10/21/1987 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Brody said the Finance Division had analyzed and was comfortable with the ten-year schedule for industrial annexations. e Responding to Ms. Ehrman's question, Ms. Brody said a longer tax differential for residential properties was not recommended because of the higher level of services they demanded, which Finance staff felt could present problems for the City. Mr. Holmer asked about the significance of the survey of 106 property owners with 12 replies and with only two responses indicating that annexation support was dependent on the longer tax differential. Ms. Brody sa i d she had not meant to imply that the survey alone provided sufficient evidence, but many individual contacts during the annexation process also had indicated that the longer tax differential would make a difference in the support for annexation. Ms. Wooten asked for an example of the average difference to a property owner from the tax differential. Ms. Brody said those calculations co u 1 d be provided later in the meeting. Ms. Wooten said she agreed with Mr. Bennett's suggestion to suspend the tax differential at the point when industrial property was developed or when value was added. She asked whether that possibility had been considered. Ms. Brody said she thought such a suspension seemed problematic because part of the reason for the phase-in of taxes and for annexation was to allow development during the ten-year period. She a 1 so said recision of the di fferent i a 1 probably would be administratively complex. Mr. Holmer said he did not understand the reason for moving from a five-year e plan in River Road to a ten-year plan, which was less attractive to the City. He asked whether the differential would send a message that the City wanted industrial properties more than it wanted private citizens. Ms. Brody said the ten-year approach provided a tool that was attractive to property owners but that was not costly to the City. Mr. Gleason said industrial properties had less to gain from annexation than did residential properties, and the plan was a way to encourage annexation with costs that were mutual and that were less expensive than dealing with services to businesses outside the city. Ms. Brody added that residential properties required greater services and still would receive the differential, although it would occur over a shorter period. Mr. Rutan requested a summary of the general annexation posture for the subject properties. Ms. Brody said City staff had received inquiries from property owners who were interested in annexation and then had broadened contacts to a larger area and attempted to develop annexation proposals, using primarily a voluntary approach to annexation. She added that some of the annexation packages being developed would involve some nonconsenting owners, but the majority of property owners were expected to consent. Mr. Rutan asked whether a certain level of development required that a property be annexed. Ms. Brody said no requirements existed, but significant expansion of an existing use or new construction currently could be blocked until a consent- to-annex agreement had been signed. She agreed with Mr. Rutan's observation that it was in the City's interest to annex industrial properties in an orderly, contiguous fashion whenever possible. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council Lunch/Work Session October 21, 1987 Page 2