1. What’s the Core Problem with Current Property Tax Rules and Urban Renewal?

In Oregon, urban renewal (including TIF districts) and various property tax abatements often funnel potential school revenue into development projects or commercial interests. PPS loses critical funding when property tax growth is diverted, or large corporations exploit assessment “loopholes” to lower their tax bills (see In Oregon, a stand against urban renewal and Oregon Measure 5 Background).

2. How Do These Policies Specifically Undermine PPS Funding?

1. URAs & TIF: A significant share of property tax growth stays in the URA, reducing the revenue that would otherwise flow to PPS.

2. Local Levy Caps: PPS relies on local option levies for extra funding. However, “tax compression” in less affluent areas can dramatically cap how much is raised.

3. Corporate Abatements (e.g., SIP): Some large industrial properties get decades-long tax breaks, paying only a fraction of what they usually would in property taxes.

3. What Specific Reforms Would Help Portland Schools?

• Mandatory “Pass-Through” of URA Funds: A portion of TIF-generated revenue must go directly to PPS or cap how much school tax revenue can be diverted.

• Sunset URAs Sooner: Once development goals are met, the URA will be ended, and the property value growth will be returned to the tax rolls, thus boosting school revenue.

• Raise or Adjust the Local Option Cap: Let property-wealthy communities pay more if they choose, or create an “Education Equalization Levy” so the extra helps districts like PPS while sharing with less-wealthy communities.

• Increase Community Service Fees: If a big company gets a long-term tax abatement, raise the fee (from 25% to 50% or higher) and direct that increment to local schools.

• Close Assessment Loopholes: Big-box retailers using “dark store” valuation tricks or utilities misreporting property values shouldn’t get to pay artificially low taxes. Ensuring fair market assessment can significantly increase PPS revenue.

4. Why Raise the Local Option Levy Cap for PPS?

Portland is a high-cost area with more affluent taxpayers who can contribute. However, due to tax compression, PPS can’t fully tap that potential, especially in lower-income neighborhoods. By adjusting state rules or creating an Education Equalization Levy, schools could draw more from wealthier property owners without unfairly burdening families who can’t afford it.

5. What Role Can PPS Play in Pushing These Reforms?

1. Formal Resolutions & Lobbying: The PPS Board can adopt official stances, then lobby Salem lawmakers to cap or reform TIF and adjust local option levy rules.

2. Demand Veto Power or Revenue Sharing in New URAs: If the city tries to expand or create new TIF districts, PPS can insist on a guaranteed share of increment revenue.

3. Lead Coalition Building: PPS can unite with other Oregon school districts to emphasize the statewide impact of these property tax policies, creating a stronger voice in the Legislature.

4. Public Reporting: Show how much revenue PPS loses under current rules, highlighting real-world consequences—like fewer teachers or outdated facilities—to drive public support for reform.

6. How Is This Different From ‘Attack Predatory Corporate Tax Breaks (URAs & TIFs)’?

• “Attack Predatory Corporate Tax Breaks” focuses on opting out of TIF expansions or suing over lost school revenue, effectively challenging URAs on a case-by-case basis.

• “Reform Property Tax Rules & Urban Renewal” targets broader policy changes—legislative or statutory—that limit TIF’s impact on schools, sunset URAs faster, adjust local levy caps, and close property tax loopholes.

• In short, the previous idea is about direct confrontation or refusing cooperation on TIF deals; this idea is about systemic reforms to the property tax and urban renewal framework.

7. Isn’t It Difficult to Change These Laws?

Yes. Good outcomes involve hard work.