MEASURE NO. 24-159 City of Salem

Referred to the People By The City Council

24-159

Measure Proposing Annexation of 10.03 Acres of Property

Into Salem Question: Should the Property located at 2435 Brush College Road NW be annexed?

Summary: Approval of this measure would annex 10.03 acres of Property located at 2435 Brush College Road NW 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).

Explanatory Statement:

If approved, this measure would result in annexation of 10.03 acres of territory (the Territory) to the City of Salem.

The Territory is located at 2435 Brush College Road NW and designated in the Salem Area Comprehensive Plan as “Developing Residential.” Zoning of the Territory if annexed would be RA (Residential Agriculture). The RA zone district generally allows residential uses, select agricultural uses, playgrounds and parks, public buildings and child/adult care homes. The minimum lot size for single family dwellings is 4,000 square feet. This zoning designation allows a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per acre, assuming an allowance for public utilities and infrastructure. A complete description of uses in the RA zone district is available in Salem Revised Code (SRC) Chapter 145.

If annexed, the Territory is estimated to have the fiscal impact of creating an annual surplus to the City’s General Fund (in year 2005 dollars) of $9,124 based on development with an average density of 5 dwelling units per acre.

Adequate public facilities exist to serve the Territory, in accordance with the city’s adopted budget, master plans, Capital Improvement Plan and urban growth management process as set forth in SRC Chapter 66.

Additional information regarding the proposed annexation and zoning is available for public review at the Salem City Hall, Department of Community Development, Room 305, 555 Liberty Street SE, Salem, Oregon and on the City’s web site www.cityofsalem.net.

Submitted by,

Janet Taylor, On behalf of the Salem City Council

No arguments in favor of this measure were filed.


MEASURE NO. 24-159

City of Salem

Argument Against:

PLEASE HELP DEFEAT PROPOSED ANNEXATION ON BALLOT MEASURES:

24-159, 24-160, & 24-162

Properties to be annexed are located in West Salem, Polk County, on Brush College Road and Daisy Lane.

NONE of these owners want to be annexed! There is no advantage for them to be annexed. We were told by the city that we would not receive any benefits for this annexation such as repair for the street and water hook -up. All properties are on private water systems or wells and septic tanks. The city has no proposals on what to do about sewer or water.

Reasons we’re against these annexations are:

  • Property on Brush College has given right-of-way to the city for water lines in new development. The owner’s family has owned this property since 1920 and because of limited income may be forced to sell due to increase in taxes.

  • Also on Brush College, the city has allowed a sub-division to be designed on both sides of this property, with design using a road proposed through the home on this property. FULL INTENT BY THE CITY OF TAKING THIS PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR THEIR PROFIT!

    • The property owners on Daisy Lane will not receive any benefits from this annexation.

      • No new streets or sidewalks

      • No new water hook-ups

      • No new sewage hook-up

      • No new Fire or Police protection

  • Increase costs to city when our rights to new streets, water and sewer hooked up. Much greater cost to the tax payers than new taxes to be received by the city.

  • AND property owners DO NOT GET A VOTE , only the city voters can vote on this.

ANNEXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!

PLEASE VOTE NO

ON BIG GOVERNMENT TAKE OVER

(City Of Salem Against A Few)

24-159 – Joan Olson

24-160 – Phil & Lyssa Davidson

24-162 – Ken & Barb Farrimond, Trudy McKinnell, Joshua Parker, Larry & Linda Miller, Linda Cherry

(This information provided by Lyssa Davidson)

The printing of this argument does not constitute an endorsement by Marion County nor does the county warrant the accuracy or truth of any statements made in the argument. Marion County does not correct errors in spelling or grammar.

 


Return Back to September 19, 2006 Voter Pamphlet Main Page