Ashland council reviews budget constraints as Measure 5 and Measure 50 limit property-tax revenue

On May 5, 2025, the Ashland City Council met in a study session to review the city's 2025-27 budget background and the legal limits on property-tax revenue. Finance Director Marianne Berry and Deputy Finance Director Bryn Morrison presented the budget process and assumptions, and Deputy City Manager Jordan Rooklyn explained how Measure 5 (1990) and Measure 50 (1997) affect local tax collections.

Council was told that no city department has overspent in the current budget and that the reductions proposed for the next biennium result from projected revenues failing to keep pace with rising costs. The Citizen Budget Committee began deliberations on April 30 to develop a balanced budget for council consideration and staff noted the council is scheduled to adopt a final budget in June.

Rooklyn summarized the measures: Measure 5 set statewide caps on taxes per $1,000 of real market value (including the cited $5 per $1,000 for education districts and $10 per $1,000 for general government in the presentation), while Measure 50 replaced taxation on market value with an "assessed value" that may grow by only 3% a year except for new properties or major improvements. Staff also explained the changed property ratio used to assess new or substantially improved properties and presented neighborhood- and new-property inequity examples from League of Oregon Cities materials.

The presentation included Ashland's stated property-tax rate of $4.2865 per $1,000 of assessed value and noted that Measure 50 allows for a temporary local-option levy of up to five years but that such levies remain subject to Measure 5 compression rules. Staff reviewed where to view revenue and expense projections in the city's OpenGov portal and discussed improving long-term forecasting by gathering departmental projections earlier in the budget cycle.

Members discussed potential pathways to narrow the revenue gap, including changes to the statewide property-tax system, creating new taxing districts, promoting more development or annexation to broaden the tax base, placing a local-option levy before voters, or creating new fees. No formal motions or votes were taken on those options during the session.

Members of the public who spoke during the public-input portion raised concerns tied to the budget discussions, including proposed parks fees and the potential cost increases for sporting teams to use fields, concerns about night-lawn rules and enforcement, and suggestions for identifying cost-savings alternatives to cuts.

The council did not adopt any budget decisions at the meeting; staff said the Citizen Budget Committee will send the committee-approved budget to council in May and council is scheduled to adopt the budget in June, with the opportunity to make changes to the approved budget prior to adoption.