7/23/2019 Formal Request to DOR From Homeowners

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/formal-request-to-dor-from-homeowners 1/4

This is a formal request for Oregon Department of Revenue to advise Multnomah

County's Director of Tax Assessment, Recording and Taxation to return to the common

improvement tax method for assessing taxa!le values for properties "here detachedAD#s "ere assessed in Multnomah County for tax year $%&($%&)* This request should

 !e fulfilled in time for Multnomah County to send out revised tax !ills in Decem!er,

$%&*

The ne" tax method advised !y DoR resulting in a reMA+ of the property value is not

 !ased on the legal or common definitions of reoning as "ritten in Article -., section&&/&0/c0/C0 of the Oregon Constitution*&%12%3*&)/01/40* #nder the advice that

Multnomah's tax assessor has received from the Oregon Department of Revenue /DOR0

on 5ovem!er $%th, $%&, DOR has claimed that detached AD#s represent a reoning*

150-308.156(5)-(B)

 Rezoned Property -- Calculating Mai!u! "##e##ed $alue (M"$)

(1) %or purpo#e# o& deter!ining M"$ under 'R 308.1* to 308.166+

(a) ,Rezoned, !ean# on or a&ter uly 1 1//5 te goern!ental 2ody tatregulate# zoning+

(") Made a cange in te zone de#ignation o& te property on te zoning !ap(B) Made a cange in one or !ore condition# or re#triction# a&&ecting te

autorized u#e# o& te property in te zone tat i# applica2le to te property or 

(C) Made any oter cange in te autorized u#e# o& te property.

6ere is an explanation of the pro!lems "ith DOR's ne" interpretation of reoning point

 !y point*

(") Made a cange in te zone de#ignation o& te property on te zoning !ap

An actual reoning "ould !e the primary factor in ma7ing a determination of reoning*4y definition and !y local oning la", there is no 8reoning9 that ta7es place "hen an

AD# is added to a property, as AD#s have only !een ever !een permitted on

residentially oned properties in :ortland, Oregon*

(B) Made a cange in one or !ore condition# or re#triction# a&&ecting te

autorized u#e# o& te property in te zone tat i# applica2le to te property or

Authoried use is a term used in legal planning(oning documents and practice to

convey ho" a property can !e used /eg* ho" many occupants there can !e, "hat types of

activities can happen on the property etc0* 4ased on the contextual language provided inOAR &%12%3*&)/01/40, this common definition of authoried uses "as the intention

of the term authoried uses as it "as used in 150-308.156(5)-(B)

4y la", AD#s in :ortland do 5OT allo" any cange in one or !ore condition# or

re#triction# a&&ecting te autorized u#e# o& te property of a residential property*

:ortland's AD# program guide /p*0 ma7es the authoried uses clear* There is no

additional legal expansion of ho" a property "ith an AD# /attached or detached0 can !e

7/23/2019 Formal Request to DOR From Homeowners

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/formal-request-to-dor-from-homeowners 2/4

legally used !y its o"ner relative to ho" a residential property "ithout an AD# can its

o"ner*

.n :ortland, AD#s have !een an allo"a!le improvement on residential properties since

 !efore Measure % legislation passed* The earliest documented regulatory allo"ance of

AD#s "as in &;;& /see the <Appendix= Accessory D"elling #nit /AD#0 RegulatoryChanges since &;;&> on p* ;? of the Accessory @tructure Code #pdate document0* There

has !een no change in any 'uses> associated "ith residential AD# development that came

into !eing in :ortland after Measure % legislation*

(C) Made any oter cange in te autorized u#e# o& te property.

This email from Mr* Thummel sent on Octo!er &$th, $%& indicates that the DOR isreferencing 'changes to design regulations' "ithin oning la"s as the legal !asis for a

legal interpretation of a 8cange in te autorized u#e#* Mr* Thummel's email to ol

:eterson and Multnomah County's tax assessor states,

4e city a!ended it# zoning la# to per!it a u#e o& property tat a# not

 preiou#ly per!itted in re#idential zone# tere&ore property in to#e zone# a#rezoned.7

The terms 8 Rezoning 9 and cange# in autorized u#e are t"o vastly different thingsfrom <changes to design regulations>*

.t appears that DOR is selectively !roadening their definition of cange# in autorized

u#e# to refer to the allo"ance for 'detached AD#s> as a change to design regulations thatconstitutes a change in authoried use "ithin Oregon Constitutional la"*

.f this is so, DOR's ne" interpretation of reoning is not !ased on any legal precedent,nor !ased in the common definitions of language used !y planning, oning or pu!lic

officials in Oregon to"ns, cities, or counties* This change in interpretation "ould !e a

vast !roadening and re1interpretation of the common definition of the term cange# inautorized u#e*

DOR's interpretation of reoning in this instance is a !road over reach, and goes "ell

 !eyond the intent of Measure %* Bor example, this same cange in autorized u#e#'interpretation "ould mean that on properties "here only a )ft fence "as allo"ed !efore

Measure %, and "here an 3ft fence "as allo"ed after Measure %, if an 3ft fence "as

 !uilt after Measure %, the property must also !e reoned and therefor, must also !ereMA+ed*

The reMA+ approach specifically targeting detached AD#s in Multnomah County istotally inconsistent "ith ho" other li7e residential property improvements "ere treated in

the same $%&($%&) tax year in Multnomah County* Bor example, changes to design

regulations that allo"ed for an addition, a shed, a solar panel, a garage, nor an 3ft fence

7/23/2019 Formal Request to DOR From Homeowners

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/formal-request-to-dor-from-homeowners 3/4

do not trigger any property reMA+ if those improvements are made*

.f regulatory design changes can !e classified as an exception to a 'change in authorieduses', they must !e treated using the same taxing methods* .n this case, only detached

AD#s in Multnomah County are !eing classified as an exception event that triggers a

 property reMA+* Other property improvements such as a 3ft fence are not treated as a'change in authoried uses' that triggers a reMA+* The inconsistency of maximum

assessment valuation approach for li7e situations is pro!lematic in terms of ensuring

consistent administration and ruling of property valuations across Oregon* e !elievethat this !road reinterpretation opens a host of unforeseen legal and Constitutional

challenges against DOR*

This constitutional reinterpretation or radical !roadening of the scope of Measure % maynot have !een the intention of DOR's findings, !ut unfortunately, this reinterpretation of

Measure % language for cange# in autorized u#e is the only remaining interpretation

that the DOR can use to legally !ase its claim that there has !een a rezoning *

Brom an administrative perspective, the particulars of this interpretation are pro!lematic*.n Mr* Thummel's email to ol :eterson and Multnomah County's tax assessor on

Octo!er &$th, $%&, it states,

9nder ti# interpretation only te land ic i# no u#ed to #upport to #tructure#

it liing unit# in#tead o& one i# a&&ected 2y te zone cange and u#e con#i#tent it te

rezoning.7

Typically, only a ery li!ited &raction of the land on a given residential property can

legally have a detached AD# on it, due to ho" oning la"s limit "here a detached AD#can !e placed relative to existing property lot lines and the positioning of the primary

structure* Therefor, reMA+ing the entire property value is also not an accurate treatment

of reMA+ing property value* This issue "ould also lead to inconsistencies ininterpretation*

This interpretation is extremely pro!lematic from a Constitutional perspective11indicatingthat DOR is deli!erately interpreting the constitution in a "ay that greatly !roadens the

authority of Measure !eyond the intent of those "ho voted for the passage of Measure %*

.f the regulatory design change that allo"s for detached AD#s is selectively classified asa <change in authoried use>, that methodology should !e esta!lished in a uniform

manner across Oregon, rather than !eing suddenly and ar!itrarily applied in only one

County in Oregon "ithout any "arning to those "ho are impacted this change in tax policy*

.n summary, there has !een no cange in autorized u#e !ased on the commoninterpretation of the term authoried use* Amendments to local regulations governing

the design of !uildings and sites are not equivalent to reoning*

7/23/2019 Formal Request to DOR From Homeowners

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/formal-request-to-dor-from-homeowners 4/4

Therefor, please advise Multnomah County's Director of Tax Assessment, Recording and

Taxation to return to the common improvement tax method for assessing taxa!le values

for properties "here detached AD#s "ere assessed in Multnomah County for the$%&($%&) tax year* This correction "ill not involve any valuation udgements*

This approach "ould also !e the 'fair' approach, given that affected homeo"ners "ho haddeveloped detached AD#s up through $%&, "ere repeatedly told that the improvement

tax approach "ould !e used for detached AD#s in tax year $%&($%&) !y Multnomah

County tax and assessment staff*

.f DOR "ishes to explore !roadening the common interpretation of Constitutional

definitions for reoning, it should do so in a open, pu!lic rule ma7ing process in "hich

DOR can reconcile inconsistencies of interpretation on matters of this 7ind for tax year$%&)($%&E and !eyond*