Get email alerts on the Tax Policy Urban Revit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pleasant Hill sets June 9 hearing to consider Urban Revitalization Plan amendment after state tax changes
Summary
The council approved a resolution setting a June 9 public hearing on an amendment to the Pleasant Hill Urban Revitalization Plan, a response to recent passage of SF 2472 that changes tax increment and abatement treatment; the amendment would cease accepting applications effective June 12 pending legislative clarification.
The Pleasant Hill City Council on May 26 approved a resolution setting a public hearing for June 9 to consider an amendment to the city’s Urban Revitalization Plan, a municipal tax-abatement program that supports housing and commercial development.
City Manager Ben Champ said the action is an urgent response to recent state legislation (SF 2472) that changes how property tax valuation, tax increment financing and abatement are treated. Champ said the new law prevents valuation generated by tax increment financing and abatement from counting as new construction valuation for the city’s general fund in future budget years, a change that could penalize municipal operations and raise pressure on tax levies. The proposed amendment, drafted with bond counsel, would cease accepting new applications to the program effective June 12; the plan itself would remain in place and could be amended again in the future if the legislature or state policy changes.
Champ said developers have told the city they are “concerned and frustrated” with the legislative change. The council adopted the resolution to publish notice and set the hearing date; the council’s vote was unanimous (AYES: Murray, Birch, Hodges, DeMoss, Konrad).
AI generated
The text on this page is AI generated. Summaries, highlights, analysis, and video transcripts are all produced from the original source material.
AI can make mistakes, so if you spot one, and we will fix it for everyone.
Note: the source content is unaltered by us. Any content source we link to, be it a video, an audio recording, or a document, is presented exactly as its publisher released it. That publisher is usually a government body, sometimes an individual official or another organisation.
