Opinion ID: 3033682
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Constitutional and Statutory Context

Text: We begin by setting forth the context in which we must examine section 280.070(4)(a). Before 1997, property in Oregon was assessed and taxed at its real market value. See Or. Rev. Stat. § 308.232 (1995). Then, in 1997, Oregon voters adopted Measure 50, which amended the Oregon Constitution to limit the property taxes imposed by Oregon counties. See Flavorland Foods v. Wash. County Assessor, 54 P.3d 582, 583-84 (Or. 2002) (en banc). First, Measure 50 “rolled back” a property’s maximum assessed value for the tax year beginning July 1, 1997, to its “real market value for the tax year beginning July 1, 1995, reduced by 10 percent.” Or. Const. art. XI, § 11(1)(a). Second, “[f]or tax years beginning after July 1, 1997,” Measure 50 provided that a “property’s maximum assessed value shall not increase by more than three percent from the previous tax year.” Id. § 11(1)(b). Third, Measure 50 established a “permanent limit on the rate of ad valorem property taxes imposed” by each local taxing district. Id. § 11(3)(b). This limit is commonly referred to as the “permanent rate.” See Shilo Inn v. Multnomah County, 36 P.3d 954, 958 (Or. 2001), modified by 45 P.3d 107 (Or. 2002). The limits imposed by Measure 50, however, were subject to an exception for taxes submitted to and approved by the voters: A local taxing district other than a school district may impose a local option ad valorem property tax that exceeds the limitations imposed under this section by submitting the question of the levy to voters in the local taxing district and obtaining the approval of a majority of the voters voting on the question. 12150 CARUSO v. YAMHILL COUNTY Or. Const. art. XI, § 11(4)(a)(A). The conditions for submitting local option taxes to the voters are provided for by Oregon statutes. See Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 280.070-.075. These statutes require that the ballot titles for such measures include, in addition to the three-percent warning, “the period during which the proposed local option tax will be imposed,” “[t]he first fiscal year in which the proposed local option tax will be imposed,” and “the total amount of money to be raised by the proposed local option tax, in dollars and cents.” Id. §§ 280.070(4)(a), 280.070(5)(a)-(b), 280.075(1). Against this constitutional and statutory backdrop, we consider Caruso’s First and Fourteenth Amendment challenges.