Committee hears SJR 1 proposal to freeze property taxes for some seniors; local governments warn of long‑term revenue loss

The Senate Committee on Rules held a public hearing March 24 on Senate Joint Resolution 1, which proposes a constitutional amendment to create an opt‑in property tax freeze for owner‑occupied primary residences of Oregonians age 65 and older. If approved by voters, the measure would freeze assessed property taxes for qualifying seniors; committee materials state the proposal is to be referred to the people at the next regular general election.

Sen. Cedric Hayden, who presented the measure, said the resolution is intended to help seniors on fixed incomes remain in their homes as property values and taxes rise. Hayden described the existing tax deferral program and said only about 3,500 people currently participate; he cited program balances of roughly $145 million (about $103 million principal and $41 million interest under the program, as stated in committee testimony) and said the existing deferral interest rate (6% in testimony) may be too high for broad use.

Supporters including local officials and seniors urged the committee to approve the referral as a targeted, opt‑in tool. Angelita Sanchez, a Sweet Home city councilor, said the measure would provide “a relief” to seniors whose cost‑of‑living adjustments do not keep pace with property tax growth.

Opponents — including the League of Oregon Cities, Association of Oregon Counties, Oregon Education Association, Tax Fairness Oregon and multiple city and county officials — warned the referral would reduce local tax revenues over time. Witnesses noted that LRO estimates cited in testimony put roughly 23% of residential property tax revenue coming from senior‑occupied owner residences (reported as roughly $1.2 billion), and argued the change would require painful cuts in local services such as police, fire, roads and libraries. The League of Oregon Cities and Association of Oregon Counties urged expanding awareness and participation in the existing deferral program rather than adding a new constitutional referral that would reduce local taxing authority.

Several committee members said they supported the goal of helping seniors age in place but raised concerns about the potential long‑term revenue impacts for local governments. One senator offered to consider adding wealth thresholds or other eligibility limits if the referral moved forward.

The transcript records extensive public testimony on both sides; the committee closed the public hearing and moved on to other agenda items. No committee vote on SJR 1 was recorded in the transcript excerpt of March 24.