Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />approval of agreements to regulate annexations and the prOV1Slon of urban <br />services in the unincorporated portions of the Highway 99 North industrial <br />area. He said that this agreement is intended to prevent the problems that <br />would occur as a result of piecemeal annexations. <br /> <br />Mr. Smith highlighted several important components of this agreement, includ- <br />ing: <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />1) A delay-of-effective-date provision which will allow the City to <br />postpone the effectiveness of annexation for 10 years, while still <br />requiring annexation prior to sewer installation; <br />2) a provision that upon annexation, property owners will pay a tax <br />differential of 31 percent of the City's operating levy for nine <br />years and would increase to 100 percent on the tenth year; <br />3) assures that the City that all Highway 99 North properties will be <br />annexed by 2010; <br />4) requests that each property owner will be asked to sign an indi- <br />vidual annexation agreement with the City when applying for a <br />building permit; <br />5) calls for the development of a refinement plan for the Highway 99 <br />North area; <br />6) delays, until annexation, the implementation of the paving and <br />parking requirements in the City's parking lot code; and <br />7) clarifies a rule regarding the repair of septic tanks. <br /> <br />Mr. Smith described how this proposal relates to the annexation agreement of <br />River Road and Santa Clara. Whereas sewer hook-ups are mandated in the River <br />Road/Santa Clara area, this agreement stipulates that both developed and <br />undeveloped properties do have to annex to get sewer service. Both proposals <br />include a tax-differential rate structure which although unequal, is equita- <br />ble. However, in the Highway 99 North proposal the City will not be obligat- <br />ed to provide additional services during the tax-differential period. <br /> <br />Addressing questions which have been raised earlier, Mr. Smith said that this <br />type of proposal could be applicable in other unincorporated portions of the <br />urban growth boundary (UGB) area, but asked that staff have a few years to <br />work with the proposal before extending its use elsewhere. <br /> <br />Mr. Smith reminded the council that Ballot Measure 5 was passed since the <br />council last dealt with this issue and said that the agreement will still be <br />cash-neutral for the City. However, under this proposal the City would be <br />assuming an obligation to complete a refinement plan in the Highway 99 North <br />area, which has potential impacts on the General Fund. Property owners have <br />indicated a willingness to increase their tax differential rate by approxi- <br />mately half the cost of the refinement plan to recognize its impact on the <br />General Fund; this would be approximately $250,0000 and would increase the <br />tax differential by 2 percent. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Ehrman, Jan Childs, Planning and Develop- <br />ment Department, said that if the council approves the plan, it is possible <br />that the refinement planning process would begin early next fiscal year. <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council <br /> <br />March 4, 1991 <br /> <br />Page 5 <br />