Jack H. Swift

Last June, six O&C Counties confronted with a threatened loss of federal subsidy presented various tax proposals of one form or another to their constituents. The results were uniform and consistent across the board.

More than fifty percent of the voters responded in all 6 counties. They rejected tax increases in whatever shape for whatever purpose by 60% to 40%. The people said as clearly as they can, “No to taxes.” Beyond that, the voters in the O&C Counties made it clear that only 1 person in 5 is willing to vote for more taxes.

One has to wonder why. Other counties are successful with tax levies. The O&C Counties are notorious for their low property tax rates. Why can’t the commissioners in the O&C Counties sell a healthy tax increase? Why are O&C taxpayers so tight?

It is likely that the unique results in the O&C derive from the unique situation in the O&C. These counties have been historically supported according to a unique Congressional mandate by timber sales on unique public lands, specifically the Oregon and California Railroad revested lands. This system worked quite well for the counties for decades. In Josephine County, they precluded the need for any tax levy whatever for a decade. They account for the low permanent property tax rate adopted back in 1994.

The only reason there is any need presently for a tax levy is that in 1994 the Federal Government chose to ignore the Congressional mandate in the 1937 O&C Act to harvest timber and share the revenues with the O&C Counties. Revenues due the counties under the law were usurped and terminated. While that fact is not one of great concern while Congress chooses to make compensation by way of annual subsidies, when it indicates it will neither force the government to comply with the law nor make compensation, there is a problem. The Counties, and the residents therein, are entitled to think the money has been stolen. When the County Commissioners propose to send the bill for the lost revenue to the taxpayers, the matter becomes personal.

The taxpayers and voters in Josephine County are entitled to expect their County Commissioners to fight to recover the stolen money first. Should the taxpayers step to the plate and offer to pay more taxes, the problem is solved for the Commissioners and the stolen money will be gone forever.In the vote last June, the taxpayers said they do not want that. They demanded the Commissioners go after the lost money first.

The demand is a simple one. Recover the money due us under the law first. Should the Commissioners prevail and have timber harvests reinstated at a level that again supports County government, great. The problem is solved.Should they fight and only recover a portion, that is acceptable. We cannot demand that they win. We can only demand that they represent our interests by fighting for what is ours. Should they fight and fail, then the voters will have to deal with that reality. That will be the time to discuss any need for additional taxes.

Our Commissioners, with one noteworthy exception in Jim Raffenburg, have failed to do that. Instead we have had a parade of cost-share presentations by the Board of Commissioners asking us which rejected tax proposal we might vote for this time around. Can we sell you taxes for two new public safety districts? Can we sell you short term property tax levies? Can we sell you a consumption tax?

The Commissioners’ response is at least understandable. It is easier for them to raise taxes than to do battle with the government and the environmentalists. One Commissioner, Dave Toler, has repeatedly bemoaned the fact that O&C timber revenues may offer an alternative to taxation. Raising taxes is easier if one only has to demonstrate the need, and not have to deal with any alternatives. The answer to that is to demand that they recover the stolen money first and emphatically reject their tax alternatives until and unless they have first fought the fight we deserve.

The Courier’s response to the problem is more difficult to understand. The recent public opinion survey echoed the Commissioners’ line of, “What tax do you prefer?” “How much tax would you be willing to pay?” “What public services would you be willing to give up?” The answer the people have repeatedly voiced was not available on the survey. The answer is for the Board of Commissioners to fight for our timber revenues first. When that fight is over, we’ll discuss taxes, if necessary. If our Commissioners cannot understand that message, or cannot figure out how to fight, then we need Commissioners who can.Jack H. SwiftVice-Chairman, Southern Oregon Resource Alliance

Grants Pass Now
Feature Breakout Article
History of the O&C by Jack Swift