HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 01 Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan ATT3 Letter 71000
friends
of Oregon
Willamette Valley Office• PO Box 51252 • Eugene, OR 97 405 • (541) 520-3763 •fax (503) 223-0073
Portland Office• 133 SW 2nd Ave, Suite 201 •Portland, OR 97204 • (503) 497-1000 •fox (503) 223-0073 • www.friends.org
Southern Oregon Office • PO Box 2442 • Grants Poss, OR 97 528 • (541) 47 4-11 55 • fox (541) 47 4-9389
September 12, 2016
Honorable Mayor Christine Lundberg
Springfield City Council
City of Springfield
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Lane County Board of Commissioners
Lane County Planning Commission
Lane County
125 E. gth Avenue
Eugene, OR 97401
Re: Springfield UGB expansion; LRP2009-00014 (Springfield); 509-PAB-05393 (Lane County)
Dear Mayor Lundberg, Councilors and Commissioners:
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the proposed Springfield Urban Growth Boundary
(UGB) amendment. 1000 Friends of Oregon is a nonprofit, charitable organization dedicated to
working with Oregonians to enhance our quality of life by building livable urban and rural
communities, protecting family farms and forests, and conserving natural and scenic areas.
We have participated in this process since the original version was presented for hearing in 2009,
and we appreciate the significant additional work that has been done by Springfield staff and city
leadership since that time. The revised proposal is much stronger than before.
We support the determination of the August 2015 Commercial and Industrial Buildable Lands
Inventory and Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA) that over the next 20 years, Springfield
will need the following large employment sites:
20+ acre sites:
3 industrial sites
1 commercial site
5-20 acre sites:
12 industrial sites
8 commercial sites
However, we do have concerns with a few other aspects of the revised proposal. They are:
1. Excessive size requirements for 20+ acre sites
Attachment 3, Page 623 of 664
Although we agree with the city's determination that Springfield needs four 20+ acre sites, we do
not agree with the EOA's assertion that candidate sites actually need to be much larger than 20
acres in order to meet that need. The following Table 5-2 from the EOA states that "20 and
Larger" sites must be, on average, 63 acres for industrial sites, and 60 acres for commercial sites.
Table 5-2. Average size of needed sites based on average sizes of
sites with employment in Springfield, Springfield UGB
Site Size (acres)
Less 20 and
than 1 1to2 2to 5 Sto 20 Larger
Industrial 0.5 1.4 3.0 10.0 63.0
Commercial and Mixed Use 0.4 1.4 3.2 9.3 60.0
Source: ECONorthwest based on QCEW data
Note: Average site size for sites 20 acres and larger is rounded to the nearest acre.
The EOA provides this rationale:
"The average site sizes in Table 5-2 are based on empirical analysis of the size of
Industrial and Commercial taxlots with employment in Springfield in 2006. This analysis
involved relating covered employment data (covered employment in Springfield is shown
in Table C-1) to taxlots in Springfield. The taxlots were grouped into categories of site
size (i.e., less than 1 acre, 1-2 acres, etc.) by type of land (i.e., industrial or
commercial/mixed-use). For each group, the average site size was determined, as shown
in Table 5-2. For example, there were 75 Industrial sites smaller than 1 acre in
Springfield with employment, with an average of 0.5 acres per site." (EOA, page 78)
We are unsure exactly which sites were used to compute these averages, since Table 5-2's
footnote about its data source does not cite to evidence in the record. However, we have
attempted to recreate the analysis using taxlot data from Lane County. Our research suggests
that the average size of existing 20+ acre employment sites cannot inform the needs of
Springfield's future targeted industries.
These are the occupied 20+ acre industrial sites we found : 1
Sierrapine mill ....................................................................................................... 71 acres
International Paper mill (main taxlot only) .......................................................... 175 acres
Swanson mill .......................................................................................................... 36 acres
Rosboro mill .......................................................................................................... 70 acres
Jasper-Natron mill (taxlot 1802100000200, see EOA pg. 33) .............................. .47 acres
Jasper-Natron mill (taxlot 1802100000900, see EOA pg. 36) .............................. .29 acres
High Banks warehouse .......................................................................................... 47 acres
True Value regional distribution center ................................................................ .29 acres
A VERA GE ALL SITES ...................................................................................... 63 acres
1 See Attachments 1-6 for aerial maps and tax lot data.
2 Attachment 3, Page 624 of 664
Note that these eight sites average 63 acres, which matches the EOA's determination of average
industrial site size. However, as previously mentioned, since we do not have access to
ECONorthwest's data, we cannot be sure that our analysis exactly matches theirs.
Regardless of the details, it is clear that most of Springfield's large industrial sites are home to
paper and lumber mills. The problem is, these are legacy industries that are not among the city's
targeted industries, so their size is irrelevant to Springfield's future needs. Page 65 of EOA
explains that trends indicating "decline in wood products manufacturing" informed the city's
selection of different targeted industries. Specifically:
"Springfield identified the following types of target industries in manufacturing (as part
of the General Industrial employment category) that require sites 5 acres and larger:
medical equipment, high-tech electronics and manufacturing, recreational equipment,
furniture manufacturing, specialty food processing." (EOA pg. 85, also see Table 5-5)
As explained on page 82 of the EOA, the Goal 9 administrative rule allows cities to specify
"attributes of a site necessary for a particular industrial or other employment use to operate,"
such as size. The meaning of the phrase "a particular industrial use" in this rule has been
interpreted by DLCD to require a certain level of specificity. Industries may be grouped together
for purposes of establishing necessary site characteristics such as size, but only when those
industries have similar operational needs.2
A paper mill, with its need for large sludge ponds, railcar accommodation, and wood storage
yards, has little in common with Springfield's chosen targeted industries: medical equipment,
high-tech electronics and manufacturing, recreational equipment, furniture manufacturing,
specialty food processing. Therefore, the site characteristics of Springfield's existing paper and
lumber mills are not relevant to the required Goal 9 analysis.
Besides the six mills, our above list includes two other existing industrial sites, but both are
warehouses, and distribution is not one of Springfield's targeted industries. Beyond that, while
the entire High Banks warehouse site is 47 acres, as shown by the aerial photo (Attachment 5),
most of it is underwater. The warehouse sits on a section of the shoreline that is considerably
smaller than 20 acres. That leaves the 29-acre True Value regional distribution center as the sole
example of a Springfield warehouse on a 20+ acre site.
2 For more on this topic, see page 17 of the 1123/14 memo from DLCD director Jim Rue to LCDC that was posted as
Agenda Item 4 to the February 13-14, 2014 LCDC Meeting. An excerpt: "In its review ofobjections, the
department interprets the administrative rules to require a city to demonstrate that site characteristics describe
operational needs of particular employment uses or groups of uses with similar operational needs. The department
finds that the term 'particular' should be interpreted in a way that allows a city a reasonable and practical path to
compliance with the rules while addressing its economic development needs. At the same time, it cannot be
construed so broadly that it renders the term 'particular' moot. For example, requiring a city to determine, with
substantial evidence, precise operational and siting needs for semiconductor manufacturing, medical device
manufacturing, and nano & micro technology manufacturing separately is not practical or reasonable. On the other
hand, 'manufacturing' is so broad and encompasses so many different 'particular uses' that implementing site
characteristics at this level would likely not establish an adequate basis for rule compliance, much less address the
practical needs of the city. In this example, 'high tech manufacturing' could be the appropriate level of aggregation
that is still specific enough to be a 'particular use."'
3 Attachment 3, Page 625 of 664
For commercial sites, we found only two 20+ acre sites:3
Peace Health hospital complex (see EOA pg.74) .................................................. 72 acres
Gateway shopping center (all three taxlots) .......................................................... .48 acres
A VERA GE ALL SITES ...................................................................................... 60 acres
Here, too, our average exactly matches the EOA's determination. And once again, it seems clear
that these uses cannot inform Springfield's future site needs. Both uses are large, regional scale
"one offs" that won't be recreated during the next 20 years. In addition, retail is not one of
Springfield's targeted industries:
"Springfield identified the following types of large office employers as target industries
that require sites of five acres or larger: high tech, corporate headquarters, biotech,
professional and technical services, back office, and medical services. These and other
target industries may locate on stand-alone sites or may locate in business parks. The
types of buildings may be typical office buildings, flex buildings, or multiple buildings in
a "campus" environment." (EOA pg. 90, also see Table 5-5 on page 84)
In the absence of any relevant evidence to the contrary, sites that contain at least 20 buildable
acres must be considered suitable to meet the need for "20+ acre sites." This correction will
have significant ramifications when determining the need for additional land outside the UGB,
because currently, the EOA assumes that these sites need to average at least 60 acres in size.
2. Failure to re-designate surplus industrial sites to address commercial deficit
As illustrated by the EOA's Table 5-1 (reproduced below), Springfield has 18 buildable
industrial sites in the 5-20 acre range, but needs only 12 of these, leaving a surplus of 6 sites.
Table 5-1 also shows that Springfield has 4 buildable commercial sites in the 5-20 acre range,
but needs 8 of these, and so has a deficit of 4 sites.
3 See Attachment 7 for aerial map and taxlot data.
4 Attachment 3, Page 626 of 664
Table 5-1. Comparison of vacant land supply and site needs, industrial and
other employment land, Springfield UGB, 2010-2030
Site Size (acres)
Less 20 and
than 1 1to2 2 to 5 5 to 20 Larger
Buildable Land Inventory
Vacant
Industrial 72 24 20 12 0
Commercial and Mixed Use 104 14 6 4 0
Potentially Redevelopable
Industrial 122 28 31 6 1
Commercial and Mixed Use 305 20 15 0 0
Total Buildable Sites
Industrial 194 52 51 18 1
Commercial and Mixed Use 409 34 21 4 0
Site Needs
Needed sites
Industrial 7 7 7 12 3
Commercial and Mixed Use 174 31 23 8 1
Surplus (deficit) of sites
Industrial 187 45 44 6 -2
Commercial and Mixed Use 235 3 -2 -4 -1
Source: ECONorthwest.
Note: The redevelopable sites in Table 5-1 are assumed to increase employment capacity on the redeveloped sites. As
discussed in Chapter 2, redevelopment means a net increase in employment capacity, rather than only the replacement of
an old building with a newer building.
There is nothing wrong with this initial determination. The problem is that the city skipped over
the next step in the process, and jumped directly to a conclusion that the identified deficit of 4
commercial sites in the 5-20 acre range could only be remedied by expansion of the UGB.
Goal 14 and its administrative rules require that each of the existing 18 buildable industrial sites
in the 5-20 acre size class first be assessed to determine whether any could be re-designated to
meet the commercial deficit:
"Prior to expanding the UGB, a local government must demonstrate that the estimated
needs cannot reasonably be accommodated on land already inside the UGB." (OAR 660-
024-0050( 4))
Even though some of these 18 industrial sites might not be appropriate for commercial use, many
probably are suitable. This is especially true since the summary Table 5-5 on page 84 shows
there are no significant differences between the EOA's site characteristics for industrial and
commercial targeted industries on sites larger than 5 acres.
In addition, the UGB expansion areas are not divided into dedicated commercial vs. industrial
sections. Instead, a generic employment land designation would be applied to all the land, with
the final plan designation determined by future planning actions. As the staff report explains:
5 Attachment 3, Page 627 of 664
"The Urban Holding Area-Employment (UHA-E) designation identifies urbanizable
areas within the Springfield UGB to meet Springfield's long term employment land needs
for the 2010-2030 planning period. The UHA-E designation reserves an adequate
inventory of employment sites, including sites 20 acres and larger, that are suitable for
industrial and commercial mixed use employment uses." (Staff report, pg. 89)
Based on these facts, it seems clear that the city considers large commercial and industrial sites
for its targeted industries to be essentially interchangeable. Thus, the identified deficit of 4
commercial sites in the 5-20 acre range could be easily met by strategic re-designation of 4 of the
18 inventoried industrial sites. Since there is currently a surplus of 6 such sites, the re-
designation would still leave the city with a surplus of 2 additional industrial sites.
3. Failure to inventory all existing 20+ acre sites
An accurate inventory of all vacant and redevelopable sites is a critical part of any UGB
evaluation. It appears that several 20+ acre sites were not captured by the city's inventory.
The above Table 5-1 states that Springfield has no vacant commercial or industrial sites in the
20+ acre size class, and has only one re-developable site. It seems clear that this re-developable
site is Jasper Natron taxlot 1802100000200, which is depicted on page 33 of the EOA. The staff
report explains that it was inventoried as a 20+ acre site:
"The largest potentially redevelopable site is a 47-acre parcel in the Jasper-Natron
Special Heavy Industrial District (Taxlot: 1802100000200. This site has approximately
36 acres of unconstrained land * * * The City reasoned that this site could provide one of
the City's needed sites 20 acres and larger." (Staff report, pg. 69-70)
We agree that this is a 20+ acre site. However, we found four other employment sites that
appear to contain 20+ acres of buildable land, yet do not appear in that category on the city's
inventory. They are:
Wildish site, Glenwood area
The "Wildish site" is a 31-acre parcel in the Glenwood area of Springfield, located on the west
bank of the Willamette River. It is depicted as a Light Medium Industrial vacant site (light pink
color) in the lower left comer of Map 2-3 on page 24 of the EOA. Below is a close up view of
that part of Map 2-3 alongside an aerial map showing the lot boundaries.4
4 Also see Attachment 8, a printout from Lane County's taxlot mapping system showing that the parcel is 31.27
acres, including the building. The building is in the "notch" that is missing from the site on Map 2-3. The notch
area appears to be about 2 acres in size, so the actual vacant buildable area is somewhere between 25 and 30 acres.
6
Attachment 3, Page 628 of 664
•
A review of the current FEMA flood map (Attachment 9) shows that virtually none of this parcel
is within the floodway. Some areas are within the floodplain, but the EOA does not consider that
to be a prohibitive constraint. In fact, the entire proposed Gateway expansion area is within the
floodplain. The FEMA map also includes topography; the site is nearly level with only a few
feet of difference from one end to the other. Finally, the Glenwood Local Wetlands Inventory
(Attachment 10) shows there are no delineated wetlands on the site. Therefore, there appear to
be no constraints that would reduce the buildable portion of this site below 20 acres.
In 2012, the Wildish site was re-designated as "Employment Mixed Use" by the Glenwood
Refinement Plan adopted as Springfield Ordinance 6279. That designation preserved this site's
status as an important 20+ acre employment site included in Springfield's Commercial and
Industrial Buildable Lands Inventory (CIBL). Ordinance 6279's findings stated that the Wildish
property is a 20+ acre employment site requiring protection from future land divisions:
"The proposed Glenwood Refinement Plan Housing and Economic Development
Chapter, Economic Development Section states: 'Nearly all parcels in the Glenwood
Riverfront are classified in the CIBL as vacant or potentially redevelopable industrial,
commercial, and mixed-use sites. The proposed plan designations for the Glenwood
Riverfront, as described in the Land Use and Built Form Chapter, will result in vacant
and redevelopable parcels in the Glenwood Riverfront contributing to Springfield's
commercial and industrial buildable lands supply .... There is a citywide deficit of
industrial parcels greater than 20 acres, and there is a deficit of commercial and mixed-
use parcels greater than 1 acre. Therefore, parcels sized in these categories must be
7 Attachment 3, Page 629 of 664
maintained or increased (through parcel consolidation) to preserve the commercial and
industrial land supply.' The limitation on land divisions is necessary to protect
commercial and industrial land of both small and large (20 or more acres, for example
the Wildish property) acreages as specified in CIBL." (Springfield Ord. 6279, Exhibit A-
40, emphasis added)
Given the above information, we cannot understand why the Wildish site was not included in the
inventory as a 20+ acre site. If it was deemed to have less than 20 acres, and hence was
inventoried as only a 5-20 acre site, that would appear to have been an error. Based on what we
know, we think it should be inventoried as either a commercial or an industrial 20+ acre site, and
the UGB expansion reduced accordingly. If the city has evidence to the contrary, we would
appreciate a chance to review that information and modify our testimony.
Brand S Road, Jasper-Natron area
The EOA evaluated a 29-acre mill site on Brand S Road in the Jasper-Natron area (taxlot
1802100000900) for redevelopment potential, and concluded it had none:
"The site has more than 24 acres of unconstrained land. This site is owned and used by a
wood products manufacturer. As long as the business is operational and continues to use
this site, it will be unavailable for redevelopment." (EOA, pg. 36)
Since the inventory was performed many years ago, we are unsure if the city realizes that
recently, nearly all the buildings on this site were demolished. As shown on the county tax
printout (Attachment 11), the real market value of the site's improvements was reduced from
$236,570 in 2014 to $27,470 in 2015. The remaining structure appears to be a small outbuilding
in the southwest comer, an area that is separated from the rest of the parcel by Brand S Road.
It is evident from the below aerial photo that the other buildings have been tom down to the
ground, and the debris has been removed. Therefore, the site is now ready for redevelopment,
and so must be counted as a 20+ acre site in the inventory.
8 Attachment 3, Page 630 of 664
Marcola Meadows
Marcola Meadows is a 100-acre master planned site that is depicted with an orange color near
the center of Map 2-2 on page 20 of the EOA. Below is an aerial view of the site.
9 Attachment 3, Page 631 of 664
The EOA states that it inventoried the 44-acre portion that would contain employment uses:
"The inventory also includes two sites with approved master plans: Riverbend and
Marcola Meadows. These sites have master plans that approve a specific amount of
employment. The CIBL only inventoried the portion of these sites that are approved for
employment uses." (EOA, pg. 19)
"Marcola Meadows is a master-planned proposed mixed use project located on a vacant
100-acre parcel in Springfield. The project is expected to include about 190 single unit
detached homes, about 120 townhouses, about 120 homes in apartments, and 54 homes
for senior living. The total proposed land requirement of the residential village would be
39 acres. The Marcola Meadows Master Plan includes a commercial anchor
development, professional offices and retail. The planned commercial component will
occupy about 44 acres. The remaining land in the development will be used for common
open space and streets." (EOA, pg.74)
Since Marcola Meadows will accommodate well over 20 acres of commercial uses, we do not
understand why this site wasn't inventoried as a 20+ acre site. Either the inventory should be
amended to include Marco la Meadows in the count of 20+ acre sites, or additional evidence and
findings should explain why it cannot provide such a site.
International Paper
The International Paper ownership is hundreds of acres in size and spans several adjacent lots.
The entire complex is shown on the attached aerial photo (Attachment 12). The southern part of
this ownership -which is at least 75 acres in size -has no improvements and is not being used in
conjunction with the paper mill operation; it is a grass field. However, the site has not been
included in the city's inventory of 20+ acre sites.
This southern portion is made up of four lots. Three are vacant; these are approximately 5, 10,
and 25 acres in size. The fourth lot contains 117 acres, and has improvements in its northern
portion. The lot boundaries and sizes are depicted on the printouts from Lane County's taxlot
mapping system (Attachment 13). The printouts also establish the common ownership of all four
lots and the lack of any improvements on the three smaller lots.
Below is a recent Google Earth image of the portion of the paper mill ownership that we think
should have been inventoried as a 20+ acre site. The Google measurement box shows that the
polygon outlined in red contains almost 80 acres. The approximate internal lot lines are shown
as dashed white lines, and the location of three former paper mill sludge ponds are shown as
solid white lines. The northern part ofthis area is the vacant portion of the 117-acre lot (roughly
40 acres); the three smaller lots to the south are entirely vacant (they are 5, 10 and 25 acres, for a
total of another 40 acres).
10 Attachment 3, Page 632 of 664
-172 .....
~ 71.0 ~
The redevelopment potential of the partially developed 117-acre lot is discussed on page 36 of
the EOA. Despite the absence of improvements on the 40-acre southern portion, it was
determined to have no capacity because, "This site is owned and used by a paper mill. As long as
the paper mill is operational and continues to use this site, it will be unavailable for
redevelopment."
Because the record does not explain how individual lots were inventoried, we cannot determine
how the three vacant lots were classified. Were they correctly considered to be one 40-acre site,
since they have common ownership? Or was each lot erroneously considered to be a separate
site? As best we can ascertain, the EOA's Map 2-4 is the only place that gives any indication of
which land was inventoried, and what constraints exist. 5 A close up of the relevant part of Map
2-4 is reproduced below; the three vacant lots are in the purple area.
5 We have asked staff for tax lot specific information, and were told that the information is only available in the form
of a Microsoft Access database, and that it would require a public information request to obtain. We do not
understand how Map 2-4 could be sufficient to comply with the Goal 9 rule's inventory requirements. For example,
it is not possible to determine the site characteristics that each site has, because the size is not provided for any
individual lot or aggregations thereof. OAR 660-009-0015(3) requires that information:
"(a) For sites inventoried under this section, plans must provide the following information:
(A) The description, including site characteristics, of vacant or developed sites within each plan or
zoning district;
(8) A description of any development constraints or infrastructure needs that affect the buildable
area of sites in the inventory;"
11 Attachment 3, Page 633 of 664
The former sludge ponds are marked light blue with green diagonal stripes; the map's legend
says that color indicates "Wetlands." These are not natural wetlands; the ponds were mapped as
"Other Waters" on the city's wetlands inventory in the 1990s (Attachment 14), when they
apparently still contained water. Today, however, the ponds have been abandoned and now are
grass fields.
The former pond areas contain little to no hydric soil (one of the distinguishing features of
wetlands), as illustrated by soils data on the county printout for the 25-acre taxlot that contains
the two southern ponds (Attachment 13). Therefore, it seems unlikely that any substantial parts
of these areas are still bona fide jurisdictional wetlands, now that the ponds have been drained.
In fact, former sludge ponds are generally viewed as potential brownfields needing
environmental remediation, and are often excellent candidates for redevelopment.
Even assuming that the entire area of the former sludge ponds are jurisdictional wetlands
unusable for any purpose, there would still be 30 acres of vacant buildable land in the three
vacant lots alone -they contain 40 acres of land, with at most, 10 acres of wetlands. Therefore,
no matter how the partially developed 117-acre lot is evaluated, we think that at the very least,
these three vacant lots should be inventoried as a 20+ acre site.
Regarding the exclusion of the vacant portion of the partially developed 117-acre lot, we have
considered the explanation provided by the city on page 36 of the EOA: "This site is owned and
used by a paper mill. As long as the paper mill is operational and continues to use this site, it will
be unavailable for redevelopment."
We are unsure if the city erroneously believes that this unimproved portion is still being actively
used by the mill. Alternatively, perhaps the city does realize the southern portion is not being
used, but believes that since the northern portion is being used, the entire lot should be excluded
from inventory. Or, the city may believe that this site should not be counted because the paper
mill might start using it in the future.
Even if the paper mill is the most likely future user of this site, and not some other employer, that
would not diminish its future employment capacity. Any jobs created by the paper mill in a
12 Attachment 3, Page 634 of 664
future expansion onto this site would meet Springfield's employment needs just as well as any
other newly created jobs. The employment forecast and land need determination do not
differentiate between new jobs added by existing employers and jobs created by new firms. It
doesn't make sense to ignore obvious buildable capacity that is already served with
infrastructure, and expand the UGB to address a perceived land shortage that doesn't really exist.
For all the reasons above, we think that the International Paper ownership contains a minimum of
30 buildable acres on the three vacant lots, and at maximum, up to 75 acres across all four lots.
The exact amount depends on the regulatory status of the former sludge ponds and the treatment
of the 11 7-acre partially developed site. Either way, this is a 20+ acre site, and should be
included in the city's inventory as such.
4. Goal 9 rule requires unimproved log storage yards to be inventoried as vacant
The Sundance lumber mill sits on one lot, but it stores logs on three adjacent lots that together
comprise about 14 acres. All four lots are depicted below. The tax printouts (Attachment 15)
show the only permanent improvements are on the lot where the mill itself sits.
Per the Goal 9 rule, these three unimproved lots must be inventoried as vacant land:
"'Vacant Land' means a lot or parcel:
13 Attachment 3, Page 635 of 664
(a) Equal to or larger than one half-acre not currently containing permanent buildings or
improvements; or
(b) Equal to or larger than five acres where less than one half-acre is occupied by
permanent buildings or improvements." (OAR 660-009-0005(14))
Despite the reality that some businesses do use adjacent vacant lots to store their materials or
products, there is no provision in the current Goal 9 rule for excluding such lots from inventory.
This situation was considered during LCDC's 2014 review of the Newberg UGB expansion. In
its review, the Commission determined that a vacant lot used to site dumpsters by a waste
disposal company had to be considered vacant; the same is true with these three log storage lots.
If the Goal 9 rule is ever revised in the future (and we think it badly needs to be), we would
support changes to better capture the employment capacity of both vacant and improved sites.
However, until that happens, the rule should be followed. The three adjacent lots contain a total
of about 14 acres, and so should be added to the inventory as one additional 5-20 acre site.
Conclusion
To summarize our testimony:
a) There is no relevant evidence supporting the city's claim that its need for 20+ acre
employment sites can only be met by sites that average 60+ acres in size.
b) There is no evidence or findings demonstrating that the city's need for four additional
5-20 acre commercial sites cannot be met via re-designation of surplus industrial sites.
c) There are as many as four additional 20+ acre employment sites that were not included
in the city 's inventory.
d) There is an additional 5-20 acre site that was not included in the city's inventory.
Taken together, these problems significantly overstate the city's need for UGB expansion. Once
they are corrected, the need to expand for employment uses will be substantially reduced, and
possibly even eliminated.
If, after addressing these concerns, there still remains a need for additional 20+ acre sites, we
would support the proposed Mill Race UGB expansion, which would provide 125 unconstrained
buildable acres, including two sites that are 20+ acres in size. Most of the Mill Race area is out
of the floodplain. In addition, it was determined to be the least expensive candidate expansion
area to serve by the UGB Study Areas Serviceability and Cost Analysis, which was presented to
the Springfield City Council on April 28, 2014. The Mill Race would cost far less to serve than
the Gateway area, yet would provide roughly the same amount of buildable land.
Regarding the handful of smaller properties in the Mill Race expansion area, we can accept
staff's recommendation that these should also be included in the UGB, despite the lack of
14 Attachment 3, Page 636 of 664
demonstrated need. Page 151 of the staff reports explain that these small parcels "would likely
provide future access and services to the suitable large parcels," and also that excluding this area
would leave it stranded as an island surrounded by all sides by urbanized land, leaving a "donut
hole in the donut" of the Metro Plan Boundary.
However, we cannot support any part of the Gateway expansion. The entire area is within the
floodplain, and much of it is environmentally sensitive. Springfield's own staff have cautioned
that pending regulatory changes may make development of this area infeasible. According to the
city 's 2014 UGB Study Areas Serviceability and Cost Analysis, the cost to provide services to
this area exceeds $125 million. This seems likely to be a terrible investment, in light of these
additional regulations and subsequent reduction in buildable area.
The portions of the Gateway expansion area that are not wetland, riparian area or sloped are
predominantly Class 2 farmland, and are currently making a valuable contribution to Lane
County's rural economy. Given the substantial financial and regulatory barriers to development,
farming is likely the highest and best long-term use for this area. We ask that the city and county
not approve the Gateway expansion, and instead retain the existing agricultural designation.
In addition, we urge the city to rethink its reliance on UGB expansions to provide future
employment capacity. The tremendous cost of extending infrastructure to the urban fringe would
have city-wide ramifications. Since it does not appear likely that landowners could pay their own
way (the city's cost estimate for the Gateway improvements is about $100,000 per useable acre,
possibly more than the finished land would be worth), SDCs would probably need to be
substantially increased in order to service the new land. This would be a hidden subsidy, paid by
every homebuilder and business creating new housing and employment anywhere in the city.
Beyond these cost concerns, a large supply of new urbanizable land outside the current UGB will
harm Springfield's efforts to revitalize and redevelop downtown, Glenwood, and other areas like
East Main Street. It will also undercut urban property owners who have already invested heavily
in their land and buildings, and who may have spent decades faithfully paying taxes to the city.
A more compact UGB would better support Springfield's existing stakeholders, reduce commute
times and transportation costs for Springfield residents, and better meet coming greenhouse gas
reduction targets. All these things support values nearly everyone cares about: fairness, a higher
quality of life, better affordability and a healthier environment.
Sincerely,
~
Mia Nelson
Willamette Valley Advocate
1000 Friends of Oregon
P.O. Box 51252
Eugene, OR 97452
541.520.3 763
15 Attachment 3, Page 637 of 664
Attachments:
1-Sierrapine mill tax printout
2-International Paper tax printout
3-Swanson mill tax printout
4-Rosboro mill tax printout
5-High Banks warehouse tax printout
6-True Value warehouse tax printout
7-Gateway mall tax printout
8-Wildish site tax printout
9-Wildish site FEMA map
10-Glenwood L WI (2 pg.)
11-Brand S Road tax printout
12-International Paper aerial map
13-International Paper taxlot printouts (5 pg.)
14-International Paper wetlands map
15-Sundance mill tax printouts (5 pg.)
16 Attachment 3, Page 638 of 664
ExplOre Crea:e Pan IZ-lnl Zoom Out Full Pre'llious Exteri Extent Nsv19a!lon Selected Results (1) « View History Refine Results I Tallie V11?N I ·~ 1702280000902 .• Taxlol Map & Taxlot Number: 170228()()()()9()2 Site Address 1of1: 80048TH ST Tax Account Numllel 1: 1668613 Property Owner 1. SIERRAPINE Approximate Taxlol Acreaoe: 70. 99 Select None RUD Reports: ;:"IT] Bi other Links. ~"' Enable Map rips •l • Search F04" Sele<! T8JdoUAddress By Point Se, 'I/ ,,_, Cl rJ Select By Select Select By Select By Freehand By Line Polyoon Rectangle r .· ~ Get Taxlols Gel Addresses From Ad<tesses From Taxtots x Clear Selection Attachment 1 ,1 • Attachment 3, Page 639 of 664
Explore Create ~ '\.. Enable Map Tip• Pan I Zoom In I Zoom Out Ful Previous !lioploy for Extent Extent Na.ioabon Selected Resurts (2) « View History Reline Results I Table View I /llJ, 1702290002903 Tax lot Map & TaxlOt Number. 1702290002903 Site Address 1of1: 801 42ND ST Tax Account Number 1 · 171f78~ Property OWner 1: IP EAT THREE L.LC Approximate Taxlot Acreage: 175 48 RUD Reports: :A:l[!]EJ Otller Lin.<s· <:::g' 1702320000105 Tax lot Map & Taxlot Number. 1702320000105 Site Address 1 of1· 785 42ND ST Tax Account Number 1· 1833837 Property Ot..ner 1: IP EAT THREE L.LC Approxlmate Taxlot Acreage: 117.41 Map Tips View Selected » Select None RUD Reports: A'.l[!JEJ Other Links: ~f.! ~~ . ' Attachment 2 1' 0 rJ ~ x Ge!Tulots Gal Addresses °""' From Addresses From Taxlots Salee lion Search For Select Selocl By Select Selecl By Seloct By Tulot/Address By Point Freehand By line Polyqon Roctangle Seorch TllXlol Sele:bon AddrHS Se.,c:.On Clean Up Attachment 3, Page 640 of 664
Explore Crea!e ~ (+ Glj Enable Map Tips Pan Zoom In Zoom Out Full Previous Extent ·Extent Navigation S.lectad Results (1} « View History Refine Results I Table VieW I 1103350000300 Taxlor Map & Taxlot Number: 17033:50000300 Sije Address 1 of 1. 1651 SF ST Tax Account Number 1. 302061 Map lips View Selected » Select None Property Owner 1: SWANS01V GROUP MFG LLC Approximate TaxlotAcreage: 35.66 RUD Reports ~ 0~ other links ~ I'~~ 5] ll ~ Search For TaxlollAddress Attachment 3 • 'V 'v 0 f] r ·l ~ x Selett Select By Select Select By Select By GetTaxlots GetAd<lr~s Clear By Point Freehand By Line Polygon Reclanale From Addresses From TIDClols Selec6on Attachment 3, Page 641 of 664
Explore create ~ ' + En8ble Map Tips Pan Zoom In Zoom Out f\JI PreVIOUS Ocsplay for _ • Extent Extent Navigation Selected Results (1) « V'tew History Refine Results I Table View I 1703360000100 Taxlol Map & Taxlot Number: 1703360000100 Site Address 1 of 5: 2:509 MAIN ST Tax Account Number 1: 318103 Property Owner 1: ROSBORO LLC Approximate TaxlotAcreage: 70.39 RUD Reports: .::: ITJ [!3 Other Links. Map Tips V'iew Selected » Select None ;:..;~ • 1' Q 0 Search For Select Si!lect By Select Select By Select By Taxlot/Address By Point Freehand By Line Polygon Rectall!lle Search Taxlo1 Selectioo Get Taxlols From Addres~es ~ Get Addresses From Taxlots Attachment 4 x Clear Selection Address Selection Qean Up 1"1~ -~-~ Attachment 3, Page 642 of 664
Explore Create Enable Map Tips Pan I Zoom In Zoom Out Full Previous Extent Extent Navigation Map Tips Selected Results (1) « V-tew History Refine Results I Table View View Selected » Select None 1702280000401 Taxlor Map & Taxlot Number: 1702280000401 Site Address 1 of 1: 5280 HIGH BANKS RD Tax Account Number 1: 112464 Property Owner 1: DEFOE RONAW MAJOR ApproXimate TaxlotAcreage: 46. 75 RUD Reports: i" [I~ Other links: ;~ .... 5 !!! • Cl ~ Setirch For Select Select By Select Select By Select By Gel Taxlots Gett Taxlot/Address By Point Freehand By Line Polygon Rectangle From Addresse<J Fror Search Taxlot Selection Adore~ Attachment 3, Page 643 of 664
Explore Create \51 Enable Map Tips Pan I ZOom In I Zoom Ou1 f1Jll PreVIOUs ~ Display fOf. Extent Extent Mavigation Selected Results (1) « View History Refine Results I Table View I ~ 17032~200100 Taxlor Map & Taxlot Number: 17032!>4200100 Site Address 1Of1:21!500LYMPIC ST Tax Account Number 1: 1098~ View Selected » select None Property Owner 1: HAMMER (DE) LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Approximate TaxlotAcreage: 28.64 RUD Reports: i° IIJ!Sl Other links: ~:.~ r6.l ~J • 1t a 0 Search For Selecl Select By Select Seleel By Select By Get Taxlots T8Xlol/Addre" By Point Freehand By Line Polygon Rectangle From Addf8$se' ~ Get Ad<lresses From Taxtots Attachment 6 x Clear Selection Attachment 3, Page 644 of 664
llJ Enable Map Tips Pan I Zoom In Zoom Out Full Previous Extenl Extent N8vigabon Selected Results (3) « View History Refine Results I Table View 1703220002218 Taxlot Map & Taxlot Number: 1703220002218 Site Address 1 of 2: 3040 GA TEWA y ST Tax Account Number 1: 1459140 Property Owner 1: GATEWAY MALL PARTNERS Approximate Taidot Acreage: 8. 78 RUD Reports:~[!]~ Other Linl<s: r~..o: 1703220002200 ~ Taxlot Map & Taxlot Number: 1703220002200 Site Address 1 of 92: 3000 GATEWAY ST SPACE 3582 Tax Account Number 1: 188373 Property Owner 1: GATEWAY MALL PARTNERS Approximate Taxlot Acreage: 29.40 RUD Reports:~[!]~ Other Linl<s: ii ll ~ 1703220002300 Taxlot Map & Taxlot Number: 1703220002300 Site Address 1 of 14: 3000 GATEWAY ST SPACE 900 Tax Account Number 1: 188449 Property OWner 1: GATEWAY MALL PARTNERS Approximate TaxlotAcreage: 11.01 RUD Reports: ;:[!]EJ Other lin!cs: ..!' H.;..,,;: r;-1 :-=r.1 Display for :: • Q rJ Search For Select Select By Seletl Select By Select By Gel Tllldots Taxlol/Address By Point Freehand By Line Polygon Rectangle From Addresses ~ Get Address~ From Taxlots Clear Selection Attachment 3, Page 645 of 664
En11ble Mep lips Pan I Zoom In Zoom CM Na"'11)ation Selected Results {1} « View History Refine Results I Table View I View Selected » Select None ~ 1803022003200 Tax/or Map & Taxlot Number: 1803022003200 Site Address 1 of 2: 5001 FRANKLJN BLVD 1 Tax Account Number 1: 579449 Property Owner 1: WILD/SH LAND CO Approximate TaxlotAcreage: 31.27 RUD Reports: i"JII~ Other links: ~ :~-.;;. • Cl fJ Search For Select Select By Seletl Select By Select By Texlot/Address By Point Free.h11nd By Line Polygon Rectangle Gel TllXlots From Addresses ~ Gel Addresses From Taxlots x Clear Selection Attachment 3, Page 646 of 664
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
415592
E STREET
Attachment 9
Legend
-1%annual chance
(100-Year) Floodplain
- 1 % annual chance (100-Year) Floodway
c::J 0.2% annual chance
~ (500-Year) Floodplain r-~~~~-'-~~~~-'-~~~J.r~~~+-~~~D~S~TR~E~ET!..+~~-++~~~~~~~~-~-~~,.--~~~~~~~~
_J w z <( a.
(f) z Q
44°01'52.00"
123°01·s2.oo·
C STREET
82
SITE
MAP SCALE 1" = 500'
250 0 500 1aa~ 1FEET
METERS 150
PANEL 1142F
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
AND INCORPORATED AREAS
11AP NUMBER
41039C1142F
EFFECTIVE DATE
JUNE2, 1999
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
/ LANE COUNTY
LANE COUNTY
UNINCORPORATED AREAS
415591
ASH STREET
2
Attachment 3, Page 647 of 664
~ ___ G_le=-=--n~w:__:ood _bWI Map lndexAttachment 10
Legend
--streets
--Railroads
Surface Drainages
Type
-----Ditch
--Stream
Sample Points
Public Land Survey System
0 Sixth Field HUC
Probable Wetlands
Probable Wetlands
Stormwater Facility
L!:J wet1ands
Cowardin Classification
PEM: Marsh
PFO: Forested
PSS· Shrub-Scrub
M PUB:Pond
DralnageBasins
Name
Glenwood Slough Basin
Willamette River Basin
tax lots
c::3 Study Area Boundary
A 1
8_2
SITE
Sheet 1 • Glenwood Area of s r" f 1 ;.IAJ;,;.:::;:--;:=-:::-==-===========
Information shown on tnis map is for lo nl p mg ie d Local Wetlands Inventory N
the map date, and Is subject to chang: ~h °f pur:r>°se1, represents the condiUons that exist at
approximate. There may be unmapped ~I oc;tion and extent of wetlands and other waters Is ~ulation. A current Oregon Depam:~t 8~ : and other waters present that are subject to
required for state removal-fill permits Yo 0 ;,ate Lands-approved wetland delineation Is
and the U.S. Army Corps 0~ :,;,~~~~.~•contact th1 • Department of State Lands ~--------__:_.::.:._=: ui ny regu atory questions.
~~~~~~~~
1 inch = 433 feet A
0 250 500 1,000 Feet
I
(
Data of Final Map
preparation: 21411 O
~~~~~!:~~IN=Ot.V
..._, t..-w-z:. o...~ .... -..,.~ Attachment 3, Page 648 of 664
Glenwood LWI Map @-2) --------------------
_s 2
18S3W3
Legend
--streets
--Railroads
Surface Drainages
Type
---·Ditch
--Stream
Sample Points
Public Land Survey System
[' Sixth Field HUC
Probable Wetlands •
Probable Wetlands •
[> Stormwater Facility
c:Jwetiands
Cowardln Classification
PEM: Marsh
PFO: Forested
PSS· Shrub-Scrub
"' PUB: Pond
Drainage Basins
Name
Glenwood Slough Basin
Willamette River Basin
taxlots
C3 Study Area Boundary
18S3W10
"AprobllbtlWiltlendaiiPNISklmMt
....m-t~0Ut•<0-6-~
ori111m1lwadcfuna~-
\
w
\
\
\
\
\. \
\\
\ l
amette R ve• Basin I
I
I i
I ! /
\ WR-7 12 I
~ -----1 !
~ \_ i\ \\ ~ \ ~ ~ '\
~\
I
Sheet 4 -Glenwood Area of Springfield Local Wetlands Inventory
Information shown on this map is for planning purposes. represents the conditions that exist at
the map date, and is subject to change. The location and extent of wetlands and other waters 1s
approximate. There may be unmapped wetlands and other waters present that are subject to
regulation. A current Oregon Department of state Lends-approved wetland delineation is
required for state removal-fill permits. You are advised to contact the Department of State Lands ~U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with any regulatory questions.
~Fl'll:OVED "'WI ll>VINTOR\' '>rttl"' o.p.,,,,,, ~· ·• ~tOl•t..ftds
li+.t ~~ o.i.~ -;;:~a
18S3W2
18SlW11
1 inch = 200 feet
250 500
N A
Date of Flnal Map
preparation: 214/10
1,000 Feet
Attachment 3, Page 649 of 664
Detailed Property Report Site Address 36417 BRANDS RD Springfield, OR 97478-9502 Map & Taxlot# 18-02-10-00-00900 SIC N/A Tax Account# 0567451 a a Additional site address( es) are associated with this tax account Map & Taxlot # 18-02-10-00-00900 Property Values & Taxes Property Owner 1 PERSON LEONA M 2189 STONE CREST DR EUGENE, OR 97401 Tax account acreage 31.94 Mapped taxlot acreaget 29.63 Attachment 111 t Mapped Taxlot Acreage is the estimated size of a taxlot as derfred from the county GIS tax1ot layer, and is not to be used for legal purposes. The values shown are the values certified in October unless a value change has been processed on the property. Value changes typically occur as a result of appeals, clerical errors and omitted property. The tax shown is the amount certified in October. This is the full amount of tax for the year indicated and does not include any discounts offered, payments made, interest owing or previous years owing. It also does not reflect any value changes. Keat Market vame LKM v J i otru ASsessea v ame Tl!J' -Jljf '.IAllll ": .... •:dfl. ..Dml ,.. ,'-:~>::--..;,: ; ( .· ... ---, ~ -·· 2015 :i;707,23~ !!i27,47C :i;734,70~ :i;725,24 :i;7,207.85 2014 :i;707,239 :i;230,57c :i;943,80~ :i;903,427 !!i9,193-40 2013 !ji686,tJ40 :i;245,10c :i;931,740 :i;877,ll~ :i;25,737.ot 2012 ;i,mm,040 :i;253,35c $939,99C $851,56/ $7,247·77 20ll ;i,000,040 :i;721,9:.ui !jil,408,50~ !jil,219,404 :i;7,434.77 2010 :i;o93,572 :i;o13,773 !jil,307,34' :i;1,059,oo/ :i;7,712.58 2009 $877,940 ;i>oo5,045 :i;1,502,98; :i;984,75~ :i;7,852.9~ 2008 !!i805,450 :i;ooo,091 :j;l,472,14 :i;950,07< :i;7,410.03 2007 :i;730,840 $550,725 $1,281,56; $844,720 $7,404-4? 2006 :i;o70,700 :i;350,070 !jil,020,770 !ji0??,908 $7,448.72 2005 $501,200 :i;285,040 :i;780,9oc :i;o58,103 !ji7,28o.l~ 2004 $439.700 :i;207,330 $707,030 :i;o38,993 :i;o,907.90 2003 :i;472,790 $285,390 :i;758,180 $620,302 $6,5ll.l0 2002 :i;470,530 $2o8,22C :i;744,750 $002,313 $0,288.5, 2001 $512,400 :i;289,ooo :j;802,00C :i;584,770 !jio,108.33 2000 $457.500 :i;351,078 :j;808,57t :i;507,738 :i;5,975.73 1999 :i;387,710 $324,371 $712,081 $551,202 $5,681.96 1998 :i;387,710 $335,390 $723,100 $535,148 $5,022.35 1997 :i;383,870 :i;335,390 :i;719,200 :i;519,501 :i;5,739.90 1990 $299,900 :i;277,39c :i;577,290 :i;577,290 !!i4.492-42 1995 :i;299,900 :i;277,390 :i;577,290 $577,290 :i;4,512.44 Attachment 3, Page 650 of 664
Attachment 3, Page 651 of 664
Explore Create Pen I Zoom In Zoom Out Full Previous Extent Extent NaV19abon Selected R.sults (4) G{j Enable Map Tips ~ Display for .. • Mapnps « View History Refine Results I Table View I View Selected » Sele<:t None ~ 1702320000105 Tax/or Map & Taxtot Number: 170232000010~ Site Address 1of1: 78~ 42ND ST Tax Account Number 1: 1833837 Property OWner 1: IP EAT THREE LLC Approximate Tax.totAcreaoe: 117.41 RUD Reports: ~[!]El other Links: ~ 1702320000401 Taxlol Map & Taxtot Number: 1702320000401 Site Address 1 of O: Tax Account Number 1: 126142 Property OWner 1: IP EAT THREE LLC Approximate Tax.tot Acreage: g 6 7 RUD Reports: ~[!]E'.] Other Links: 1702320000501 Taxlot Map & Taxlot Number: 1702320000001 SiteAddcess 1 ofO: Tax Account Number 1: 126167 Property OWner 1: IP EAT THREE LLC Approximate Tax.tot Acreage: 25.07 J..: ... RUD Reports: :ii:'.[!][3 Other Links:~, .. .,,. fi!J,• 1702322401500 Tax/or Map & Taxlot Number: 1702322401[>()() Site Address 1 of O: Tax Account Number 1: 126.563 Property OWner 1: IP EAT THREE LLC Approximate Taxlot Acreaoe: 4. g 1 [!]~ Other Links:~ ... [fi] Q] • a rJ Sean:h For Select Select By Select Select By Select By T8Xlot/Address By Poirrl Freehand By Line Polygon Rec!!lngle Seen:h Taxloi Sele:!IOl'I Gel Taxlols From Addresses Attachment 13 ~ Get Addresses From Taxlots Clear Selection Address Selection Clean Up Attachment 3, Page 652 of 664
Produced by Landwatch Lane County on 9/12/2016 at 10:48AM using RLID (www.rlid.org) Page 1 of2
Detailed Property Report
Site Address 785 42ND ST Springfield, OR 97478-5781
Map & Taxlot#17-02-32-oo-00105
SIC N/A
Tax Account# 1833837
Map & Taxlot # 17-02-32-00-00105
Environmental Data
FEMA F1ood Hazard Zone
Code Description
AE Areas of 100-year flood, base flood elevations determined.
X Areas determined to be outside of 500-year flood.
FIRM Map Number 41039Cu62F
Community Number 415592
Post-FIRM Date 09/27/1985
Panel Printed? Yes
Soils
Soil Map Unit# Soil Type Description % ofTaxlotAg Class Hydric %
32 Coburg-Urban land complex 45% 2 4
u9 Salem-Urban land complex 38% 2 0
101 Oxley-Urban land complex 10% 3 5
no Pits 4% 8 0
97 w
Newberg-Urban land complex2%
Water 2%
2
8
0
0
Property Values & Taxes
Property Owner 1
IP EAT THREE LLC
POBOX2u8
MEMPHIS, TN 38101
Tax account acreage u9.05
Mapped taxlot acreaget ll7-41
t Ma1:11:icd Taxlot Acreage is the estimated size of a taxlot as dcri\'cd from
the oounty CIS taxlot layer, and Ls not to be used for legal purposes.
The values shown are the values certified in October unless a value change has been processed on the property. Value changes typically occur as a result of appeals,
clerical errors and omitted property. The tax shown is the amount certified in October. This is the full amount of tax for the year indicated and does not include any
discounts offered, payments made, interest owing or previous years owing. It also does not reflect any value changes.
Attachment 3, Page 653 of 664
Produced by Landwatch Lane County on 9/12/2016 at 10:48AM using RLID (www.rlid.org) Page l of2
Detailed Property Report
SiteAddress N/A
Map & Trudot#17-02-32-oo-00401
SIC N/A
TaxAccount# 0126142
Map & Trudot # 17-02-32-00-00401
Environmental Data
FEMA Flood Hazard Zone
Code Description
X Areas determined to be outside of 500-year flood.
FIRM Map Number 41039Cu62F
Community Number 415592
Post-FIRM Date 09/27/1985
Panel Printed? Yes
Soils
Soil Map Unit#Soil Type Description % ofTrudotAg ClassHydric %
32 Coburg-Urban land complex61% 2 4
u9 Salem-Urban land complex 39% 2 o
Property Values & Taxes
Property Owner 1
IP EAT THREE LLC
PO BOX2118
MEMPHIS, TN 38101
Tax account acreage 9-48
Mapped taxlot acreaget 9.67
t Mapped Taxlot. Acreage is the estimated size of a taxlot as derived from
the oountyGIS taxlot laycr, 11nd is not to be used for k-ga) purposes.
The values shown are the values certified in October unless a value change has been processed on the property. Value changes typically occur as a result of appeals,
clerical errors and omitted property. The tax shown is the amount certified in October. This is the full amount of tax for the year indicated and does not include any
discounts offered, payments made, interest owing or previous years owing. It also does not reflect any value changes.
Kea1 MarKet vame lKM v J Total ASsessea va1ue Ta>
' J '»Ci ': , ,, ''<i " :Cr-!': ',;efz. -..·. .,,. ' ,,
2015 $456,02 :i;o :i;45t>,02 :jilt>0,19' $2,8t>7.5:
2014 $456,02 :i;o H5t>,02, :i;155,52~ $2,824.23
2013 $442,740 $0 :i;442,745 :i;150,99~ :i;2,7(>9.l8
2012 $442,740 $0 $442,745 :i;14t>,t>OO :i;2,513.10
201l $442,740 $0 $442,745 $142,330 :i;2,445.71
2010 $447,218 $0 $447,218 $138,184 $2,37t>-43
2009 :i;5t>t>,099 $0 $566,099 $134,159 :i;2,31t>.99
2008 $519,351 $0 $519,357 $130,251 :i;2,278.4<
2007 :i;519,351 $0 $519,357 :i;12t>,457 :i;2,ot>2.32
200(> $480,88; $0 $480,887 :i;122,774 :i;2,004.09
2005 $429,304 $0 $429,3t>4 :i;u9,198 $1,959.94
2004 $373,360 $0 :i;373,3t>o :i;u5,720 $1,922.30
2003 $345.70• :i;o :i;345,704 $l12,355 $1,867.10
2002 $345.70• :i;o $345.70' $109,083 $1,705.89
2001 ili342,282 $0 $342,282 $105,906 $1,t>73-4S
2000 :i;2t>9,240 $0 $269,240 ij;l02,82l :i;1,t>33.05
1999 $220,t>9C $0 $220,()90 $99,820 $l,t>50.91
1998 $185.450 $0 $185.450 $9tl,918 $1,004.8/
1997 $180,050 $0 :jil80,050 $94,095 $1,598.87
1990 $165,18~ $0 ij;lt>5,loL $165,180 $2,575.15
1995 $104,550 :i;o :i;104,550 $104,550 $1,041.07
Attachment 3, Page 654 of 664
Produced by Landwatch Lane County on 9112/2016 at I 0:49AM using RUD (www.rlid.org) Page l of2
Detailed Property Report
SiteAddress N/A
Map & Taxlot#17-02-32-oo-00501
SIC N/A
TaxAccount# 0126167
Map & Taxlot # 17-02-32-00-00501
Environmental Data
FEMA Flood Hazard Zone
Code Description
X Areas determined to be outside of 500-year flood.
FIRM Map Number 41039C1162F
Community Number 415592
Post-FIRM Date 09/27/1985
Panel Printed? Yes
Soils
Property Owner 1
IP EATTHREE LLC
POBOX2118
MEMPHIS, TN 38101
Tax account acreage 26.51
Mapped taxlot acreage t 25.07
t Mapped Taxlot Acreage is the estimated size of a taxlot as dcrh-cd from
the oountyGJS tuxlot layer, and is not to be used for fogal purpu;cs.
Soil Map Unit# Soil Type Description % ofTaxlot Ag Class Hydric %
119 Salem-Urban land complex 64% 2 o
32 Coburg-Urban land complex28% 2 4
101 Oxley-Urban land complex 8% 3 5
Property Values & Taxes
The values shown are the values certified in October unless a value change has been processed on the property. Value changes typically occur as a result of appeals,
clerical errors and omitted property. The tax shown is the amount certified in October. This is the full amount of tax for the year indicated and does not include any
discounts offered, payments made, interest owing or previous years owing. It also does not reflect any value changes.
Keal Mar1<et Value lKM v J Total Assessed Value Ta~
·~··"'"''' ,_ ·->;k.;;\ii.:i;-. .• ..,,,,'., .. "t~.;C<-.,'t\·:'0:~~ "'""' • .
2015 $409.592 $0 $409,592 $447.901 $7,931.31
2014 $409.592 $0 $409,592 $434,802 $7,883.46
2013 $455.91~ :i;o $455,9It $422,196 $7,723.0/
2012 $455,9H :i;o $455,9It $409,89S $7,02o.8t
2011 $455.91( $0 :i;455,91t $397.900 $0,838.31
2010 $400,522 $0 $400,522 $380,309 $0,044.02
2009 $582,94C $0 $582,940 $375,llt $0,47844
2008 $534,80~ $0 ili534,80~ $304,190 $0,370.81
2007 $534,80t $0 $534,80~ $353.583 $5,760.41
2000 :i;495,193 $0 $495,193 $343,284 $5,003.50
2005 $442,13~ $0 $442,138 $333,285 $5,480.11
2004 $384,40~ $0 $384,408 :i;323,578 $5,375.02
2003 $355.990 $0 :i;355,990 $314,153 :i;5,220.72
2002 $355.990 $0 :i;355,990 $305,003 $4,709.79
2001 $352,400 :i;o :i;352,400 $290,119 $4,079.18
2000 $752,800 $0 $752,800 $287,494 $4,500.12
1999 :i;o17,10c $0 $017,100 $279,120 :i;4,010.ot
1998 :i;518,570 $0 $518,570 :i;270,990 :i;4,487.31
1997 :i;503,470 $0 $503,470 :i;203,097 $4,470.5~
1996 :i;401,900 $0 $461,900 :i;401,900 $7,201.02
1995 :i;292,330 $0 $292,330 :i;292,330 $4,581!.51
Attachment 3, Page 655 of 664
Produced by Landwatch Lane County on 9/12/2016 at 10:50AM using RLID (www.rlid.org) Page I of2
Detailed Property Report
SiteAddress N/A
Map & Taxlot#17-02-32-24-01500
SIC N/A
Tax Account# 0126563
Map & Taxlot # 17-02-32-24-01500
Environmental Data
FEMA Flood Hazard Zone
Code Description
X Areas determined to be outside of 500-year flood.
FIRM Map Number 41039C1162F
Community Number 415592
Post-FIRM Date 09/27/1985
Panel Printed? Yes
Soils
Soil Map Unit#Soil Type Description % ofTaxlotAg ClassHydric %
119 Salem-Urban land complex 49% 2 o
32 Coburg-Urban land complex 46% 2 4
34 Courtney gravelly silty clay loam 5% 4 97
Property Values & Taxes
Property Owner 1
IP EAT THREE LLC
POBOX2118
MEMPHIS, TN 38101
Tax account acreage 5.00
Mapped taxlot acreaget 4.91
t Mapped Taxlot Acreage is the estimated si1.c of a taxlot as dcrin.'CI from
the oounty CIS tax.lot layer, and is not to be used for legal purposes.
The values shown are the values certified in October unless a value change has been processed on the property. Value changes typically occur as a result of appeals,
clerical errors and omitted property. The tax shown is the amount certified in October. This is the full amount of tax for the year indicated and does not include any
discounts offered, payments made, interest owing or previous years owing. It also does not reflect any value changes.
Real Market Value lKM v J ·10ta1 ASsessea va1ue Tax
..........: ..--4 -·--' ' >J·'),~"".\;lf ,;,;;;· ""l.~;;.:i;-11:;::e~--
2015 $348,362 $0 $348,362 $131»391 $2,441.5
2014 $348,362 $0 $348,362 $132,424 $2,404.1>9
2013 $33t!,2l(J $0 $338,216 $128,561 $2,357.82
2012 $33t!,2l(J $0 $338,216 $124,822 $2,139.81
2011 :i;33ts,2lb $0 $338,216 $121,18t $2,082.39
2010 :i;341,b33 $0 $341,633 $117,65t $2,023.40
2009 $432,44? $0 $432,44? $114,229 $1,972.79
2008 :i;39b,741 $0 $396,741 $110,902 $1,940.02
2007 :i;39b,741 $0 $396,741 $107,672 $1,755.9
200() $3b7,353 $0 $367,353 :i;104,530 :i;1,7ob.38
2005 $327,994 $0 $327,994 $101,49 $1,000.79
2004 $285,213 $0 $285,213 $98,535 $l,636.7ts
2003 $264,087 $0 $2b4,0t!7 $95,00t $1,589.80
2002 $2b4,087 $0 $264,087 $92,879 $1,452.49
2001 $2bl,47' $0 $261,473 :i;90,174 $1,424.90
2000 $184,bOO $0 $184,600 $87,548 :i;1,390.4t
1999 $151,310 $0 $151,310 $t!4,99~ $l,405.b9
1998 $127,150 $0 $127,150 $t!2,522 $1,3b6,4~
1997 $123,450 $0 $123,450 $80,118 $1,361.38
199<> $113,2oc $0 :i;113,2<>0 $113,200 $1,765.73
1995 $89,020 $0 $89,020 $89,020 $1,397.31
Attachment 3, Page 656 of 664
~,-:c?c~~ .. MAIN ST r-~~~-'---J V'l ~------'---'-----'--ASTER ST Attachment 14 >-V'l ~ST~!'l ST ~ Ir----~ ......... , . ....._ " ..,. l.Z ACPU ~ ~ l .I 9,•·S-•S ~ .1 , . ., M-33 >-V> I >-00 .., .· / WETLANDS INVENTORY CITY OF SPRINGFIELD " 10 1n/11 -" "I eo f 11 In " .. ~I .. I .. I,, I I I I I 1-I I I I I I I .. " ., .. " "' .. " )) I 3-4 f ::e ~ ,, ,. ,, ,. 31 ;1 • I I I I I I I I I . I . I .... I .. / .. / .. / ,, I ~ 1 .. 1 u 1 .. 1.·: I : I.~ l [] M1p E:rtnita ill LEGEND SCALE: 1--200· ,---.. DlllNEAT!I> ll1UNllS (-pol7eoo ...... .,,, L-...JI {willl OSI. DtiinUUclD Humber) (~~~:::.) DntRWJND mtANDS (dllhd poly~D '°und..,) 011-srrt DEllJOOHATJON .,, OH-Sm: IJlTDlllHAl10• NmGAT£11 W!T'WiD Lil S'nlDY AJ!!A BOUND.ll!Y ---1.m.AND CLASSJflCATION DEUNUTlOJf PSS WZl'WD llAS!l111c.tTIOll(S) tooQUE CODE h'UKBD. RIN -RIVERINE IHTEIMIT1UT RlJ' -RlV!JtUfE lDl!I PERIHNUl. PrO -PWJSllllllE FOl!STtD PSS -PlWSTRIN! SCRUI -SHRUB Pill -PAUJSTMil Dl!RCDff POI -PAWS'TlUti! OFrlf WAT?R + 8-J f 1'!SJ Prr LOCA110frt AlfD IDEJmflER + ~ NOTES llPL\NIJAJllA Sl!CTJON Wl'IS {.,prorlrHLe) m-rtON amtn: {•pprotimatt) PROPDTY BOUNDAJUES AHO TAX IDT NIJll!lfl!S RJ'Y!IS AND STRF.UIS ours:IDE OP STUDY AW art IJlmS IJCI I. 8ASl MAP DOM I.COG D1c;JT.U. DATABASE (S!ATI! PIAM! COOUIJIATI! SYS!Dli ME '"°' Z. l'IElD JORI PERP'OIUIED DI Ml! JM. AND APRD. 19'1 WWP!I> ON 1·:::400' ILACI Al'O 11111!, AJfD JNtllARID AJR PIOTO 8'St. 8IACl ANO YBJTI AIR PHOTO DATE: 11111 tH1'RAR!D AIR PHOTO Dill!: I t9CI 3. UTWrlD BOUJfDAJUCS BAY! NC1J' IED SURYETD AND ARE APPIOIBIAT!. 80U1'llMl!S AR! stAlED AlfD/OI< llEAS1llD noll PIOPl!llT 11.N!S .11111 llllllR CEOCWBIC Rl7ER!llCl POIHIS. •• DiTORMAnON SHOD Ofl nus IMP IS roa PWeflNG PURPOSlll AD W. ftTtAICI ICDilti\RID AR! UPROIDlAft. DI W. CASIS. .iCTtW. mlJI COODmOllS D!lUJIOO: l!!UJlt llOONlWtl!S. T1lER£ JIAY Bl UNIW"P!D QTU.lfDS suancr TO Jl!CUUTIOH. nus PROJECT us f'UJlDEll DI PA«? IY TH an OY SPRINCFIEl.D, fJMlO?fllOO.U. PROTECTION AC!NCY AHO T1l! U.S. ECONOlfJC DlYELOPIWft' ADllDGS1'1tlTION • DAT£: UPDAT!D. APRIL 19911 ~~~-=--=~ Lii IW 31 Attachment 3, Page 657 of 664
Explore Create b".J Enable Map rips Pan I Z.-. 111 I Zoom Out Full Previous Extent Extent Display for... • NaV19abon Selected Results (4) « View History Refine Results I Table ~ View Selected » Select None 1702312100100 Tax tor Map & TaxlOI Number 1702312100100 Stte Address 1 of 1: 1001 35TH ST Tax Account Number 1: 118893 Property Owner 1: SUNDANCE LUMBER CO Approximate Taxlot Acreaoe: 4.5 RUD Reports: ~ [!]EJ Other Links: 1702304301700 Taxlor Map & Taxlot Number: 1702304301700 Stte Address 1 of 0: Tax Account Number 1: 115822 ,_.__ Property OWner 1: SUNDANCE LUMBER co Approximate Taxlot Acreaoe: 4 88 RUD Reports: ~[!JEJ Other Links· ~-1702304304700 Taxlor Map & Taxlot Number: 1702304304700 SHe Address 1 of 2: 1225 38TH ST Tax Account Number 1: 116242 Property OWner 1: SUNDANCE LUMBER co Approxinate Taxlot Acreaoe: 2 63 RUD Reports: ~ [!)E) Other Linl(s: ~· 1702311200100 Taxlor Map & Taxlot Number: 1702311200100 SHe Address 1 ot O: Tax Account Number 1: 116853 J..;;,.. Property OWner 1: SUNDANCE LUMBER co Approxinate Ta>dot Acreage: 6 04 RUD Reports: ri::l [!) EJ Other links: ~ f~;;;: 1 ......... 1 1-• Search For Select Select By Taidot/Address By Point Freehand a rJ Select By Select By Polygon Rec tangle Get Taxlol1 From Addresses ~ Get Addresses From Tllldots Attachment 15 x Clear Selecbon Attachment 3, Page 658 of 664
. .
Produced by Landwatch Lane County on 9/8/2016 at 7:54PM using RLID (www.rlid.org)
Detailed Property Report
Site Address 1001 35TH ST Springfield, OR 97478-5605
Map & Taxlot#17-02-31-21-00100
SIC N/A
Tax Account# 0118693
Related Accts 1851367
Map & Taxlot # 17-02-31-21-00100
Property Values & Taxes
Property Owner 1
SUNDANCE LUMBER CO
PO BOX109
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
Tax account acreage 4-48
Mapped taxlot acreage t 4.51
Pagel of2
t Mappc .. -d Taxlot Acreage is the estimated si1'..c of a taxlot as dcri\'cd from
the county GIS taxlot layer, and is not to be us1.."<l for legal purposes.
The values shown are the values certified in October unless a value change has been processed on the property. Value changes typically occur as a result of appeals,
clerical errors and omitted property. The tax shown is the amount certified in October. This is the full amount of tax for the year indicated and does not include any
discounts offered, payments made, interest owing or previous years owing. It also does not reflect any value changes.
Keal MarKet va1ue lKMv' J 10tru ASsessed Value Tax
;.a-. ..... .. .·,· <!'-~ ·" .·
. ' . :··. " ,,. . ?:: ·':'·1!-'f ~ .. ·---... ... ;-·., ,_;;;.
2015 :i;499,775 :i;235,otsc :i;734,ts51 :i;734,ts51 :i;12,039.38
2014 :i;499,775 :i;21ts,9oc :n1i:s,735 :i;71ts,735 :i;12,541.2<
2013 :i;4ts5,220 :i;214,ooo ;i>oy9,2ts0 :i;o99,2oc :i;12,327.12
2012 :i;4ts5,220 :i;1ts1,7tso ;i>oo7,ooo :i;oo7,ooc :jjll,129-42
2011 $41:15,220 $ts27,ts20 $1,313,040 $1,313,04c $2l,95ts.10
2010 $490,120 $t109,40C $1,359,5110 $1,359,5110 $22,757.40
2009 $020,410 $1133,020 $1,453,430 $1,453.430 $24,442-91
20011 $509,1110 $9119,450 $1,5511,030 $1,479,1127 $25,5911.57
2007 $509,1110 $1,323,360 $1,1192,540 $1,430,725 $23,430.113
2000 $527,020 $1,339,070 $1,tsoo,090 $1,394,1175 $22,709.17
2005 $470,550 $1,216,110 $1,otso,ooo $1,354,251 $22,267.54
2004 $409,170 $695,1170 $1,105,040 $1,105,040 $17,1121.75
2003 $3711,tsoo $731,700 $1,110,560 $1,ll0,560 $17,9111.77
2002 :i;37ts,tsOO :i;779,270 :i;1,15ts,130 $1,158,130 $17,551-4t
2001 $375,110 $5311,330 $913,440 :i;913,440 :i;13,992.2'
2000 $2311,630 $9411,570 $1,1117,200 $1,063,632 $16,893.14
1999 $195,00C $7110,650 $976,250 $922,411 $15,077.95
19911 $104,370 $740,1190 $905,260 $895.54' $14,444.90
1997 $159,5110 $741,670 $901,250 $856,170 $14,354.3~
1990 $140,400 $729,5110 $1175,9110 $875,980 $13,656.5'1
1995 $101,14( $790,160 $951,300 $951,300 $14,932.0~
Attachment 3, Page 659 of 664
. .
Produced by Landwatch Lane County on 9/8/2016 at 7:55PM using RUD (www.rlid.org)
Detailed Property Report
SiteAddress N/A
Map & Taxlot#17-02-30-43-01700
SIC N/A
TaxAccount# 0115822
Related Accts 5317340
Map & Taxlot # 17-02-30-43-01700
Property Values & Taxes
Property Owner 1
SUNDANCE LUMBER CO
PO BOX109
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
Tax account acreage 4.97
Mapped taxlot acreage t 4.88
Page I of2
t Mapped Taxlot Acreage is the estimated sb..c of a taxlot as dcrh'(.'() from
the oounty GIS tnxlot layer, and is not to 00 used for legal pur(XJSCS.
The values shown are the values certified in October unless a value change has been processed on the property. Value changes typically occur as a result of appeals,
clerical errors and omitted property. The tax shown is the amount certified in October. This is the full amount of tax for the year indicated and does not include any
discounts offered, payments made, interest owing or previous years owing. It also does not reflect any value changes.
i<.eai MarKet Value lKMVJ Totru ASsessea va1ue HVI
~ ..Llllllll .-, ... :··,.,_ . ... ""~ '
.,
2015 $325,3!H $0 $325,381 $248,12, :i;4,441.49
2014 $325,381 $0 $325,381 :i;240,89 :ti4.374-45
2013 $315,904 $0 $315,90~ :ji233,88I $4,289.19
2012 $315,904 $0 $315,90~ $227,009 $3,892.02
2011 $315,904 $0 $315,904 $220,455 $3,788.li
2010 $319,09" $0 $319,095 $214,034 $3,080.8?
2009 $403,91~ $0 $403,91~ $207,800 $3,588.81
2008 $370,56; $0 $370,56; $201,748 $3,529.20
2007 $370,56; $0 $370,50i $195,872 $3,194.38
2000 :i;343,11~ :i;o :i;343,11~ :i;190,107 $3,104.17
2005 $300,350 :i;o :i;300,350 ilill:l4,628 $3,035·7~
2004 :i;200,39, $0 $200,391 :i;179,250 $2,977-56
2003 :i;240,004 $0 $240,004 :i;174,029 :i;2,892.0t
2002 $240,004 $0 $240,004 $108,900 $2,!J42.28
2001 :i;244,222 :i;o :i;244,222 :i;104,03~ iji2,592.10
2000 $275,22c :i;o :i;275,22c :i;159,201 i!i2,S29-4t
1999 :i;225,590 :i;o :i;225,590 :i;154,022 :i;2,557.12
1998 $189,570 :i;o :i;189,570 :i;150,11~ i!i2.485.79
1997 $184,050 :i;o i!il84,050 :i;145,74t :i;2,470.54
1996 $168,85c :i;o :jil08,85C :jil08,85C :i;2,032.37
1995 $I6I,94c :i;o :i;101,94c :i;101,94c :i;2,541.89
Attachment 3, Page 660 of 664
Produced by Landwatch Lane County on 9/8/2016 at 7:56PM using RLID (www.rlid.org)
Detailed Property Report
Site Address 1225 38TH ST Springfield, OR 97478
Map & Taxlot# 17-02-30-43-04700
SIC N/A
Tax Account# 0116242 a
a Additional site address( es) are associated with this tax
account
Map & Taxlot # 17-02-30-43-04700
Property Values & Taxes
Property Owner 1
SUNDANCE LUMBER CO
POBOX109
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
Tax account acreage 2.44
Mapped taxlot acreaget 2.63
Page I of2
t MaPIX--d Taxlot Acreage is the estimated si1.c of a tax.lot as derived from
the oounty GIS taxlot lo.)-cr, and is not to be used for legal purposes.
The values shown are the values certified in October unless a value change has been processed on the property. Value changes typically occur as a result of appeals,
clerical errors and omitted property. The tax shown is the amount certified in October. This is the full amount of tax for the year indicated and does not include any
discounts offered, payments made, interest owing or previous years owing. It also does not reflect any value changes.
Real Market Value lKM v J 10ta1 Assessea vame ""' _....... -'o,. , . ....-.. :;' "': >' ,,,. •;_.:; .;~:".; •,'Ii '•, ,;
2015 $185,ISIS\ :po :p1is5,oo< :i;is5,is2s :p1,530.3t
2014 :p1is5,oo\ :po $I1S5,oo~ :i;is3,329 $1,513.1,
2013 :j;llS0,475 $0 $!1S0,475 $80,902 $I,483.ot
2012 :j;!80,475 $0 $180,475 $78,54( $1,340.51
2011 $180,475 $0 $H:!0,475 $76,25t $1,310.37
2010 $182,29t $0 $182,298 $74,031 $1,273,2t
2009 $230,75? $0 $230,757 $71,881 $1,241.42
200l:S $211,704 $0 $211,704 $09,781 $1,220.79
2007 $211,704 $0 $211,704 $67,754 $1,104.97
200!> $190,02~ $0 $196,02< $65,781 :p1,073.77
2005 $175,021 $0 $175,021 :P!>3,l:S!>5 :p1,050.1
2004 $152,193 $0 $152,193 :i;o2,oos :p1,029.9t
2003 $140,920 $0 $140,920 :i;oo,199 :p1,ooo,41
2002 $140,920 $0 $140,920 :P5l:S.44!> :p 914.01
2001 $129,72 $0 $129,72 $55,!>12 $ l:S78.7t
2000 $118,22( $0 :jilllS,22( $53.992 $ l:S57.53
1999 $90,900 $0 $96,900 :p52,419 $ 000.90
1991:S $t!!,43c $0 $81,43c :p50,ts9~ $ !l42.71
1997 $79,00~ $0 $79,0!>C :i;49,41c $ !l39.57
199!> $72,53C $0 $72,53c :i;72,53c $1,130.74
1995 $54,04C :pisoo $54,90( :p54,9oc $ !lb!.73
Attachment 3, Page 661 of 664
~ .
Produced by Landwatch Lane County on 9/8/2016 at 7:57PM using RLID (www.rlid.org)
Detailed Property Report
SiteAddress N/A
Map & Taxlot#17-02-31-12-00100
SIC N/A
TaxAccount# 0116853
Map & Taxlot # 17-02-31-12-00100
Property Values & Taxes
Property Owner 1
SUNDANCE LUMBER CO
POBOX109
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
Tax account acreage 6.06
Mapped taxlot acreaget 6.04
Page I of2
t Mappc.'CI Taxlot Acreage is the estimated size of a taxlot as dcrinxl from
the oountyGIS taxlot layer, and i.s not to be used for legal purposes.
The values shown are the values certified in October unless a value change has been processed on the property. Value changes typically occur as a result of appeals,
clerical errors and omitted property. The tax shown is the amount certified in October. This is the full amount of tax for the year indicated and does not include any
discounts offered, payments made, interest owing or previous years owing. It also does not reflect any value changes.
Keal Market Value (KM v J Total Assessed Value 1ax
~ .Lllllll .· ··-·.~: ·' ·; , ; .:· ·; ;.-« • ti;.}.T,'.::;;r .~:l
2015 $276,249 $0 $276,24< $111,45( :i;1,995.10
2014 $276,249 $0 :i;270,245 $101l,210 $1,904.99
2013 $268,203 $0 $201l,203 $105,05~ :i;1,920.oo
2012 $20ll,203 $0 $201l,203 $101,991l $I,741l.5'1
2011 $201l,203 $0 $201l,203 $99,027 $1,701.62
2010 $270,913 $0 $270,913 $96,143 $1,653.4°
2009 $342,928 $0 $342,928 $93,343 $1,612.0~
2008 $314,613 $0 $314,613 $90,024 $l,51l5.2~
2007 $314,613 $0 $314,613 $1l7,91l4 :i;1,434.1l9
2006 $291,309 $0 $291,309 $1l5,421 $1,394.30
2005 $260,098 $0 $200,091l $1l2,933 $1,303.04
2004 $226,173 $0 $220,173 $1l0,517 $1,337.4~
2003 $209,420 $0 $209,42C $78,172 $1,299.09
2002 $209,420 $0 :i;209,42c $75,89' $1,186.M
2001 $200,415 $0 $206,415 $67,27c $1,062.98
2000 $101l,250 $0 $l01l,250 $65,311 $1,037.30
1999 $88,730 $0 $1lll,730 $63,409 $1,048.60
1998 $74,56o $0 $74,560 $61,562 $1,019.41
1997 $72,390 $0 $72,390 $59,705 $1,015.60
1996 $()(),410 $0 ;i.00,410 $66,41c $1,035.32
1995 $00,410 $0 ;i.00,410 $66,41C $1,042-4
Attachment 3, Page 662 of 664