221.450
Privilege tax on public utilities operating without franchise. Except as provided in ORS 221.655,
the city council or other governing body of every incorporated city may levy
and collect a privilege tax from Oregon Community Power and from every electric
cooperative, people’s utility district, privately owned public utility,
telecommunications carrier as defined in ORS 133.721 or heating company. The
privilege tax may be collected only if the entity is operating for a period of
30 days within the city without a franchise from the city and actually using
the streets, alleys or highways, or all of them, in such city for other than
travel on such streets or highways. The privilege tax shall be for the use of
those public streets, alleys or highways, or all of them, in such city in an
amount not exceeding five percent of the gross revenues of the cooperative,
utility, district or company currently earned within the boundary of the city.
However, the gross revenues earned in interstate commerce or on the business of
the United States Government shall be exempt from the provisions of this
section. The privilege tax authorized in this section shall be for each year,
or part of each year, such utility, cooperative, district or company, or Oregon
Community Power, operates without a franchise. [Amended by 1987 c.245 §3; 1987
c.447 §115; 1989 c.999 §§7,8; 1999 c.865 §30; 1999 c.1093 §7; 2007 c.807 §41]
Notes of Decisions
Nw. Nat. Gas Co. v. City of Gresham, 374 P.3d 829 (Or. 2016).
· cites it 94× “Plaintiffs, collectively “the utilities,” sought a declaration that the enactments were void and unenforceable because they conflicted with the provisions of ORS 221.450. 1 Alternatively, Rockwood PUD argued that it, as a people’s utility district, could not be taxed more than…”
Rogue Valley Sewer Servs. v. City of Phoenix, 353 P.3d 581 (Or. 2015).
· cites it 14× “420; ORS 221.450. Where cities and utilities have not entered into an agreement for a different fee arrangement, the legislature provides for a five percent fee.”
Nw. Nat. Gas Co. v. City of Gresham, 330 P.3d 65 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 36× “Plaintiffs contended that the city could not impose the increased fee because ORS 221.450 preempted the city’s authority to charge a fee of more than five percent.”
Rogue Valley Sewer Servs. v. City of Phoenix, 329 P.3d 1 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 9× “420 and ORS 221.450. RVS argues that the city’s franchise fee is inconsistent with legislative policy because “the legislature meant its statutory scheme to be exclusive.”
Springfield Util. Bd. v. Emerald Pud, 125 P.3d 740 (Or. 2005).
· cites it 3× “415 also "reaffirm[ed]" the city's authority under ORS 221.450 to collect privilege taxes from PUDs, despite the fact that ORS 221.”
US West Commc'ns, Inc. v. City of Eugene, 81 P.3d 702 (Or. 2003).
“420(2), or may impose a privilege tax “for the [utility’s] use of [the] streets, alleys or highways” within the city, ORS 221.450. 2 A telecommunications facility “includes radio transmitting towers, other supporting structures, and associated facilities, including fiber, used…”
At&T Commc'ns of Pac. Nw., Inc. v. City of Eugene, 35 P.3d 1029 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“ORS 221.450. 5 In short, nothing in ORS chapter 759 suggests that the legislature intended to preempt entirely municipal control of the provision of telecommunications services.”
Nw. Nat. Gas Co. v. City of Gresham (Or. 2016).
· cites it 95× “Petitioner Rockwood alternatively argues that licensing fee, to the extent that it exceeded five percent, was an impermis- sible intergovernmental tax not authorized by statute.”
Qwest Corp. v. City of Portland, 365 P.3d 1157 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “And it really doesn’t make any difference for the sake of discussion, I don’t believe, because what we’re really talking about is the tax authorized by ORS 221.450. “For decades cities have levied franchise or privilege taxes on local phone companies for the privilege of…”
Multnomah Cnty. v. Davis, 581 P.2d 968 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
“See ORS 221.450. The Commissioner, in treating the first 3 percent of the city’s tax as a license and therefore different from the county’s tax, *529 does no more than acknowledge a legislative decision to treat the two entities differently, and the legislative decision is not…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.