Category: Tax and Budget

Metro: Where Temporary Means Forever

By Rachel Dawson

Milton Friedman once famously said that “nothing is more permanent than a temporary government program.” If Friedman were currently living in Portland, Oregon, it is likely he would instead be saying “nothing is more permanent than a temporary Metro tax.” The Metro Council unanimously voted in July to approve funding for planning and development grants supported by the regional government’s construction excise tax (CET) in the 2019-20 fiscal year. This CET is riddled with problems, including the removal of its sunset date and mission creep.

The CET was originally adopted by the region in 2006 as a temporary tax to support development planning for areas newly brought into the urban growth boundary (UGB). The tax is paid by anyone applying for a building permit for construction within the UGB, with some exceptions.

Its original sunset date was slated for 2009 or until Metro collected a certain amount of money. When asked if this was a permanent tax in 2006, Metro responded by saying, “No. This tax takes effect July 1, 2006, and will remain in effect until $6.3 million is collected.” This fund threshold was met and the original sunset date was passed, however, the CET was not allowed to die.

The CET was extended another five years until 2014, and again extended in 2014 until 2020. Instead of extending the CET once more, Metro voted to eliminate the tax’s sunset date in 2019, using its powers to create a continuous revenue stream. The resolution approved by the Metro Council states, “Collection of the excise tax will continue into the future until such a time as the Metro Council determines it is no longer necessary or effective.” Based on this language, the tax will never end, because Metro will never find such a flow of cash unnecessary.

It now appears that Metro has taken the liberty of shifting the scope and purpose of the tax, leading to mission creep. By the end of the CET’s original sunset date, the vast majority of the planning work the tax was established to carry out was completed. Metro no longer had enough projects to justify the tax’s existence.

Therefore, Metro expanded the scope of projects eligible for funding in 2009 so that tax revenue could be used for planning in existing urban areas in addition to the newly added territory. The purpose of the CET has again changed in recent years to prioritize “equitable development” projects within the UGB.

For example, Albina Vision Trust was awarded $375,000 for its community investment prospectus as part of Metro’s new equitable development category. Albina Vision Trust does not own any of the land referenced in its proposal. Rather, the project focuses on “community-based programming” and the “investment potential” of the lower Albina area. The desired project outcome is to pre-develop scenarios of what the community could look like and how the organization could maintain “social values” in Albina. The CET was originally created to plan development of land incorporated into the UGB, not to think about how a nonprofit can maintain social values in a neighborhood it does not own.

Metro’s approval of the Albina Vision Trust prospectus highlights another problematic change that has been made to the CET: Metro now has the authority to approve grants to private organizations instead of only to public entities. Metro should not be picking winners and losers by investing tax funds in ideas which may not be successful at the expense of other potential players.

Concerns regarding the CET do not stop there. Metro’s auditor concluded in a 2016 report that Metro has poorly managed use of CET funds. Administrative costs have increased since 2009, the program is becoming less aligned with regional planning priorities, and its regional impact is unknown. Furthermore, no performance measures were in place when the program was reviewed, and project monitoring was weak. For example, Metro amended funding of a project that was already largely completed and approved two different contracts that likely funded the same project.

Most area residents are unaware of Metro’s CET and its troubling history. This lack of regional oversight has allowed Metro to manipulate the CET to accommodate its wishes without regional approval or knowledge. The CET should have expired in 2009 when it raised the original amount of funding and completed the work it was created to support. If Metro wants to pay for other projects with CET revenue, it should go through the process of winning voter approval to create a new revenue stream.

Rachel Dawson is a Policy Analyst at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

Click here for PDF version:

19-16-Metro_Where_Temporary_Means_ForeverPDF-1

Read Blog Detail
rent-a-room,-flat,-apartment,-house-online-cm

Portland’s City Council Wants Rent to Go Up

By Micah Perry

The Portland City Council recently passed a new ordinance that will require landlords to register all of their rental units with the city and pay a $60 yearly registration fee per unit.

While regulated affordable housing will be exempt, other types of rentals, like mobile homes, will still be subject to the fee. It is almost certain that landlords will pass on the increased costs to their tenants.

During one council meeting, current landlords noted that the registration fees will siphon money away that could be used for maintenance. They also said that increased housing regulations will discourage potential developers and landlords from wanting to build new rental units in the city. Many landlords are incentivized to sell their units, rather than rent them, because of the increased regulation.

The money raised by the fee will fund the Rental Services Office, a new, needless expansion of Portland’s bureaucracy that will only serve to grow the number of rules placed on housing in the city.

This ordinance adds to the long list of policies that disincentivize the operation and construction of rental units in Portland. If the Portland City Council keeps pursuing policies like these, rents will continue to go up and rental housing will continue to disappear.

Micah Perry is a Research Associate at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

Click here for PDF version:

8-14-19-Portland’s_City_Council_Wants_Rent_to_Go_UpPDF-1

Read Blog Detail

Oregon Distilleries Deserve Better

By Helen Cook

How much would you be willing to pay in taxes for your local business?

Thirty-three percent of total sales from Oregon distilleries currently goes to the Oregon Liquor Control Commission. This means, on average, that the state makes a greater profit from tasting room sales than the distillers making the product. In comparison, beer and wine crafters remit 0% of tasting room sales to the state.

Oregon is a “Liquor Control State.” This means that all liquor is owned by the state, entitling it to a certain percentage of each liquor sale. The revenue that distillers do receive from tasting room sales is actually a commission for selling the state’s liquor.

Distilleries are struggling to stay afloat because of this control system. In fact, Cannon Beach Distillery recently decided to close rather than pay remittance to the state. Others are worried they might have to do likewise.

Granting distillery tasting rooms the same privileges as the beer and wine industries could be what keeps craft distilleries in Oregon from disappearing. Oregon distilleries deserve better.

Helen Cook is a Research Associate at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

Click here for PDF version:

8-7-19-Oregon_Distilleries_Deserve_BetterPDF

Read Blog Detail
Woman-going-through-bills,-looking-worried-cm

Portland’s Clean Energy Tax: A High Cost with Low Benefit

By Rachel Dawson

In January 2019 the City of Portland implemented a voter-approved a 1% tax on certain “retail sales” within Portland to fund clean energy projects and jobs training. This tax will be applied to retailers with $1 billion or more in total sales, $500,000 of which must be from within Portland city limits. Retailers can pass the cost of the tax along to the purchaser of the good or service. Thus, it is likely consumers—not retailers—will ultimately be paying for it. Once collected, these funds will be administered by the Portland Clean Energy Fund.

Despite claims that the Portland Clean Energy Fund is unique, the energy efficiency projects funded by this tax are already being completed by the Energy Trust of Oregon (ETO) and Oregon Housing and Community Services through a surcharge on ratepayers’ utility bills. In some cases, the Portland Clean Energy Fund will be triple-taxing Portland utility ratepayers.

Approximately 40-60% of funds will be allocated to clean energy projects including renewable energy, conservation, and green infrastructure for residential, commercial, and public school projects. At least one half of clean energy project funds must benefit low-income residents and minorities. The Portland Clean Energy Fund will also be used to help Portland meet its goal of using 100% community-wide electricity from renewable sources by 2035.

Many voters believed this tax would only affect large retailers. However, senior deputy city attorney Kenneth McGair admits the tax will affect public works projects and construction equipment wholesalers, as well as disability insurance plans and insurance policies. The only exempt transactions will be groceries, medicine, and health care services. Due to its impact on construction, this tax will increase the cost of taxpayer funded projects such as affordable housing.

While 1% may seem like a small amount, it will add up to millions of dollars when applied to high-cost construction projects. For example, the tax will add an estimated $2 million to Lincoln High School’s $200 million renovation costs.

Voters may be unaware that they are already paying for similar clean energy projects through a surcharge on their utility bills known as the Public Purpose Charge (PPC). The tax rate from the PPC has grown to over 6% for many electric utility customers and up to 5.8% for ratepayers who consume natural gas.

ETO uses funds from the surcharge to support energy efficiency projects for low-income families (low-income weatherization), rehabilitation and construction of low-income housing, above-market renewable energy, and energy conservation and market transformation. Not only will the Portland Clean Energy Fund be completing similar projects to ETO’s, but ETO projects that involve construction, such as their affordable housing and school green infrastructure projects, will now be further taxed to support energy efficiency. Some ETO ratepayer-funded clean energy projects will be taxed to further fund clean energy projects. And many Portland area residents will be caught paying for both.

In addition to the ETO, the Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) agency also benefits from the PPC surcharge to fund additional low-income weatherization projects, arguably the same demographic the Portland Clean Energy Fund aims to help.

One of these tax programs should be repealed: either the Portland Clean Energy Fund or the Public Purpose Charge. Doing so will ensure that Portland residents are not double- or triple-taxed for multiple programs that provide the same services.

Rachel Dawson is a Policy Analyst at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

Click here for PDF version:

19-12-Portland’s_Clean_Energy_Tax_A_High_Cost_with_Low_BenefitPDF

Read Blog Detail
House-under-construction.--cm

Public Debt for Public Housing

By Vlad Yurlov

In the 2018 general election, voters approved a bond measure that enabled Metro to borrow about $652 million for low-income public housing in the tri-county area. This money will be given out to localities within Metro. With the minimum of 3,900 housing units to be built, the price-tag would be more than $165,000 per unit.

When pressed for completion times for this project, a high-level Metro staffer stated new units can be expected to be used in eight to ten years. This schedule should not surprise anyone who has dealt with government bureaucracies, but a decade is a long time to wait for a crisis we’re having today.

For comparison, more than 6,700 housing units were constructed per year between 2010 and 2018 in the tri-county area, based on the U.S. Census Annual Housing Estimates. This means that even a target of 3,900 units would be roughly 60% of just one year’s worth of private construction. In addition, if Metro does build homes, private companies have less incentive to build, thereby compounding the current crisis.

A good government delivers public services on time and on budget. Right now, Metro is taking the bucks, without making much of a bang.

Vlad Yurlov is a Research Associate at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

Click here for PDF version:

7-3-19-Public_Debt_for_Public_HousingPDF

Read Blog Detail

Portland’s Ill-Considered Climate Action Tax

By Micah Perry

Last fall, Portland voters approved a new 1% tax on large retailers to help the city achieve the goals of its Climate Action Plan. This measure has had serious consequences for Portland businesses.

Before the vote, proponents of the new tax described large retailers as places like Walmart or Fred Meyer. But, according to Dan Drinkward of Hoffman Construction, the city’s implementation of the measure “has gone beyond the clear intent of the measure as it was communicated to voters.”

Because of the measure’s broad language, many construction companies are defined as retailers and will have to pay the tax. Their clients will ultimately bear the cost increases—clients like Portland Public Schools, low-income housing developers, and the City of Portland itself.

Portland’s schools will especially suffer. The district’s projects have already increased in price because of the tax, with the Lincoln High School rebuild now costing an extra $2 million.

While certain foods, medicines, and health care services are exempt, other necessities like clothing and toiletries are subject to the tax, making Portland’s cost of living even higher, especially for low-income residents.

It would only take three commissioners from the Portland City Council to revise or repeal this poorly-thought-out tax. For the sake of the city, Portland’s voters must call on them to do so.

Micah Perry is a Research Associate at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

Click here for PDF version

6-26-19-Portland’s_Ill-Considered_Climate_Action_TaxPDF

 

Read Blog Detail
sunrise-over-Mt-Hood-at-Trillium-Lake-cm

Metro Wants More Money—For Parks You May Never See

By Helen Cook

How much would you be willing to spend to buy parkland that would ban your dog?

Metro hopes Portland area taxpayers will spend $475 million to buy land kept from public use for many years. That’s the purpose of a Metro bond measure on the ballot in November.

Much of the new tax money would go to acquiring natural areas that will be unusable by the public for an unspecified amount of time. If this feels like déjà vu, that’s because Metro passed a similar bond measure in 2006.

Rather than let the previous tax increases sunset, Metro wants more money, ostensibly to create parks for historically underserved communities. But much of the land Metro plans to buy is located far from the communities it’s intended to serve.

Metro also claims the new bond measure won’t increase taxes. This is not true. If the bond measure fails, property owners’ tax bills will go down. A “yes” vote is a vote for higher taxes. A “no” vote will save the average homeowner about $48 a year.

Metro’s new bond is neither the beginning nor the end of a cycle of buying remote natural areas that won’t allow recreational uses. Make sure to look for this measure on your ballot in November and vote no.

Helen Cook is a Research Associate at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

Click here for PDF version:

6-19-19-Metro_Wants_More_Money_For_Parks_You_May_Never_SeePDF

Read Blog Detail
Calculator-And-Pen-On-Receipt-cm

Oregon Legislator to Oregon Business: “Let ‘em Leave!”

By Eric Fruits, Ph.D.

“Let ’em leave. Someone else’ll come in.” That was Oregon state senator James Manning’s response when told that new business taxes will cause some firms to leave the state.

Unfortunately, the senator is not alone with the let-them-leave attitude. That seems to be the attitude of the supermajority in the legislature as well as the city of Portland, who have both recently passed massive business taxes.

The legislature just passed a billion dollar a year “corporate activities tax.” The new tax is triggered once a business hits one million dollars in sales. This may seem like a lot to a legislator; but many small businesses such as restaurants, retailers, and consulting firms can easily generate a million dollars in sales. In fact, the Census Bureau reports about a quarter of Oregon employers have sales of a million or more a year. Thousands small firms will be subject to thousands of dollars in new sales taxes on top the income taxes they already pay.

Last year, Portland voters approved their own tax on business revenues, with money earmarked for so-called clean energy projects. Firms who thought they were exempt are now learning that they, too, will face a steep tax bill.

These new taxes will be a good test of Senator Manning’s let-them-leave theory, as owners look to other states for a better business environment. However, I’m not confident someone else will come in to replace the ones that leave.

Eric Fruits, Ph.D. is Vice President of Research at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

Click here for PDF version:

6-12-19-Oregon_Legislator_to_Oregon_Business_“Let_‘em_Leave!”PDF

Read Blog Detail

SW Corridor Project: A Net Negative for the Environment

By John A. Charles, Jr.

Portland politicians claim to be concerned about carbon dioxide emissions and climate change. That’s why so many of them support TriMet’s proposed 12-mile light rail line from Portland to Bridgeport Village near Tigard. They think it will reduce fossil fuel use.

Their assumptions are wrong.

According to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project, energy used during construction of the rail project will equal 5.9 trillion Btu. Much of this will be in the form of fossil fuels needed to power the heavy equipment. Additional energy will be used to manufacture the rail cars, tracks, and overhead wires.

The EIS claims that the negative environmental consequences of construction will be made up by energy saved from operations of the train. However, the operational savings are so small it would take 61 years to mitigate the carbon dioxide emissions of construction.

2035 Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled and Energy Consumption 

Vehicle Type Daily VMT – No build option Million Btu/Day – No build option Daily VMT

With Light Rail

Million Btu/Day

With Light Rail

Passenger vehicle 51,474,286 249,084 51,415,071 248,798
Heavy-duty trucks 3,389,982 73,132 3,389,288 73,117
Transit bus 100,122 3,546 97,501 3,453
Light rail 19,189 1,247 21,200 1,377
TOTAL 54,983,579 327,009 54,923,060 326,745

                                          Source: Draft EIS, SW Corridor Project

Unfortunately, all of the light rail cars will need to be replaced before then. Building new cars will require more energy, resulting in additional CO2 emissions and a longer payback period.

Light rail is not a solution to a perceived climate change problem; it IS a climate change problem. Any further planning for the SW Corridor project should be terminated.

John A. Charles, Jr. is President and CEO of Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

Click here for PDF version:

6-7-19-SW_Corridor_Project_A Net_Negative_for_the_EnvironmentPDF

Read Blog Detail
Sellwood-Bridge-Sunset-cm

Press Release: Multi-year case study of Multnomah County’s Sellwood Bridge explains the history behind worsening traffic congestion in the SE Portland bridge corridor

June 6, 2019

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Media Contact:
John A. Charles, Jr.
503-242-0900
john@cascadepolicy.org

PORTLAND, OR – Today Cascade Policy Institute released the results of a seven-year case study of the Sellwood Bridge reconstruction, The New Sellwood Bridge: Promises Unfulfilled.

The evidence shows that even though the new Sellwood Bridge is more than twice as wide as the original bridge, it moves fewer people at peak hours. Moreover, use of the bridge by cyclists and pedestrians has not increased significantly, despite the generous facilities provided for them.

As a result, traffic congestion in the bridge corridor is worse than it was in 2012, and cut-through traffic in the Sellwood neighborhood has seriously degraded the quality of life for those living and working there.

The increase in traffic congestion was actually planned for by Metro more than 20 years ago, when the regional agency placed a moratorium on any new Willamette River bridge capacity for motor vehicles between the Marquam Bridge and Oregon City. Metro believed that if a bridge cap was imposed, significant numbers of people could be diverted from auto travel to biking, walking, or transit.

Their assumptions were wrong. During two years of intensive field monitoring by Cascade Policy Institute, the combined travel share for biking and walking never exceeded three percent, as shown below:

Sellwood Bridge Travel Patterns, 2017-18

Based on hourly sampling

Year Total observed passenger-trips Auto share Transit share Bike share Pedestrian share
2017 13,593 95.1% 2.2% 2.2% 0.5%
2018 19,888 95.2% 1.9% 2.4% 0.6%

 

Although the new Sellwood Bridge was marketed as a cutting-edge example of the Portland commitment to “multi-modalism,” the bridge itself is not even a multi-modal facility. Heavy trucks are prohibited, and there is no bus service most of the time. Average daily travel is actually more reliant on the private automobile than it was in 1993.

According to Cascade Policy Institute President John A. Charles, Jr., who directed the study,

“Portland-area planners have long believed they could change travel behavior by starving the road system while promoting alternative modes such as transit, walking, and biking. The evidence from the Sellwood Bridge reconstruction shows that wider sidewalks are not a substitute for increased road capacity.”

John Charles is President and CEO of Cascade Policy Institute and has written about transportation policy for more than 30 years. The focus of his research is utilizing field studies to determine how the built environment influences urban travel behavior. Charles received a BA degree with honors from University of Pittsburgh and an MPA degree from Portland State University.

The full report, The New Sellwood Bridge: Promises Unfulfilled, can be downloaded here.

Founded in 1991, Cascade Policy Institute is Oregon’s free-market public policy research center. Cascade’s mission is to explore and promote public policy alternatives that foster individual liberty, personal responsibility, and economic opportunity. For more information, visit cascadepolicy.org.

###

 

Read Blog Detail