2017 ORS 308.490¹
Determining value of homes for elderly persons

(1) The Legislative Assembly finds that ordinary methods of determining the assessed value of real property, particularly by consideration of the cost of replacing a structure with a similar and comparable one of equivalent utility, are not appropriate with respect to property of nonprofit homes for elderly persons, operated by corporations described in ORS 307.375 (Type of corporation to which exemption under ORS 307.370 applicable). The Legislative Assembly declares that the benefits inherent in operation of these homes, especially in the housing and care furnished to elderly persons for whom this state and its political subdivisions otherwise might be responsible, justifies the use of criteria set out in subsection (2) of this section.

(2) In determining the assessed value of the property of a nonprofit home for elderly persons, operated by a corporation described in ORS 307.375 (Type of corporation to which exemption under ORS 307.370 applicable), the county assessor shall not take into account considerations of replacement cost, but shall consider:

(a) The amount of money or money’s worth for which the property may be exchanged within a reasonable period of time under conditions in which both parties to the exchange are able, willing and reasonably well informed.

(b) The gross income that reasonably could be expected from the property if leased or rented to the public generally, less annual operating expenses, reserves for replacements and insurance, depreciation and taxes.

(c) The relative supply and demand for similar properties.

(d) The relative value of the location of the property. [1969 c.587 §8; 1981 c.624 §12; 1983 s.s. c.5 §7; 1991 c.459 §138; 1997 c.541 §202]

Notes of Decisions

Where prop­erty value is determined using income approach that deducts for deprecia­tion, no adjust­ment should be made for effect govern­ment use restric­tions have on prop­erty value. Gangle v. Dept. of Rev., 13 OTR 343 (1995)

Require­ment that in lieu of replace­ment value county assessor “shall consider” listed evalua­tion methods made use of evalua­tion method op­tional, but did not make inclusion of identified deduc­tions op­tional when method was used. Gangle v. Dept. of Revenue, 320 Or 494 887 P2d 784 (1995)

Special assess­ment is available without regard to financial means of elderly per­sons served by home. Polk County v. Dept. of Revenue, 14 OTR 476 (1998)

Determina­tion of income that could reasonably be expected if building is leased or rented to general public requires considera­tion of rent that building could obtain in open market without regard to fact prop­erty is devoted to housing elderly. St. Catherine’s Residence, Inc. v. Dept. of Revenue, 14 OTR 500 (1998); Hope Village, Inc. v. Dept. of Revenue, 17 OTR 370 (2004)

Legislative declara­tion that ordinary valua­tion methods are inappropriate with respect to homes for elderly indicates that income approach to valua­tion should be given substantially greater weight than sales comparison approach. Polk County v. Dept. of Revenue, 14 OTR 566 (1999)

Determina­tion of amount for which prop­erty may be exchanged requires ordinary sales approach with sales of comparable elderly housing properties used where available. Hope Village, Inc. v. Dept. of Revenue, 17 OTR 370 (2004)

To determine gross income, deduc­tion for annual operating expenses, reserves for replace­ment and insurance and deprecia­tion are allowed only if related to hypothetical rental of housing to public generally. Hope Village, Inc. v. Dept. of Revenue, 17 OTR 370 (2004)

Market-derived capitaliza­tion rate to be used in determining expected gross income is rate for general housing properties, with prop­erty taxes included as ele­ment in rate. Hope Village, Inc. v. Dept. of Revenue, 17 OTR 370 (2004)

Chapter 308

Notes of Decisions

Programs administered by Depart­ment of Revenue that allow preferential assess­ment for farm and forestland are not “programs affecting land use” and are not subject to require­ment of statewide goal and local comprehensive plan compliance under ORS 197.180 (State agency planning responsibilities). Springer v. LCDC, 111 Or App 262, 826 P2d 54 (1992), Sup Ct review denied

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Applica­tion of Article XI, sec­tion 11b of Oregon Constitu­tion to this chapter, (1990) Vol 46, p 388

Law Review Cita­tions

5 EL 516 (1975)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 308—Assessment of Property for Taxation, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors308.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 308, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano308.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.