Benny Westcott
Sweet Home City Council members voted 5-2 on June 8 to direct city staff to prepare a resolution and ordinance necessary to form a neighborhood local improvement district (LID) in the Willow/Yucca Street neighborhood.
Voting in favor were Councilors Lisa Gourley, Greg Mahler, Dave Trask, Diane Gerson and Susan Coleman. Opposed were Councilors Angelita Sanchez and Dylan Richards.
In December 2019, residents of the Willow/Yucca Street neighborhood petitioned the city to form an LID to extend city water infrastructure and service to the neighborhood, and construct sidewalk and street improvements.
All of the property owners in the neighborhood either have their own well or get water from a shared well.
“The intent of bringing water service to the area is that it essentially makes it more of a reliable source of water than individual wells,” said Community and Economic Development Director Blair Larsen.
Two community meetings were held by the council on April 20 and April 29, in which city staff answered questions and listened to feedback from neighborhood residents about the proposed LID.
The total project cost would be $1,630,499. The city will contribute $297,192 of that sum, over 30 years. The large majority of the sum would be paid by the homeowners of the neighborhood themselves, with the option to finance the costs with monthly or bi-annual payments over a 20-year period.
Josh Victor of Northern Investments, who lives on Wiley Creek Road and owns a large number of the properties in the neighborhood, is contributing over $654,000 of the total project cost.
Larsen said city staff would obtain bonds to pay for the project in order for construction to start.
“Those bonds obviously have to be repaid,” he said.
City Finance Director Brandon Neish touched on the range of different ways that municipalities can fund LIDs.
“Cities do it every which way,” he said. “There are cities that do contribute. And there are cities that say, if the residents want the LID, then that’s where the cost is going to be borne. It can vary, and I think it depends on what the council wants to do and what the community is asking for.”
Though he voted to move forward the plan for the LID that included some city funding, Mahler expressed concern about setting a precedent with the move.
“If we do city contribution for this project, you’re going to have a lot of people coming to the city saying, ‘How about me? You should be contributing to every undeveloped city street in Sweet Home,'” Mahler said.
Trask, who also voted for the project, said “I also have the same concerns that the mayor has with a precedent of doing this for these streets.”
Richards, who voted against the request for council action, said “I’m more worried about the folks who live down there that are paying than the actual city. I have a hard time swallowing this. I really do. Something has got to get fixed but I definitely don’t think the cost should be passed on to the homeowners. I think the city should have to pay for that.”
In an address to the council that voiced opposition to the proposal, citizen Kari Jones, who owns a home on Yucca Street, said, “None of us can afford it down there. A bunch of us are getting ready to retire, and with the extra cost to hook up to the system and everything, it’s really hard on a lot of us.”
Carme Espinosa of 18th Avenue was also opposed. She said, “We need the fire and we need to be able to get the firetrucks there and put out the fires. I understand that. But we do not need new sidewalks. People cannot afford to pay for extra sidewalks. We do not need luxuries. We are poor.”
Yucca Street resident David Jones, also opposed, said “I’m getting ready to retire so I’m really against having to put out money for somebody else’s stuff.”
“I have a large chunk of land, so I’m getting banged for a whole bunch of this bill, and I don’t need any of the services,” he said.
Jones said he has lived on Yucca Street for about five years, and his septic system is very efficient and he’s never had an issue with his well running dry.
But Victor noted that not all neighborhood residents are fortunate enough to have well water.
“I have all the houses down there that have the wells that go dry. And I have all of my neighbors that have their wells that go dry. I guess it’s no worries for people that have water, but this is a problem for everybody else,” he said.
In addition, Victor touched on how he feels sidewalks have improved areas in Sweet Home before.
“A lot of people don’t remember Long Street without sidewalks, but I’m sure if anybody walks down the street now, they probably pretty much love walking on the sidewalk. And at that time, there were a lot of people that weren’t happy to pay those contributions for sidewalks or for any of those developments. But I think as of now, it’s a given when you walk down Long Street how much that benefits our city.”
He referenced current issues that plague the Willow/Yucca Street neighborhood.
“What’s the value of a home that doesn’t have water?” he said. “What’s the value of a home by an area that literally has cars bouncing up and down the streets every time that they’re driving by, or kids walking in lines down the middle of the streets while cars are speeding by?”
He advocated doing all of the proposed improvements in the area instead of just one.
“To me, if you’re going to do all of this and just do the water, and not the streets and sidewalks, then don’t do any of it. If you’re doing all of this, make it nice all of the way. Not just halfway,” Victor said.
James Mellein, a Willow Street resident, was also in favor of the project.
“We have an opportunity here that I don’t know is going to come again,” he said, specifically citing Victor’s offer to contribute to fund over a third of the project cost.
“We have been living for 50 years, paying city property taxes without city infrastructure,” he said. “To have kids playing in gravel, to have children and families and seniors trying to navigate on gravel, is not a really great livability type of place to be.”
“These are heavily traveled roads,” he added. “We’re talking about a highly dense area with lots of traffic. And so trying to keep up with the gravel and the potholes is really challenging.”
Mellein reminded the council that “this neighborhood asked Director Larsen for the LID. It wasn’t council that brought this to the table. It was the neighborhood.”
Mellein also talked of the potential savings for homeowners in the neighborhood that the LID could bring about. “We’re going to be having a reduction in insurance, I hope,” he said. “We’re not going to be paying the electricity for the well, and we’re not going to be hauling in water. There’s a variety of savings that we’ll have.”
He concluded that “This is going to be an incredible asset to Sweet Home.”
In other action:
-The council unanimously voted to authorize city staff to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the City of Brownsville, Brownsville Fire District, Lebanon, Lebanon Fire District, and Sweet Home Fire District.
The request for council action submitted by City Manager Ray Towry said “In the past year Sweet Home has endured two emergency and catastrophic situations, the COVID-19 pandemic and wildfires… We learned a lot regarding our resources and what help may, or may not, come from larger agencies for the first couple of days as they mobilize their resources.”
“All three communities offer unique, local resources and contacts that can be helpful during emergent situations,” the report continued.
Initial discussions centered on a full time employee that would work for all three communities, but the report said that “As we waded into the details, we realized having an experienced contractor outline the process for the collaboration, assess our current plans, define our capacity, identify our local partners, identify our local resources, and then help us identify funding for our efforts would be a much more efficient process and give us a better foundation to build from with the full time employee, if and when that occurs.”
– The council voted unanimously to set aside $50,000 of marijuana revenue money to be used “to deal with the homeless issue,” in the words of Gourley.
– The council voted unanimously to move a proposed ordinance forward for a third and final reading at the June 22 city council meeting.
The proposed ordinance places additional requirements on manufactured homes to ensure that they meet current building code standards for energy efficiency and better match the neighborhoods in which they are placed.
The ordinance would only be for newly placed manufactured homes, and does not apply to homes that have already been placed on a lot.