DocketNumber: TC 4174
Citation Numbers: 15 Or. Tax 1
Judges: CARL N. BYERS, Judge
Filed Date: 5/12/1998
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023
Decision for Plaintiff rendered May 12, 1998.
This appeal concerns the tax status of property used by the Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) for on-site child care as a benefit to its employees. Defendant contends that because EWEB only has charter authority to operate utilities for the city, the use of the property for child care is inconsistent with its corporate purpose and therefore the land is taxable under ORS
EWEB is a division of the city of Eugene with charter authority to operate the city's utilities. EWEB decided to offer on-site child care services in 1986. The center is operated by EWEB in conjunction with the EWEB Parents Association, Inc. (PAI), an Oregon nonprofit corporation. PAI shares responsibility for the center's operation but does not operate it under any form of lease agreement. EWEB employees have first priority to use of the center, with leftover spaces going to the public at large.
Plaintiff argues that implicit in its charge to operate utilities is the authority to hire employees. Consistent with that authority, Plaintiff asserts that providing child care is merely an employee benefit and therefore within its overall purpose.
In their motions, the parties focused on the authority of EWEB, disputing whether the provision of child care fell within that authority. However, the parties confuse the issue. EWEB is merely an administrative arm of the city of Eugene, it has no independent corporate identity. Thus, the inquiry is not whether a child care center is within the "corporate purposes" of EWEB, but whether it falls within the "corporate purpose" of the city. *Page 3
ORS
"(1) Except as provided by law, all property of the state and all public or corporate property used or intended for corporate purposes * * * is exempt from taxation."
The term "corporate purpose" is not defined in the statute. The Supreme Court addressed this issue in City of Portland v. Multnomah Co.,
ORS
"Except as limited by express provision or necessary implication of general law, a city may take all action necessary or convenient for the government of its local affairs." (Emphasis added.)
2. This statute clearly gives municipal governments authority to take any action which is not inconsistent with express or general law. Reading ORS
"The city has all powers that the constitution or laws of the United States or this state expressly or impliedly grant or allow cities, as fully as if this charter specifically stated each of those powers." (Stip of Facts, Ex 1 at 5(2).)
Under the laws of this state and the United States, a municipality has the right to exercise power to preserve the health, welfare, and morals of its citizens. Cove Lodge v. Harris,
The court is unable to find any Oregon cases on point. However, at least two other jurisdictions have determined that a day care facility constitutes a "municipal purpose," in that it promotes the health and welfare of the city. *Page 4 Hopper v. City of Madison,
It is clear the legislature intended that municipalities have broad power to provide for their citizenry. Concomitant with this power is the right to establish boards, hire employees, and provide for the general welfare of the public. The court has found no express or general limitation on the provision of child care by a city. Rather, as Plaintiff points out, both federal and state law encourages employers to provide child care. ORS
Given the general presumption against the taxability of public property, and the broad definition of corporate purposes, the court finds that the provision of child care is within Plaintiff's corporate purpose within the meaning of ORS
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.