03/09/1988 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e percent of the property north of Awbrey Lane will remain outside the UGB and is inaccessible. This means that some of the street widening costs would have to be borne by the City. Mr. Bennett asked if a future developer would pay a pro-rated share for the street widening. Mr. Smith said a developer would pay a share if the current policies are still in place. Mr. Smith said the revenue mechanisms used to generate the estimates contained in the council packet were never intended to recover the costs of serving individual parcels. Mr. Holmer asked if it is possible to adopt additional ordinances that require developments to fund their own capital improvements. Mr. Smith said the City could implement an increase in the systems development charges or a development exaction process that affects all similar properties equally. Mr. Holmer asked if that issue was considered by the Planning Commission. Ms. Brody said it has not been addressed, although it can be. e Mayor Obie asked about the revenue stream once it is developed. Mr. Smith said there is no additional revenue generated to support the capital improvements. In response to a question, Ms. Bishow reiterated that there will be a $4.80 annual decrease in property taxes for a $60,000 home based on an estimated improvement value at build-out of about $21 million. Ms. Wooten asked how staff obtained the estimated improvement value at build-out. Ms. Bishow said staff selected a sample area in Eugene that contained 200 acres of developed industrial land and assumed the assessed value at build-out would be relatively close. However, she said new, highly automated firms with a substantial amount of capital infrastructure affect the assessed value differently. Mr. Miller asked if there is a way to delay annexation to the city until after development to have a greater increased value and bigger effect on the tax base. Ms. Bishow said the council could allow development to occur prior to annexation. One of the implications, however, is that the City would not be able to obtain a systems development charge. She also said the City can annex a strip of land around the periphery of the property to help insure that full annexation occurs following development. Ms. Bishow reviewed the public safety costs attributed to the site. Annual public safety costs range from $70,000 to $122,500. She said those costs would occur as the property is developed. e Ms. Wooten asked what justification was used to change "are" to "have been" under amendment finding nine. She also asked what sources staff used. Ms. Bishow said staff's initial source was testimony from the Metro Partnership. She said staff later discovered other literature that MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 9, 1988 Page 7