Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Legislation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Regional leaders raise concerns about proposed state taxes and housing bills
Summary
Members of the RiverCOG board discussed opposition and planned outreach on several state proposals — including a proposed 1% meals tax increase and a new state 'mansion' property tax — and urged staff to coordinate testimony and a letter to legislators.
RiverCOG members spent a significant portion of the Feb. 27 meeting discussing several pending state bills and agreed to coordinate further outreach and testimony.
Sam Gold summarized bills of concern and said RiverCOG submitted testimony opposing a proposed state bill that would mandate uniform small-lot zoning in certain areas. Board members focused on two measures flagged at the meeting: a proposed 1% increase in the meals tax (Senate Bill 101) and a proposed state property tax on high-value residential property (Senate Bill 102). Sam noted the meals-tax increase was proposed to be remitted to municipalities but said members had concerns about giving the state a continuing share of new revenue. Sam also outlined the mansion-tax thresholds as drafted, including graduated mills on residential property above certain assessed values, and warned the language could apply to condominiums and rental apartments depending on how 'residential property' is defined.
Several members, including Todd Gelston, said the mansion-tax proposal risked driving businesses and residents from the state and urged a stronger, coordinated response. Carl Fortuna and others said they had submitted testimony opposing the bills. Sam said RiverCOG staff will draft a letter and work with the executive committee on talking points and reminded members that staff maintain a bill-tracker spreadsheet and post testimony and links for members.
Board members also discussed House Bill 5226 concerning mobile/manufactured homes and regional fair-rent commissions; staff said RiverCOG had submitted language in opposition because the bill could require COGs to form commissions without additional funding for legal support or staffing.
Members asked staff to circulate guidance, and several said they would pursue meetings with congressional and legislative staff to explore eligibility for congressionally directed spending and other programs. The board did not adopt a formal position beyond coordinating testimony and preparing a regional letter via the executive committee.
