A Measure Proposing Annexation of 62.66 Acres of Property

Question: Shall the property located south of Hayesville Place NE, east of Fuhrer Street NE and east of Great Plains Drive NE be annexed?

Summary: Approval of this measure would annex approximately 62.66 acres of property located south of Hayesville Place NE, east of Fuhrer Street NE and east of Great Plains Drive NE to the City of Salem. The property is within the Urban Growth Boundary. Upon annexation, the property would be zoned City of Salem RA (Residential Agriculture), PE (Public and Private Educational Services), PA (Public Amusement) and RS (Single Family Residential).

Explanatory Statement:

If approved, this measure would result in annexation of 62.66 acres. The City Council found the proposed annexation meets all applicable land use laws of the State of Oregon and the City of Salem. The City Charter requires submitting this annexation to the voters.

The annexation area is located south of Hayesville Place and east of Fuhrer Street and Great Plans Drive NE. The property is within the Urban Growth Boundary, and designated in the Salem Area Comprehensive Plan as "Developing Residential." If annexed, the zoning would be RA (Residential Agriculture), PE (Public and Private Education), PA (Public Amusement), and RS (Single Family Residential). The residential zones typically permit single family residential land uses, and public zones permit schools and public parks.

The annexation of 13.33 acres was requested by petition of the property owner. The additional 49.33 acres contains a city park site, two public schools, and street right-of-way. The annexation would subject the property to city tax rates and cause its withdrawal from the Marion County Fire District No. 1.

Development of property is not required at the time of annexation. When development occurs, it must conform to the zoning designation then in effect. Zoning may be changed following notice and public hearing as required by law.

The financial impact of this annexation on the city’s general fund depends upon the nature and appraised value of the development. The majority of this annexation contains public lands. Since development of the vacant residential portion is not specifically known at the time of annexation, only average estimates of costs and revenues can be made. Assuming average land and improvement values, residential densities, costs for servicing park and school land, and other indicators, and assuming existing levels of city services are maintained, annexation of the entire area could result in a $13,957 annual loss to the general fund (year 2000 dollars). This loss is due to the school and park service costs which presently exist and are not affected by annexation. If the city’s service levels are enhanced, this loss could correspondingly increase.

School funding for operations and maintenance is largely obtained through the state allocation of income tax. The state’s current allocation is $4926 per student. Currently, the Salem-Keizer School District estimates the annual cost per student to be $6500. The difference between the state allocation and anticipated costs is made up through unexpended prior year budget savings and interest earnings. The annexation area is located within the district, and the district is obligated to provide educational services whether or not the site is annexed to the city.

Additional information and findings regarding the proposed annexation are contained in the staff reports dated August 6, 2001, August 13, 2001 and August 20, 2001. Copies of the staff reports are available for public review on the city web site; at the Salem Public Library; and at the Salem City Hall, Department of Community Development, 555 Liberty Street SE, Salem, Oregon.

• This annexation area also contains Stephens Middle School (16 acres), a 17-acre City of Salem park; and Yoshikai Elementary School (14 acres). The schools and park are developed and already receive City services.

• I believe the City Council’s ballot explanatory statement is very misleading. The two schools and City park pay no taxes. But they will receive the benefit of all City services. My property produces all the revenue in this annexation. If the costs to serve the two schools and City park are removed from the General Fund impact calculations, then this annexation area would produce approximately $70,000 of annual benefit to the City General Fund, using year 2000 dollars.

• The City commissioned a study of the cost/benefit of annexations which concluded that the City’s fiscal position in the General fund is stronger with annexations than under a no growth scenario.

• The development of my property should generate over $635,000 in Systems Development Charges paid to the City, in year 2000 dollars. All public facilities are current provided to the property. The City has no costs in extending public facilities to this property. The net benefit to the City’s Capital Improvement Budget should exceed $635,000.

• The development plan we submitted to the City shows 69 single family residential lots on our 13.3 acres. The proposed lots are located adjacent to the two new schools and are within easy walking distance.

• This property was included in the Urban Growth Boundary when the Boundary was first adopted in the early 1970’s. The result of annexation is that growth will be managed and controlled according to adopted City plans.

• The Northgate Neighborhood Association did not oppose this annexation.

(This information provided by Lawrence T. Epping,
Managing Partner, Granada Land Co.)

CityWatch, a local volunteer group working for livability improvements and for good local government, recommends a “no” vote on this proposed 62.66-acre annexation, for the following reasons:

This annexation proposal, in order to obtain city services for one 1.41-acre parcel and one 11.74-acre parcel, would bring in an additional 33.72 acres consisting of two schools and a parcel designated as future parkland. That is because the two smaller parcels the developer wants annexed are isolated, and can be connected to each other and to the city only if the intervening schools and the parkland are annexed, as well .

The entire group of parcels being proposed would connect with the city only along the shortest side (less than 300 feet) of the smallest, 1.41-acre parcel. It would therefor produce a “peninsula” of annexed land and would create yet another large enclave of unincorporated land between the “peninsula” and the city border to the west.

This is not good planning. It does not represent the logical progression of city boundaries, nor the cost-effective extension of city services.

City staff estimates that after development, the city’s general fund would
experience a net deficit on this property. In addition the school district would have to assume substantial additional expenses to accommodate additional students from this area.

CityWatch believes that annexation of these parcels should occur, if at all, only after the unincorporated land between these parcels and the existing city boundary is brought into the city.

More information may be obtained from CityWatch. Call 503-362-0619, or write P. O. Box 142, Salem, 97308. Or visit www.salemcitywatch.com between October 24 and November 6.