, so I decided to conduct some research on my own.
Many residents have pointed to the recent tax increase to support the new fire district as evidence of elected officials imposing a new burden. However, as required by the state constitution, that increase of $2 per $1,000 in assessed value was approved via ballot measure in 2023.
Some critics of this measure claim we were promised a decrease in city property taxes to offset the new fire district tax.
However, there was no mention of any such decrease in the measure or any of the associated council resolutions. One cannot claim they were promised a decrease when they voted in favor of the measure, when nowhere in the text or associated resolutions was a decrease mentioned.
This pushed opponents to begin the process to put a measure on the ballot to limit the rate of overall increase. They even found one ally on the city council, Chris Chenoweth. However, they were unable to gather enough signatures to put the measure on the November ballot.
Other tax increases, such as the one stemming from the 2014 transportation bond measure, were approved by the voters as well. And school bonds aren’t proposed by the city, rather by the school district, which is independent of the city government.
If voters believe their property is not assessed properly, that is under county rather than city purview. Property values are determined by the county assessor in accordance with state law, including the aforementioned Measure 5.
If voters wish to have property values assessed differently, they ought to focus on holding the county assessor accountable or replacing him. If they are upset with the limits of state law, they ought to launch an initiative to amend the constitution or applicable state laws.
In a city where the mayor’s power is limited by city charter as well as state constitution, voters deserve clear and tangible explanations from our candidates about how they intend to use their limited powers to enact their preferred policy agenda -— not vague platitudes. It may not be as exciting to favor the hard truth over empty promises one cannot unilaterally keep, but voters deserve tangible solutions.
Comments
CubFan
Part 1
Mr. Shields- you are absolutely correct- the mayor has absolutely no authority or ability to change taxes. HOWEVER, the mayor, and city council, ABSOLUTELY DO HAVE power to impose FEES on citizens. The first was the $13 monthly fee on our water and light bill was to retire a $1.8 million debt. As of January 2024, the city has collected enough to retire this debt, but they haven’t stopped collecting the fee. In addition to not sharing plans to stop it, they are also not telling citizens where the excess revenue is going. Now they’re talking about a $10 monthly fee to cover sewer repairs in 2025.
The mayor leads the city council, and she was instrumental in the shenanigans played by the city council with the fire district. You are right, voters did pass the new fire district levy. However, nearly every person I have spoken to didn’t realize that the result of a “yes” vote meant $2/M for the new fire district PLUS an additional $1.50/M for the city. On social media, Councilman Garvin assured us that first of all, voters would have a voice in whether or not the city would continue assessing the $1.50/M for the old fire district, and secondly, voters would be given an opportunity to state where the city should spend this new found money. The city’s method for determining this would be a survey. When the city was developing the citizen survey, Garvin promised there would be a clear option for respondents to select an option for “Return the tax to the citizens”. The city did publish two surveys. One survey asked citizens where to spend this newfound money, but didn’t offer a way for respondents to opt for “return the tax to taxpayers”. The other survey that did provide an option for “return the tax to taxpayers” only received 42 responses. So was a 42 response survey sufficient for the city to decide it has citizen support to proceed with the additional $1.50 tax?
CubFan
Part 2
The News-Register conducted their own survey, which gathered 907 responses, of which 54% chose the option “return the savings to taxpayers”. The results of this survey were shared with the city council, but the city council apparently ignored the results and proceeded to apply the $1.50/M tax regardless.
American households need +$11K per year to maintain the same standard of living as 3 years ago. Wages do NOT cover expenses for most of us. Whether it be “Taxes” or “Fees”, the net effect for taxpayers is more out of our pocket. So, Mr. Shields, I’m ready to give Kim Morris a shot. I think she recognizes the struggles people are facing. And as aside, Councilman Chris Chenoweth has also demonstrated that “He gets our struggle”)