CC Minutes - 10/16/06 Public Hearing

Home Browse Search

In regard to annexation, Ms. Cuellar pointed out that some land, such as agricultural land, had a density lower than R-1. There were many such properties outside the city limits and inside the urban growth boundary (UGB). She said that such properties did not sell at the price of agricultural land; the market value of such a property was the same if zoned agricultural or R-1 because sellers of such properties knew the intended use. Using the Tax Assessor’s Market Value might not represent true market value in such cases at all. Ms. Cuellar asked that the record remain open for two weeks. Ms. Cuellar suggested local adoption of such an ordinance could be an impediment to discussions statewide. Portland was discussing a value-added tax to pay for infrastructure in areas where the boundaries were expanded because of a lack of funding for services in those areas. Jim Welsh , 2139 Centennial Plaza, representing the Eugene Association of Realtors, expressed concern about the impact of the ordinance on the costs of development and affordable housing. He believed that the ordinance creating the fee was a new land use ordinance under the definition of land use ordinance in Ballot Measure 37 and could create a whole new class of Ballot Measure 37 claimants. The council was contemplating a 25 percent devaluation of private real property upon any annexation, zone change, or Metro Plan redesignation. The regulatory reduction of value immediately occurs when owner was required to deposit 25 percent of the value of his development before the development process could occur. Mr. Welch said that imposing the fee would increase the cost of housing. He did not think the fee was needed because the City had not received a large number of Ballot Measure 37 claims and there was only three months remaining before the deadline for filing claims through the courts. Property owners will consider the charge excessive and unfair. The market evaluation process was fraught with pitfalls because of the ever-changing market. He asked how Ballot Measure 5 and 50 related to the tax. He asked if the charge did not represent double-taxation. Those he spoke to believed that it was. Mr. Welch said that the ordinance would have a further dampening effect on development in Eugene. th John Lauch , 715 West 4 Avenue, representing Eugene School District 4J, said the district believed that the proposed ordinance would result in lost revenue to the school district if adopted as drafted. The district had been experiencing significant declining enrollment over the last nine years, resulting in the need to consolidate and close schools. The district was disposing of such sites and he anticipated it would dispose of more in the future. Four sites that had been sold recently were still in public ownership or were now owned by a nonprofit agency providing quasi public uses. The district’s Santa Clara property was currently in escrow with a private developer and the property would require a zone change for the change in ownership to occur. The property value could be greatly enhanced by the zone change, which was reflected in the offer made to the school district. Under school board policy, revenues generated by such sales were first directed to the improvement of other district facilities. The ordinance would have a significant impact on revenues to the district and would impair improvement and upgrade efforts at existing school facilities. Mr. Lauch submitted written testimony. th Rob Zako , 1280-B East 20 Avenue, representing 1000 Friends of Oregon, concurred with the request to keep the record open. He said that according to Portland State University, one of 11 acres of farmland in the Willamette Valley was subject to a Ballot Measure 37 claim. Mr. Zako said it was “perhaps unfortu- nate” that subdivisions were being built next to farms, precluding those farms from operating, and rock MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 16, 2006 Page 2 Public Hearing