This is a formal request for Oregon Department of Revenue to advise Multnomah

County's Director of Tax Assessment, Recording and Taxation to return to the common
"improvement" tax method for assessing taxable values for properties where detached
ADUs were assessed in Multnomah County for tax year 2015/2016. This request should
be fulfilled in time for Multnomah County to send out revised tax bills in December,
2015.
The new tax method advised by DoR resulting in a reMAV of the property value is not
based on the legal or common definitions of "rezoning" as written in Article XI, section
11(1)(c)(C) of the Oregon Constitution.150-308.156(5)-(B). Under the advice that
Multnomah's tax assessor has received from the Oregon Department of Revenue (DOR)
on November 20th, 2015, DOR has claimed that detached ADUs represent a "rezoning".
150-308.156(5)-(B)
Rezoned Property -- Calculating Maximum Assessed Value (MAV)
(1) For purposes of determining MAV under ORS 308.142 to 308.166:
(a) "Rezoned" means on or after July 1, 1995, the governmental body that
regulates zoning:
(A) Made a change in the zone designation of the property on the zoning map;
(B) Made a change in one or more conditions or restrictions affecting the
authorized uses of the property in the zone that is applicable to the property; or
(C) Made any other change in the authorized uses of the property.
Here is an explanation of the problems with DOR's new interpretation of "rezoning" point
by point.
(A) Made a change in the zone designation of the property on the zoning map;
An actual rezoning would be the primary factor in making a determination of "rezoning".
By definition and by local zoning law, there is no rezoning that takes place when an
ADU is added to a property, as ADUs have only been ever been permitted on
residentially zoned properties in Portland, Oregon.
(B) Made a change in one or more conditions or restrictions affecting the
authorized uses of the property in the zone that is applicable to the property; or
"Authorized use" is a term used in legal planning/zoning documents and practice to
convey how a property can be used (eg. how many occupants there can be, what types of
activities can happen on the property etc). Based on the contextual language provided in
OAR 150-308.156(5)-(B), this common definition of "authorized uses" was the intention
of the term "authorized uses" as it was used in 150-308.156(5)-(B)
By law, ADUs in Portland do NOT allow any "change in one or more conditions or
restrictions affecting the authorized uses of the property" of a residential property.
Portland's ADU program guide (p.5) makes the authorized uses clear. There is no
additional legal expansion of how a property with an ADU (attached or detached) can be

legally used by its owner relative to how a residential property without an ADU can its
owner.
In Portland, ADUs have been an allowable improvement on residential properties since
before Measure 50 legislation passed. The earliest documented regulatory allowance of
ADUs was in 1991 (see the Appendix Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulatory
Changes since 1991 on p. 94 of the Accessory Structure Code Update document). There
has been no change in any 'uses associated with residential ADU development that came
into being in Portland after Measure 50 legislation.
(C) Made any other change in the authorized uses of the property.
This email from Mr. Thummel sent on October 12th, 2015 indicates that the DOR is
referencing 'changes to design regulations' within zoning laws as the legal basis for a
legal interpretation of a change in the authorized uses". Mr. Thummel's email to Kol
Peterson and Multnomah County's tax assessor states,
"The city amended its zoning laws to permit a use of property that was not
previously permitted in residential zones; therefore, property in those zones was
rezoned.
The terms Rezoning and "changes in authorized use" are two vastly different things
from changes to design regulations.
It appears that DOR is selectively broadening their definition of "changes in authorized
uses" to refer to the allowance for 'detached ADUs as a change to design regulations that
constitutes a "change in authorized use" within Oregon Constitutional law.
If this is so, DOR's new interpretation of "rezoning" is not based on any legal precedent,
nor based in the common definitions of language used by planning, zoning or public
officials in Oregon towns, cities, or counties. This change in interpretation would be a
vast broadening and re-interpretation of the common definition of the term "changes in
authorized use".
DOR's interpretation of rezoning in this instance is a broad over reach, and goes well
beyond the intent of Measure 50. For example, this same 'change in authorized uses'
interpretation would mean that on properties where only a 6ft fence was allowed before
Measure 50, and where an 8ft fence was allowed after Measure 50, if an 8ft fence was
built after Measure 50, the property must also be "rezoned" and therefor, must also be
reMAVed.
The reMAV approach specifically targeting detached ADUs in Multnomah County is
totally inconsistent with how other like residential property improvements were treated in
the same 2015/2016 tax year in Multnomah County. For example, changes to design
regulations that allowed for an addition, a shed, a solar panel, a garage, nor an 8ft fence

do not trigger any property reMAV if those improvements are made.

If regulatory design changes can be classified as an exception to a 'change in authorized
uses', they must be treated using the same taxing methods. In this case, only detached
ADUs in Multnomah County are being classified as an exception event that triggers a
property reMAV. Other property improvements such as a 8ft fence are not treated as a
'change in authorized uses' that triggers a reMAV. The inconsistency of maximum
assessment valuation approach for like situations is problematic in terms of ensuring
consistent administration and ruling of property valuations across Oregon. We believe
that this broad reinterpretation opens a host of unforeseen legal and Constitutional
challenges against DOR.
This constitutional reinterpretation or radical broadening of the scope of Measure 50 may
not have been the intention of DOR's findings, but unfortunately, this reinterpretation of
Measure 50 language for "changes in authorized use" is the only remaining interpretation
that the DOR can use to legally base its claim that there has been a "rezoning".
From an administrative perspective, the particulars of this interpretation are problematic.
In Mr. Thummel's email to Kol Peterson and Multnomah County's tax assessor on
October 12th, 2015, it states,
Under this interpretation, only the land, which is now used to support two structures
with living units instead of one, is affected by the zone change and use consistent with the
rezoning.
Typically, only a very limited fraction of the land on a given residential property can
legally have a detached ADU on it, due to how zoning laws limit where a detached ADU
can be placed relative to existing property lot lines and the positioning of the primary
structure. Therefor, reMAVing the entire property value is also not an accurate treatment
of reMAVing property value. This issue would also lead to inconsistencies in
interpretation.
This interpretation is extremely problematic from a Constitutional perspective--indicating
that DOR is deliberately interpreting the constitution in a way that greatly broadens the
authority of Measure beyond the intent of those who voted for the passage of Measure 50.
If the regulatory design change that allows for detached ADUs is selectively classified as
a change in authorized use, that methodology should be established in a uniform
manner across Oregon, rather than being suddenly and arbitrarily applied in only one
County in Oregon without any warning to those who are impacted this change in tax
policy.
In summary, there has been "no change in authorized use" based on the common
interpretation of the term "authorized use". Amendments to local regulations governing
the design of buildings and sites are not equivalent to rezoning.

Therefor, please advise Multnomah County's Director of Tax Assessment, Recording and
Taxation to return to the common "improvement" tax method for assessing taxable values
for properties where detached ADUs were assessed in Multnomah County for the
2015/2016 tax year. This correction will not involve any valuation judgements.
This approach would also be the 'fair' approach, given that affected homeowners who had
developed detached ADUs up through 2015, were repeatedly told that the "improvement"
tax approach would be used for detached ADUs in tax year 2015/2016 by Multnomah
County tax and assessment staff.
If DOR wishes to explore broadening the common interpretation of Constitutional
definitions for rezoning, it should do so in a open, public rule making process in which
DOR can reconcile inconsistencies of interpretation on matters of this kind for tax year
2016/2017 and beyond.