Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Distribution Appeals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County residents say utility tax appeals are diverting dollars from small southern districts
Summary
Speakers at the Gilliam County Court meeting urged county action after Pacific Power and Avangrid appeals led to withheld tax distributions that southern taxing districts say disproportionately harm small budgets.
Shannon Coback, executive secretary for the South Gilliam County Rural Fire Protection District, told the Gilliam County Court that appeals by large utilities have caused the county to withhold tax distributions this year, reducing revenue to small southern taxing districts.
Coback said the fire district had about $3,100 withheld last year and has seen a similar amount withheld this year. “On average for South Gilliam County Rural Fire Protection District we’re getting about $50,000 in taxes. Last year we got $47,000… this year our distribution to date has been $41,000,” she said. She added the withheld amounts represent a significant share of the district’s budget and that the district’s annual insurance bill alone is about $19,000.
Catherine Greiner, city administrator of the City of Condon, described parallel impacts on the city and other small jurisdictions. Greiner said the appeals are credited against a county distribution list set out in Oregon law and administered by the Department of Revenue. “When this is complete… the county’s going to have to make us whole again,” she said, but warned that withheld funds lose interest and harm local projects in the meantime.
Speakers pressed the court for options including county advocacy to the Oregon Department of Revenue, outreach to the Association of Oregon Counties or League of Oregon Cities to build a coalition, and possible state legislative fixes such as separate distribution schedules for original tax receipts versus refunded credits. Coback and Greiner asked the court to request the county assessor’s office and Department of Revenue to explain the distribution timing and appeal timelines; they said there is no clear time limit on appeals and cited other long-running cases.
Court members acknowledged the request and suggested gathering more information from assessor staff and from other counties to see whether the same pattern appears elsewhere before pursuing legislative action. At the meeting commissioners and staff said they would follow up with assessor staff (named in the public comments as Chet/Chad and Kelly) and consider outreach to legislators and associations.
Why it matters: Public commenters described withheld refunds and credits as an operational budget pressure for small taxing districts that lack the margin of larger jurisdictions. They requested county assistance to clarify statutory distribution procedures and to pursue remedies if the county’s current practice is legally or administratively avoidable.
What was not decided: The court did not take a formal vote on changes to distribution practices during the meeting. Commenters requested further study, assessor briefings, and coalition-building with state associations and legislators.
